History discussion thread

[Deamon]

I opened this thread for questions and discussions about WWI submarines and related subjects.

Deamon

[Preuss]

Hi all

I think a this Thread with collected information is good for me to learn more about WWI Naval warfare. If someone have information´s too, then write in it here. So, we have a good Database to learn more about the WWI Naval warfare.

Here a U-Boat war comparison between WWI and WWII

Just like in WWII Germany deployed a large U-boat force against the western powers. But the main difference during the two wars was that in World War One the Germany Navy had a very large surface (battleships, destroyers, cruisers) fleet while in WWII the U-boats had to shoulder the fight pretty much alone.

Some statistics of WWI

U-boats during WWI: 375
During 1914-1918 274 U-boats sank about 6.596 merchant ships (12.800.733 tons).

5 most successful U-boats of WWI
U 35 224 ships 539.741 tons
U 39 154 ships 404.478 tons
U 38 137 ships 299.985 tons
U 34 121 ships 262.886 tons
U 33 84 ships 229.598 tons

Some statistics of WWII

U-boats during WWII: 1154
During 1939-1945 U-boats sank about 14,436,513 tons.

5 most successful U-boats of WWII

U-48 51 ships 306.875 tons
U-103 45 ships 237.596 tons
U-123 42 ships 219.924 tons
U-124 46 ships 219.178 tons
U-107 37 ships 207.375 tons

Source:
http://uboat.net/wwi/

greet Preuss

[Bertgang]

As it seems, according to statistics, WWI subs were by far more effective than their heirs of second conflict.

That could sound strange as, like aircraft, u-boats were sort of experimental weapons, with lot of tech problems and limits at this age.

Hopefully for them, the allied anti-submarine warfare had similar problems too; mainly poor detection and attack tools (little to do, out of ramming a spotted scope, at the beginning), and a good convoy protection system still to build.

Things changed later, but not that soon.
Lothar Von Arnaud De La Periere was able to sink over 500.000 tons launching just four torpedoes: such result by surface attacks means lot of unprotected lone targets.

The statistics of said Ace also teach that he rarely engaged something heavier than 2.000 tons; maybe larger merchant ships weren't really frequent.

[Mush Martin]

As it seems, according to statistics, WWI subs were by far more effective than their heirs of second conflict.

That could sound strange as, like aircraft, u-boats were sort of experimental weapons, with lot of tech problems and limits at this age.

Hopefully for them, the allied anti-submarine warfare had similar problems too; mainly poor detection and attack tools (little to do, out of ramming a spotted scope, at the beginning), and a good convoy protection system still to build.

Things changed later, but not that soon.
Lothar Von Arnaud De La Periere was able to sink over 500.000 tons launching just four torpedoes: such result by surface attacks means lot of unprotected lone targets.

The statistics of said Ace also teach that he rarely engaged something heavier than 2.000 tons; maybe larger merchant ships weren't really frequent.
A large portion of the success of Uboats in the first world war was owed
to the fact that for the first several years of the war they operated
mainly on the surface and the RN didnt realize it.

there is much to the world war one story, Ill pop back again and
see if I can contribute a little to the historical base of this thread
this is a great project.

Also I have worked up a Cruiser Sub (type IX-XI ) based on type IXB as the sub was only ordered
and cancelled in ww2 it has a huge fun potential but little historical value as far as SH3 ww2 goes
however it may at least be useful to you ww1 types as several cruiser sub designs were built
in ww1 , the Type IX-XI isnt a historically accurate visual model, however it still looks cool
and she fights on the surface like she should and is a total hoot to play, more fun than
any other sub in sh3.

incidently I am currently advertising for a third beta tester for type IX-XI Uberboot
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104792

[Deamon]

A large portion of the success of Uboats in the first world war was owed
to the fact that for the first several years of the war they operated
mainly on the surface and the RN didnt realize it. What does that mean ?

What difference would it make when the RN would have bin aware of it ?

And why were it not aware that u-boats had to operate most of the time on the surface ? I don't realy get this statement :hmm:

there is much to the world war one story, Ill pop back again and
see if I can contribute a little to the historical base of this thread
this is a great project. Oh yes, if you have something interesting.

however it may at least be useful to you ww1 types as several cruiser sub designs were built
in ww1 Hmm, how could it be usefull ? :hmm:

Deamon

[Mush Martin]

A large portion of the success of Uboats in the first world war was owed
to the fact that for the first several years of the war they operated
mainly on the surface and the RN didnt realize it. What does that mean ?

What difference would it make when the RN would have bin aware of it ?

And why were it not aware that u-boats had to operate most of the time on the surface ? I don't realy get this statement :hmm:

there is much to the world war one story, Ill pop back again and
see if I can contribute a little to the historical base of this thread
this is a great project. Oh yes, if you have something interesting.

however it may at least be useful to you ww1 types as several cruiser sub designs were built
in ww1 Hmm, how could it be usefull ? :hmm:

Deamon
In world war 1 the germans operated out of there own bases along the north sea unlike ww2 where they got the bases in france etc.

at the time of ww1 the mine was a largely effective ASW weapon
as the ww1 boats had shorter legs they were more inclined to take the
channel as the northern route was limiting. though the channel had other perils

the RN aware of the frequency of these transits heavily mined the channel
against submarines at depth and it took the better part of two years before the admiralty was able to realize and respond correctly there fore a large portion of the early succesus of the german boats was owed to the fact
that they were able to make safe transit through hostile territory on the basis of a misunderstanding by the enemy forces about the nature of submarines. or more correctly german doctrine.

Incedently it is somewhat less known but at least in the baltic the mine was also an effective ASW weapon in WW2 and the germans arguably the masters of its ASW application.
MM
Hope this helps clarify.

[Deamon]

In world war 1 the germans operated out of there own bases along the north sea unlike ww2 where they got the bases in france etc.

at the time of ww1 the mine was a largely effective ASW weapon
as the ww1 boats had shorter legs they were more inclined to take the
channel as the northern route was limiting. though the channel had other perils

the RN aware of the frequency of these transits heavily mined the channel
against submarines at depth and it took the better part of two years before the admiralty was able to realize and respond correctly there fore a large portion of the early succesus of the german boats was owed to the fact
that they were able to make safe transit through hostile territory on the basis of a misunderstanding by the enemy forces about the nature of submarines. or more correctly german doctrine.

Incedently it is somewhat less known but at least in the baltic the mine was also an effective ASW weapon in WW2 and the germans arguably the masters of its ASW application.
MM
Hope this helps clarify.
You mean the RN was not aware that the german subs were passing the dover barrier on the surface instead submerged ?

[Mush Martin]

In world war 1 the germans operated out of there own bases along the north sea unlike ww2 where they got the bases in france etc.

at the time of ww1 the mine was a largely effective ASW weapon
as the ww1 boats had shorter legs they were more inclined to take the
channel as the northern route was limiting. though the channel had other perils

the RN aware of the frequency of these transits heavily mined the channel
against submarines at depth and it took the better part of two years before the admiralty was able to realize and respond correctly there fore a large portion of the early succesus of the german boats was owed to the fact
that they were able to make safe transit through hostile territory on the basis of a misunderstanding by the enemy forces about the nature of submarines. or more correctly german doctrine.

Incedently it is somewhat less known but at least in the baltic the mine was also an effective ASW weapon in WW2 and the germans arguably the masters of its ASW application.
MM
Hope this helps clarify.
You mean the RN was not aware that the german subs were passing the dover barrier on the surface instead submerged ?

well yes and in a few other known transit areas as i recall ill have to try and find it.
MM

[Mush Martin]

Hmm, how could it be usefull ? :hmm:

Deamon

for a future ww1 modder as an inspiration of what you can
do with some imagination and spareparts

are there any early plans to include a cruiser sub.?
Mm

[Deamon]

are there any early plans to include a cruiser sub.?
Mm
Yes and not only one. But this is far in the future.

[Mush Martin]

I pinched the flotilla flag off of your siggy to make into a sub emblem
for my Ubersub. hope you dont mind.....MM

[Deamon]

I pinched the flotilla flag off of your siggy to make into a sub emblem
for my Ubersub. hope you dont mind.....MM
Well, no problem

[lorcan3]

The reason they cruised on the surface was 1. They could see and search better. Radar had not been invented yet. 2. Sonar was in it's infancy. The RN had not figured out a plan to protect their convoys so the ships either went by themselves or the ships had no protection or skimpy at that. It wasn't until the US got into the war (Because Churchill along with Woodrow Wilson's help) Stashed some munitions aboard the Luisitania to get the war sentiment started. They dove on the ship in the 1980's 0r 90's and confirmed the munitions cargo. Papers that were later declassified told of the pact between Churchill and Wilson. The Germans weren't stupid. They had spies all over the docks of the east coast putting out info for the Kaiser.3. They would rather sink the ships AFTER they had plundered the cargo ( GET some foodstuffs), put the crew in lifeboats, THEN sink IT! They saved their torpedoes if there were escorts around or airplanes, We know what bombs do to subs. They weren't the bloodsuckers everyone made them out to be. Before the Lusitania put out to sea, the German Embassy posted fliers all over the place(it was 1915) that they were entering an unrestricted submarine warfare zone and warned them to stay home! That the German Gov't feared the ship was carrying war material and if a submarine should find it, their job was to sink it. You know the rest of the story. Got a job?:arrgh!:

(EDIT BY DEAMONN: lorcan3, I have moved your post to this thread as it didn't belong into the testers thread)

[Deamon]

It wasn't until the US got into the war (Because Churchill along with Woodrow Wilson's help) Stashed some munitions aboard the Luisitania to get the war sentiment started. They dove on the ship in the 1980's 0r 90's and confirmed the munitions cargo. Papers that were later declassified told of the pact between Churchill and Wilson.
So it is officially finally ? :hmm:

Have you some links ?

Before the Lusitania put out to sea, the German Embassy posted fliers all over the place(it was 1915) that they were entering an unrestricted submarine warfare zone and warned them to stay home! Yes there were warnings from the german side in abundance. But the allies exploited this for their intrigues to let germany looks bad and justify their cause.

What concerns america, it had no choice but to stick to england since it depended on it in order to secure their interests in the pacific. So it was the old game of intrigues to arrange a justification just when you need it. This is actually a good way to figure out who is actually behind such a "misfortune"

You just need to ask yourself who benefits most from it actually. Coupled with additional odd "coincidences" that just shouldn't have happened, you can figure very reliable who is behind what.

[Randomizer]

Read post #13 with a fair bit of amusement but decided not to let this one pass.

What kind of pact could Winston Churchill, political head of the Royal Navy possibly offer Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States in 1915?

Churchill was merely First Lord of the Admiralty and one who was not very popular with his own government at that time. He had no authority or channels to communicate with a foriegn head-of-state. He had never met or spoken to President Wilson in May 1915. No promise that he could make could possibly be binding or legal, he was only a minister of the Crown and only responsible for the Navy. There was no personal relationship between the two men and their politics were poles apart.

Wilson, as Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces would have no authority to cut a deal with the political head of any arm of service of a foriegn power. One can probably conclude that doing so without the Department of State and SecNav getting involved would likely be impeachable. Private talks between President and First Lord might even border on treasonous depending on what was discussed. In 1915 the War Plans Division of the USN continued to update Plan Red, War with the British Empire and would do so until April 1917. The countries were not allies, they were rivals and relations between them were strained because of the high-handed manner which the RN (with Churchill at the top) had implemented the naval blockade of the Central Powers.

One must have very little regard for Churchill's political acumen and Wilson's integrity to believe this sort of crap.

President Wilson was a strong advocate of the very Freedom of the Seas threatened by the Allied blockade and U-Boats alike. I don't see Lorcan3 suggesting that Wilson had a conversation with Imperial Naval Minister Alfred von Tirpitz, Churchill's counterpart in Berlin. Wonder why? It makes about as much sense.

The Conspiracy Division of the Tin Foil Hat Squadron must work overtime concocting these narratives out of thin air. Obviously the total lack of creditable evidence is proof that the conspiracy is working...