The 7 WWII SUBMARINES that sank the most WARSHIPS

World War II submarines played a crucial role in naval warfare, with some achieving remarkable success in sinking enemy warships. Through their stealth, precision, and sheer determination, these submarines managed to tilt the balance of power on the high seas, leaving a lasting legacy as the war's silent hunters. In today’s video we’ll look at the top 7 submarines or U-boats that sank the most Naval Vessels in ww2.
-----------------------------------------
Credits:
www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/wa...
www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q549452
www.amazon.de/-/en/LUYIYI-Sub...
sketchfab.com/3d-models/hms-u...
www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/wa...
shop2.plamodelmania.cafe24.com...
-----------------------------------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email [e-mail].

[@ErickSowder]

Not sure what list this should be on but I used to read a few books about this one. U-99 was one of the most successful German U-boats in the war, sinking 38 ships for a total tonnage of 244,658 gross register tons (GRT) of Allied shipping in eight patrols.

[@mirkoschaper4534]

U 48 sank 52 ships.

[@steffenjonda8283]

well, they speak about subs who sunk the largest NUMBER of warships. The most succsessfull submarine of WW2 was U-48. The most succsessfull submarine of all time is U-35, followed by U-38, both from WW1. And the most succsessfull "Killer" of warships in sense of most battleships was U-21, also WW1.

[@brooksrowlett2494]

The video is about WARSHIPS sunk not total Ships.

[@Franky46Boy]

Not including merchant ships they did sink? That is rather strange. Merchant ships were the most important 'prey' of submarines. In this video I also see merchant ships that were sunk.

[@TheRealRedAce]

This isn't about merchant ships, as explained at the start.

[@Franky46Boy]

@@TheRealRedAce I know. I just find that strange.

[@brooksrowlett2494]

They specifically say they will do merchants separately in a different video right at the start.

[@HeinzGuderian_]

The North Carolina wasn't even near the battle area when it was struck by the torpedo. Long-Lance torpedoes had insane ranges.

[@samhamsord7942]

Weird list. Should have counted Naval warship tonnage, not amount. U-24 is cute though.

[@ThePalaeontologist]

As in the First World War, in the Second World War, Britain primarily defeated the U-Boats. Hundreds of their wrecks from both world wars dot the seabed around the UK. They did massive damage to British merchant shipping and naval units, though they were, ultimately, defeated. The hunters, became the hunted. More than half of all U-Boat crews were killed in action. A British submarine even sank a German U-boat in a direct, boat to boat torpedoing. The majority were destroyed with depth charges, deck guns and aircraft munitions, by Destroyers and aircraft, though. At least one that comes to mind was destroyed when a British battleship ran into it, splitting it in half. All in all tens of thousands died on both sides of the Battle of the Atlantic. It was primarily the British VS the Germans though it did involve others as well. 36,000 British Merchant Navy personnel died over the duration of what was the longest-running campaign of WWII. P.S. - You used the footage of HMS _Barham_ (Queen Elizabeth-class Battleship) being destroyed, by a U-boat in the Mediterranean, to demonstrate USS Tang destroying a Japanese warship.

[@jpmtlhead39]

Britain didin't defeat the U-boats. Britain decoded the Kriegsmarine Enigma Code, but not defeat them,far from that. The Americans were the ones to defeat the U-boats from March 1943 until the end of the war. Actually the U-boats on the first 3 months of 1943 put britain on the Brink of Starvation.

[@ThePalaeontologist]

@@jpmtlhead39 Haha no the British led the defeat over the U-Boats throughout. Nice try to steal British achievements.

[@jpmtlhead39]

@@ThePalaeontologist For God's Sake man,what British achievements in WW2 ..??!!!! Its common knowledge that without the American Help with Everything since the first day of the war, britain didin't stood a chance against Germany. But,if those "achievements" whatever they were makes you feel happy,go for it.

[@ThePalaeontologist]

​@@jpmtlhead39 Your ignorance is astonishing. It is 'common knowledge' that some Americans - as exemplified perfectly by your arrogant and uncalled for comments - are deluded in thinking the entire war was their victory. It's anything but. The British achieved a very great deal. The onus is not on me to list all of them (I could, though I'm not doing so because you demand it) I know exactly what the British achieved. I can list them. However, I am not doing that for the time being at least, as I don't need to and you should know it already. But either you're too dumb to realise or you're deliberately acting like those things didn't happen. Reality: you curled your lip up because you got triggered reading my comment and didn't see gushing admiration for the USA and it really hurt you for some reason. Because you're a typical low information, argumentative fool, who just thinks the USA should take all the credit for everything. The British fought in the entire war. The USA did not. The Soviet Union killed >80% of the German military. The USA did not. The Germans declared war on the USA first, not the other way around. The USA watched 61,000 British people die in the Blitz in 1940 and did not declare war on Germany. The USA also, deeply offensively and unkindly, as so-called 'friends', slapped large interest rates on massive war debts and the British paid those until 2007 when the full extent of it was finally paid. Britain put more than 50 percent of what we'd now refer to as GDP, into what was _then_ called the Ministry of War (later, Ministry of Defence) The British would be on ration books until 1953 as a result of the massive costs involved in WWII. Britain fought from 1939 to 1945. The USA did not. The Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and British Merchant Navy, suffered the most, for the longest, in WWII. Especially the Royal Navy and the British Merchant Navy. German submariners had the highest service branch loss rate in WWII - with over 75% of the German U-boats and their crews sunk. Many, many of these were sunk off the British and Irish coasts. Plenty of others were destroyed in the Western Atlantic around US shores. A lot of others were destroyed in the Mid-Atlantic. Some others were destroyed in the Mediterranean or other seas. There were a lot sunk by the Canadians and eventually the USA as well. However, it's fair to say the majority were destroyed by the British in which ever service branch. In terms of the effort, expense, sacrifice and innovation put into winning the Battle for the Atlantic campaign, the longest single campaign during the Second World War, bar none, the British were biggest players as well as the ones suffering the most. It mattered the most to Britain. How arrogant must you be, to really think the British weren't the ones putting the most effort into stopping itself being starved out via unrestricted U-boat warfare? It's not only crass, and stupid, but it further ignores the stone cold fact that the British were also victorious against the U-boats in the First World War, as well (an often overshadowed fact; yes, the scale and intensity was worse in WWII) However, the British were still more experienced fighting the U-boats than anyone else. You fail to understand the specifics involved in this, and come across like an angry teenager blabbing off about things you do not understand. Listen and learn: the British did not just find one enigma book and code machine, and do the rest from that. The German Enigma code was broken many hundreds if not thousands times. It became more advanced all the time. The British codebreakers at Bletchley Park and other sites, had to constantly up their own game throughout the war. The way _you_ characterise it, it was a random coup and rare achievement. No, the British constantly broke the code, as well as firmly captured or killed EVERY single German spy in Britain. The 'Master Spy' of the Third Reich in England, the dictator's 'man in England' was actually working _for_ England. Those spies the British hadn't executed on the spot by the rifle, they forced to work for them as double agents under pain of death. They fed lies back to the Austrian Painter as much as possible. The British were _so_ impressive at espionage and counter-espionage, having mastered it to an extent not seen in the USA and Soviet Russia, both of whom themselves, were arguably better at it than Germany as well (in the latter case, more so towards the end, for the Russians, than the beginning) Britain was just on a whole different level. Britain even knew about the attack on Pearl Harbour as well, before it happened; frantically trying to warn their allies. US governmental bureaucracy delayed the warning. Conspiracy theorists ever since, blamed Churchill for not warning the USA promptly to drag them into the war. But that is ridiculous. The moment the British knew it was imminent, they immediately sent missives as warnings to the USA. Then it was simply up to the USA's own admin system to deal with the information sent to them. The USA's own intelligence units also realised what was happening independently, but were also unable to do anything mitigating with that in time. The British did a lot more than you are giving us any credit for. There is a lot more to it than you realise. It's been a constant trope of American revisionist history, trying to downplay not only British but Russian achievements. Even without looking for one second at US industry, the British independently out-built and out-manufactured Nazi Germany, 11 to 1 on warships (and generally made better ones), 5 to 1 on tanks (and generally made worse ones, but not as bad as post-WWII retrospective German-American/American and German propaganda suggests) and some 3 to 1 on advanced air superiority fighters. The British also simply had far better anti-tank guns, heavy bombers and ultimately, engine designs. Hype for German engineering is infamous at this point, as it exaggerates German engineering to an insane extent. This does impact the perception of American technology and vehicles too. It's not just a problem for the others in WWII. This is also a problem for how Americans might perceive German weapons systems in WWII. The view of German tanks annihilating legions of Allied tanks, is simply a myth, elevated by genuinely disturbed individuals, sometimes with fascist views. It's a dark legacy of the past. According to such misconceptions, and deliberate misdirections of revisionism, the Americans had to lose a dozen score tanks to take out 1 Tiger. The going rate was more like 4 or 5 to 1, on the strategic level. However, the truth on the ground, was that a single well-placed shell from a Sherman Firefly or Cromwell, could ruin a Tiger tank's day. It didn't always come down to 1 Tiger tank running riot. Similarly, the German obsession with heavy tanks and considering anti-tank guns as more of an afterthought, left many of their field forces with 37 mm guns that the infantry essentially scorned as peashooters that couldn't defeat most Russian or British armour mid-late war. It was struggling with Allied armour even early war e.g. in the Battle for France (yes, one of Germany's greatest military victories hands down, though not without telling setbacks and costs to their equipment that were washed over due to the shattering scale of the overall victory; e.g. the RAF suffered grave losses in their role in aiding the French, though they also learnt how the German Luftwaffe was operating face to face and had inflicted a lot of damage on Luftwaffe formations, in spite of their own losses) The British annihilated the bulk of the German destroyer fleet at Second Narvik and also fought and contained the Italian Regia Marina at Taranto, Cape Matapan and Spartivento, amongst other British victories. Britain also stopped the Germans from developing atomic bombs, before the Allies did. The Manhattan Project was US organised and funded yes, though a lot of British scientists were involved as well as German scientists whom fled Germany e.g. Einstein due to their disdain for the evil regime sweeping over Germany in the 1930's. These often came to Britain first, before going to the USA via British ships. Similarly, the US Space Program relied heavily on captured German rocket scientists. The USA can act like it was solely responsible, though the truth is that NASA was built on the backs of captured Nazi rocket scientists - it's beyond dispute.

[@ThePalaeontologist]

@@jpmtlhead39 Britain even had a Lancaster bomber force ready - the 'Black Lancasters', unmarked bombers painted entirely black with secretive crews - for dropping the Atomic Bombs on Japan in case the USA couldn't sort out it's own bombers in time. This would have been a scarier and sketchier business had the British bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they were not able to achieve the altitude the likes of _Enola Gay_ would, because the Lancaster was just an older generation of bomber in the war, and in spite of being repeatedly upgraded and in the Black Lancasters' case, gutted out to theoretically carry the Atom bombs, were not going to be very much higher than the mushroom cloud when it exploded. It's likely they'd be damaged or their crews become irradiated. Maybe even blasted out of the sky even as they fled. However, it is just as likely they'd have escaped - narrowly - unharmed. The aerial ceiling of the B-29 superfortress was just able to attain a higher altitude. The Lancasters were more for mid altitude heavy bombing in gigantic formations, much like the B-17's. The B-29's had higher service ceilings and longer fuel ranges, partly due to some lighter components of aluminium. However, the British government offered the Black Lancaster bomber squadron for the mission, just in case the USA couldn't sort it out themselves. Ironically, vainglorious American air chiefs were angrily determined not to let the British take the credit, but history has shown that the British were more than happy to let the Americans bask in the 'credit' of being the only nation on Earth to deploy active nuclear weapons against civilian targets. The Americans can take all the credit for that one they want, as far as I see it. Let that stain their hands and conscience, not ours. The Battle for the Atlantic was clearly a joint effort. I'm not saying the Canadians and Americans didn't play a part. There were some Free Polish ships around too (bet you didn't even know that) And the odd Free French ship, as well (ditto) Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the sacrifice was rendered by the British service branches. It is totally vulgar and pointless to try and deny that. The Americans increasingly helped but at first were so unenthusiastic about the situation, that even when German U-boats began killing hundreds of US Navy personnel by sinking destroyers off the US Eastern seaboard, the White House did not declare war. They increase war bonds and lend lease contributions to the British, though the British would be paying that back with interest for over a dozen times longer than the war itself lasted. The British shielded the Suez Canal and the Arabian Oilfields, by leading the victory in North Africa and the Mediterranean. And yes, in spite of increasing involvement from the USA in the Med and North African region, e.g. Operation Torch (which was firmly an allied effort, not even just American), the British definitely did the most against both the Afrika Korps and the Regia Marina. Malta, Gibraltar, Alexandria, Crete and Greece were all contested, as were Sicily and mainland Italian provinces themselves. Though the 'soft-underbelly of Europe' as Churchill stupidly claimed it to be, was anything but (especially in the heavily mountainous terrain of Italy, during Winter rains turning the roads into a muddy mess, making the hard slog even worse) the fact remains that Allied efforts in Southern Europe, although often unsung, were diverting massive numbers of Axis resources, vehicles, munitions and manpower away from the Eastern Front and the North Western Front. The British saw action globally, for years longer than the USA in WWII. The British Army was the only Allied army in WWII to fight the entire duration, as was the Royal Navy the only Allied navy to do the same. The Royal Navy went into WWII as the world's largest navy, although by 1943/1944 it had become the world's second largest, to the US Navy (a process that the USA had been persistently tried to achieve for decades already, since even before the First World War) The strategic significance of Britain in WWII cannot be underestimated. It was integral as a strategic barrier to the Axis as well as a stubborn thorn (more like Claymore longsword) in Germany's side. It would not go away, and the more it innovated, the more doomed the Axis was. Sure enough, the massive war factories in the USA did churn out more tanks and aircraft long-term. Sure, what is now the Rustbelt in the USA, was once a hive of activity and massive production. Sure, the US Liberty ships (pieces of junk, really, but sufficient for the task, usually, unless shoddy and rushed construction via rapid welding, came to backfire on them, during storms which oscillated the hull, or if they got caught on sand bars which meant their very weak construction, as ugly mass produced cans of ships, caused them to _literally_ split in half) were important as well. When US shipyards could crank one of those out in less than 1 day (the usual rate was more like 4 days and before reaching that peak average, more than this at a slower rate, but still, the point remains), it didn't matter if the ships themselves, from a nautical engineering and maritime design aesthetic point of view, absolutely hideous things, when the sheer mass of them would help resupply allied forces in Europe. Did some of them get destroyed by the weather let alone enemy action _horribly_ at times? Absolutely. Were they awful to serve on because of how rushed they were and generally uncomfortable to live on board? Definitely. Did they do the trick? Yes. That is the thing. It still worked. However, what must not be forgotten, is how staggeringly prolific the British Merchant Navy was during the period in question. Nearly half the world's then flagged merchant ships, were registered with British ports, shipyards and ship building firms. There was a staggering level of British maritime involvement in both world wars, and it was the sea which gave the British Empire it's real power. A mutual, symbiotic relationship between colonialism and maritime sea lane defence and patrol. The Empire only existed because of the Royal Navy, making it possible in the first place, in truth. There was no British Empire without it's enormous maritime presence. And yes, a _lot_ of this was sunk by German U-boats in WWII. Literally, millions of tonnes of shipping and cargo. All the same, the British had far more that survived than was ever lost (in terms of both the civilian/merchant and military/naval units) From a modern perspective, the unity of the world's two greatest navies, the Royal Navy and the US Navy, meant the Axis were clearly outmatched. Germany, Italy and Japan, plus a few others adjoined, could not contend with such raw naval might. In modern terminology, the US Navy today is still what we'd call a 'Tier 1 Blue Water Navy'. The much diminished Royal Navy of today (but don't think the USA hasn't massively downsized the number of it's hulls as well, for similar reasons to the British; see Cost Escalation Phenomenon, as well as the countless social and political reasons - fair or not - for why it's just impossible in 2023 for any navy to be as massive as the ones in WWII) is still genuinely considered a 'Tier 2 BWN'. The French Navy is in that tier as well. Now, applying the same sort of logic to the WWII era retrospectively, in a modification of the terminology to fit WWII era naval loadouts and organisation so to speak, would certainly find the Royal Navy of the time, to absolutely be a resounding Tier 1 Blue Water Navy. And so was the US Navy, especially mid-late war. Combined, it's very little wonder why the Allies dominated at sea more and more. It was a hard struggle in the Atlantic, for sure. But just as the USA dominated in the Pacific, the British dominated in the Atlantic. This is not up for debate really. The British hounded Bismarck with it's massive navy post-Battle of the Denmark Strait and the tragic loss of HMS _Hood_ in May 1941, because of the fact the Bismarck was attempting to be a battleship sized commerce raider (yet another very stupid Axis concept that came to nothing; it was massively inefficient to have a battleship going around expending staggering volumes of fuel oil and sinking or capturing far fewer merchant ships than a lone U-boat for a fraction the crew and financial cost would do in a much shorter period; U-boats were already shown to be much better at that in the previous war, but the Germans apparently had hopes of acting like they were the new kings of the surface as well) So anyway, the British disabled Bismarck, made it spin in a circle due to literally using Swordfish biplanes to torpedo it. Then the Royal Navy squadrons shadowing it came in for the kill and slammed 400 shells into the thing until it was literally glowing red in parts of the hull. The Germans scuttled her themselves, but it was hardly getting out of there anyway. It couldn't escape. It was finished. And because of reports of U-boat activity in the area, in that sector of the Eastern Atlantic (which was very likely), it was sadly the case that survivors were not picked up for the most part, as the decision was made by the Royal Navy captains to depart, leaving hundreds of German sailors to drown in the Atlantic (much as many had perished hopeless of any kind of rescue on Hood)

[@pixsilvb9638]

This video list is weird because the list is focusing in *NUMBER* of *WARSHIPS* sunk, when it is well known that international measure for successful sinking of enemy ships is done in Gross Register Tonnage! In that regard, there were other submarines during WWII which left their in-print in the history books by sinking individual *WARSHIPS* with the *MOST TONNAGE* . Lets see some of them: *USS ‘Archerfish’* 🇺🇸 Captain *Joseph Francis Enright* Nov 29, 1944, sinking Japanese aircraft carrier *IJN ‘Shinano’* ( *65,800* GR tons ) around 1,400 sailors died; almost 98% of its crew; it is to this day the largest and heaviest warship ever sunk in history! *USS ‘Albacore’* 🇺🇸 Lieutenant Commander *James W. Blanchard* Jun 19, 1944, sinking Japanese aircraft carrier *IJN ‘Taihō’* ( *37,870* GR tons ) out of a complement of 2,150 crew, some 1,650 officers and men were killed. *U-331* 🇩🇪 Kapitänleutnant *Hans-Diedrich von Tiesenhausen* Nov 25, 1941, sinking British battleship *HMS ‘Barham’* ( *33,100* GR tons ) the sinking of the battleship took the life of 862 crewmen, approximately two thirds of her crew! *U-47* 🇩🇪 Kapitänleutnant *Günther Prien* Oct 14, 1939, sinking British battleship *HMS ‘Royal Oak’* ( *31,130* GR tons ) the ‘first great British tragedy’ of the war; 834 men died, including 92 Royal Marines and 135 boy sailors, all minors, the largest ever such loss in a single Royal Navy sinking! *U-81* 🇩🇪 Kapitänleutnant *Friedrich Guggenberger* Nov 14, 1941, sinking British aircraft carrier *HMS ‘Ark Royal’* ( *28,160* GR tons ) the explosion produced by the only torpedo to hit the carrier, shaked the ship, hurled loaded torpedo-bombers into the air, and killed 44 year old Able Seaman Edward Mitchell, the only man to die during the sinking! *U-29* 🇩🇪 Kapitänleutnant *Otto Schuhart* Sep 17, 1939, sinking British aircraft carrier *HMS ‘Courageous’* ( *27,420* GR tons ) from her complement of 1,217 men it suffered the loss of more than 519 of her crew, including her captain! *I-168* 🇯🇵 Lt. Commander *Yahachi Tanabe* Jun 7, 1942, sinking American aircraft carrier *USS ‘Yorktown’* ( *25,900* GR tons ) and American destroyer *USS ‘Hammann’* ( *2,211* GR tons ) this was the only Japanese submarine which inflicted damage, sinking the only two ships lost by the U.S. Navy during the Battle of Midway, and at the time Yorktown was the largest ship sunk by a submarine during the Pacific campaign. *S-13* 🇨🇳 Captain *Alexander Ivanovich Marinesko* Jan 30, 1945, sinking German military transport *MV ‘Wilhelm Gustloff’* ( *25,484* GR tons ) more than 9,400 people were killed, the worst loss of life in maritime history! *U-562* 🇩🇪 Kapitänleutnant *Horst Hamm* Dec 21, 1942, sinking British troop transport *SS ‘Strathallan’* ( *23,722* GR tons ) from her complement of 5,122 British and American troops, crew members, gunners, and nurses, only six crew members, five nurses, and five troops, for a total of 16, died. It became the largest allied transport ship by gross register tonnage sunk during WWII. *U-73* 🇩🇪 Kapitänleutnant *Helmut Rosenbaum* Aug 11, 1942, sinking British aircraft carrier *HMS ‘Eagle’* ( *22,600* GR tons ) around 131 officers and ratings from the ship's propulsion machinery lost their lives. 4 Sea Hurricanes were aloft when the ship was torpedoed, and they landed on other carriers; the remaining 16 went down with the ship. 929 officers and sailors were saved! *I-19* 🇯🇵 Commander *Takakazu Kinashi* Sep 15, 1942, sinking American aircraft carrier *USS ‘Wasp’* ( *19,423* GR tons ) and Oct 19, 1942, sinking American destroyer *USS ‘O’Brien’* ( *2,246* GR tons ) I-19 six torpedo salvo sunk an aircraft carrier, and a destroyer, and severely damaged the battleship USS North Carolina, making it one of the most damaging torpedo salvos in the history of naval warfare! *S-13* 🇨🇳 Captain *Alexander Ivanovich Marinesko* Feb 10, 1945, sinking German armed transport *SS ‘General von Steuben’* ( *14,660* GR tons ) some 4,550 civilians and military personnel from the ship died! *I-58* 🇯🇵 Lt. Commander *Mochitsura Hashimoto* Jun 30, 1945, sinking American heavy cruiser *USS ‘Indianapolis’* ( *10,110* GR tons ) some 879 sailors died, resulting in the greatest loss of life at sea from a single ship in the history of the U.S. Navy! -------------------- *Some Notes* : • *GRT* = Gross Register Tonnage • *S-13* sunk a total of 5 transports and freighters during operations in WWII for an accumulated of *44,138* GR tons, from which *40,144* GR tons correspond to Captain *Alexander Ivanovich Marinesko* own sink tally. • KapLtn. *Friedrich Guggenberger* besides sinking the *HMS ‘Ark Royal’* at the command of *U-81* is also credited with sinking 16 other ships (17 in total) sailing with other U-Boats, for a total of *66,848* GR tons, and damaging another, for *6,003* GR tons. • *USS ‘Albacore’* was credited with sinking 13 Japanese ships during the war with various Captains at the Conn, including two destroyers, the light cruiser *IJN ‘Tenryū’* and the aircraft carrier *IJN ‘Taihō’* and damaging another 5 ships. She also holds the distinction of sinking the highest single warship tonnage of any U.S. Navy submarine. • *U-73* carried out 15 patrols between early 1941 and late 1943, sinking 8 ships and 4 warships for a total of *66,892* GR tons. She also damaged a further three commercial vessels totaling *22,928* GR tons. She was part of five wolfpacks.

[@notsureyou]

You forgot U29

[@romankovalev7894]

Americans, as always, produce videos where they are in the top for some parameter.

[@pixsilvb9638]

@@romankovalev7894 Not in this one. The video states top submarines with most warships sunk. And the 1st. ranked clearly is not US American: 1. *U-221* (Germany) 🇩🇪 sinking *10* warships 2. *USS Tankg* (US) 🇺🇸 sinking *6* warships 3. *HMS Upholder* (Britain) 🇬🇧 sinking *5* warships And it did a special mention which was neither referred to an American submarine but rather to the Japanese *1-19* 🇯🇵 which sunk the *USS Wasp* and *USS O’Brien* , and severely damaging *USS North Carolina* with one salvo.

[@romankovalev7894]

@@pixsilvb9638 The Germans had certain problems with torpedoes - half of them did not explode after being fired. The Germans only corrected this by 43. I think the gap there would be even greater

[@pixsilvb9638]

@@romankovalev7894 Yeah, Americans too had a similar problem with their torpedoes which performed really bad in the Pacific specially.

[@ronaldfinkelstein6335]

No mention of USS Harder (SS-257). Under the command of Samuel Dealy, she sank 4 destroyers, as well as 2 frigates, before being sunk on August 24, 1944. That is 6 warships! Which would put her alongside USS Tang [not Tankg], on this list.

[@brianpesci]

Not including merchant shipping is not a realistic way to calculate how much the subs damaged the supply of enemy.

[@gasparguadalupethecante6377]

good morning great submarine comparison you do a good job

[@williamjensen365]

Tang, not Tankg. Proofread, people, proofread.

[@ajac009]

No honorable mention of the USS archerfish and the sinking of the Shinano..

[@TheRealRedAce]

No. Doesn't count.

[@ajac009]

@TheRealRedAce it should as an honorable mention since it sank one ship larger then the combined tonnage of several ships on this list.

[@mingmingnovember]

@@ajac009Yes but it just incomplete and not fully active warship it didn’t have pump system and watertight door yet.

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

1:05 - "successfully enganged in the sinking of 11 vessels" is redundant. Had the U-boat been unsuccessful it would not have sunk any ships.

[@desubtilizer]

The USS Tang also sunk itself after one of the torpedoes it launched returned to sender.

[@SUNNYSTARSCOUT365]

Awesome U-boat

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

U-boat*

[@RomuloCavalcanti-bt8yv]

Make the same with aircraft carriers

[@phillipnagle9651]

This of course emphasizes quantity over quality. A US submarine sank carrier that started off as a Yamato class battleship, which in terms of tonnage probably topped all of these and I believe a German submarine sunk the aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

[@notsureyou]

And the Carrier HMS Courageous

[@hansulrichboning8551]

Not to forget the battleships HMS Royal Oak and HMS Barham.

[@CanWeGetMuchHigher667]

Shinano was a high-quality warship? 4 torpedoes ?? I think not.

[@phillipnagle9651]

@@CanWeGetMuchHigher667 It was an aircraft carrier which makes it a lot more important than any battleship.

[@stevejh69]

The best thing about the U-boats, is so many sunk with all hands lost!

[@johnholt890]

The percentage casualty rate was the highest of any military arm in WW2 I think about 80 %

[@SUNNYSTARSCOUT365]

I notice almost submarines before Cold War are equipped with guns and cannons

[@mofleh177]

It's because back then submarines can't stay submerged for extended periods of time, they must frequently emerge above water which made them vulnerable to attacks mostly by aircrafts and needed at least some AA to fend off attackers.

[@petersoerent2554]

And there were some French subs where the (big) guns were intented to sink other ships. However, they were not very successful 😮

[@paulseaman8558]

The French sub you are after is the Surcouf it had 2 8inch guns and it’s own aeroplane. By all accounts it worked ok but it ended up sinking early in the war I think it was in collision with another ship. I also think there was some other subs that had large calibre deck guns and no doubt someone will know 😊

[@mdg3234]

Back in the day when sea warriors had cajones and not yellow bellied behind stealth? Battle Surface was the only way to go?

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

@@mofleh177 ... back then submarines couldn't* stay submerged (...) they frequently had* to emerge / aircraft* (plural same as singular)

[@ulrichbehnke9656]

It should be mentioned that on every of this few successful German U-boats came hundred that were sunk on the first or second mission. In the second half of WWII axis submarines were hunted down by a huge and formidable fleet of vessels and airplanes. After all experienced crews were killed young inexperienced crews were sent in a fight without really chance. The only argument to go on with this was that they was forcing the Allies to uphold this huge machinery. It should also be mentioned that the ruthless U-boat war killed 30.000 civil sailors - often from neutral nations. Statistically the job as a US-merchant sailor was more dangerous than that of a US-marine. But they never got the public appreciation as the military sailors for their bravery and today they are nearly forgotten. It is also forgotten that in former centuries merchant sailors were forming an international community- helping every sailor from other nation.

[@edthompson2099]

Early in the war there were (proportionately) lots of successful U-boats, but there weren't lots of U-Boats. Germany started the war with less than 60 U_boats- I've seen both 57 and 26 listed as the actual number, and its possible that both are technically correct, that Germany had 57 total submarines available on Sept 1, 1939 of which only 26 were ocean going while the rest were very short range costal subs, but that is my speculation to explain the difference in the numbers quoted.

[@jamesmuller3807]

Could the audio be any sloooowwwerrr?

[@kiwitrainguy]

Are you being sarcastic? I certainly would not have wanted the audio to be any faster.

[@Chris-ql9bu]

Im not really suprised. Similar stuff as with Tank/Pilot aces in ww2. The Germans had enough targets..

[@briankorbelik2873]

Not listing Subs that sank merchant ships? Why bother?!

[@jimstanga6390]

USS TANKG…?

[@ristube3319]

This was by far the best, and clearest English voiceover from a native Asian speaker I’ve ever heard!

[@oat138]

Confusing!

[@Lee-vk1xy]

Submarines aren't warships either. Minesweepers can be or not.

[@johnholt890]

This is rubbish the U 221 Landing Craft were all aboard one ship the merchant ship Southern Empress !

[@Strommy777]

Good Lord does anyone check these before you post them!?!?! It is the USS TANG!! NOT TANKG!!!!

[@colingibson3921]

So much miss information!!!

[@nicolasahumada8974]

USA fanboys / Commies when they notice all top scores in air, land, and sea are Germans: "but whe still won the war 🤬🤬🤬😭😭😭 "

[@Lee-vk1xy]

Landing craft are not warships.

[@laienke7046]

The sinking of a German (Nazi) submarine in WW2 was and is not "regrettable", unless this channel has Nazi sympathies. Perhaps the term "thankfully" should be substituted.

[@kiwitrainguy]

Both of those terms "regrettable" and "thankfully" should be left out to give a more balanced/neutral report.