US Submarines 1941–45

Osprey New Vanguard #118

by Jim Christley, Tony Bryan (Illustrator)

Naval warfare in the Pacific changed completely with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The strategic emphasis shifted from battleships to much more lethal, far-ranging weapons systems; one of these was the submarine. This book details the design and development, classes, weapons and equipment, tactics and operational history of the US submarine in World War II. Detailed tables, photographs, and superb color plates depict the force that had an effect far beyond its size - the submarine accounted for 55% of all Japanese shipping losses, despite suffering the highest percentage loss of any unit of the United State Armed Forces in World War II.

Genres: History, Military Fiction, World War II

48 pages, Paperback

First published January 31, 2006

Reviews

[Billy Leon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a continuation of the series which ended in 1935 for the previous volume. I was hoping to get a detailed set of specifications on the individual boats for comparison. Like most Osprey books, this one contains a ton of information in such a small book. But if a deeper more detailed read is needed, another source should be consulted. The action reports while well written and very interesting, were few in number and not a real strong to be consulted for information on submarines in action.

[Steve Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I’ve written elsewhere, Osprey military books can vary in quality. This one scored big, discussing. The development, engineering and tactical employment of the various American sub classes of WWII and how they helped to cripple Japan’s maritime logistics. The subs excelled at rescuing downed fliers and took out a fair share of warships as well.

I caught one mistake when the authors misspelled the name of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Hayanami as “Hiyami”, but that might have been an error in their sources. There were probably other mistakes as well, but I don’t anything deserves to cost this book a star.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Normally I can breeze through these, but this one was downright stultifying — I had to keep rereading sections because there was little attempt to generate a flow with the welter of information. There was also rather less by the way of mission details then I’d expect.

[Sean Chick · Rating 2 out of 5]

I do not like the way he writes or organizes the information.