What where the differences between American and German Subs? [Archive]

tater

11-14-08, 10:39 AM

In any event, the German submarines did not produce victory. The American ones did.

Well actually neither did, because the Allied victory was ultimately secured by land battles fought by the Americans in the Pacific, and the Russians in Eastern Europe...

USN submarines played a substantial role in the defeat of Japan. Japan waged war against the US/UK(incl. Commonwealth)/Dutch in order to secure oil to continue their war in China. The utter failure of the IJN to secure their routes of transport and communication from the fringes of the Empire to Japan itself hastened their defeat.

In terms of the KM and U-Boats vs the Allies, yes, they had a harder time, but it should have been obvious to them that the U-Boat war was a waste of resources after a while. German intelligence (the whole Axis, really) consistently failed to accurately estimate enemy capability, particularly logistical capability. Had they bothered to try, they'd have quickly realized they simply could not possibly sink ships fast enough to make a difference.

As far as the difference in ASW capability each side faced, one CRITICAL factor usually gets overlooked in such arguments in favor of the nitty-gritty technology used to prosecute individual targets (forward DC throwers, etc). That is the doctrine of the target sub force.

KM and IJN submarine doctrines were fatally flawed, and they played a terrible price for it. Both shared the same problem—THEY TALKED TOO MUCH. Their commo doctrines were abysmal. Both forces used centralized control. Both forces had their chatty submarines on the radio all the time calling home. Both sides were accurately DFed and tracked (even without code breaking). Both forces had their codes compromised, though the code is really secondary to the DFing. Allied forces (convoys, etc) were then intentionally steered around the subs. Allied ASW assets were then steered towards the subs (including allied subs themselves in many cases in the PTO). I don't think you can weight this enough. Had the Ubootwaffe been a "silent service" they would not have suffered nearly the loss rate they did, IMO. The tonnage sunk would have been lower, perhaps, mostly due to lack of wolfpacks.

I bet they'd still have sunk more ships if for no other reason that their were simply far far more targets for them.

Rockin Robbins

11-14-08, 11:12 AM

I don't think you can weight this enough. Had the Ubootwaffe been a "silent service" they would not have suffered nearly the loss rate they did, IMO. The tonnage sunk would have been lower, perhaps, mostly due to lack of wolfpacks.

Exactly my point. American submarines would not have suffered the losses that the Germans did in the same anti-sub environment. They were silent and American codes were not breakable without learning the Navaho language first. Plus the greater firepower from American subs would have made them more effective.

In any event, the presence of the U-Boat in the Atlantic removed the option of making peace with the UK and guaranteed war with the US. Germany couldn't handle the British, much less the Americans. Without the U-Boats, they would have been much stronger on land and could have maintained peace with both of the enemies who eventually destroyed the Wehrmacht. With submarines, Germany could not win the war. Without, there were multiple ways to win.

How in the WORLD does someone credit the Russians for any part of the US victory against the Japanese? At best, Marshall Zhukov gave the Japanese a bloody nose and lit out for the German front. The battle had no effect on the war as a whole.

The war was won by the US Navy's ability to starve the Japanese from supplies necessary to maintain their military and build replacements for anything. Japanese island strongholds could not be resupplied or reinforced because American submarines and aircraft carriers made that impossible.

tater

11-14-08, 11:39 AM

The Soviets certainly played a huge role in the defeat of Germany. That said, a huge amount of war materiel used by the Soviets came from... the USA. Almost 60% of their highly refined petroleum products came from the US, for example (can you say "aviation gas?").

Soviet advances would have been far less easy under a virtually unopposed Luftwaffe, even giving "General Winter" his due.

It would be interesting to imagine the vast majority of U-Boats attempting to exclusively interdict tankers for Russia, keeping just enough boats elsewhere so that the allies could not put all ASW assets North. Of course they'd need to have made such a plan, then they'd have needed to shut the hell up about it, and tell the subs to stop using their radios like teenage girls on the phone ;)

Regarding the sub war vs the IJN, this is also important. German subs did effectively no damage to Allied naval capability at all. USN subs, while practicing "unrestricted" warfare, also sank or heavily damaged many significant warships—warships were critical to the IJN's (completely wrong-headed) Mahanian strategy for winning a "decisive battle."

tater

11-14-08, 11:50 AM

To be clear: All major navies at the start of the war had decent radio direction finding gear, and the doctrine to use it.

We take for granted in the modern world that the use of active sensors is a tool of last resort since they, duh, give your position away completely. It's astounding that submariners that would have NEVER considered banging away with active sonar on patrol, had no problem using the radio, sometimes multiple times per day. Transmissions that could be DFed not just by nearby enemy warships, but by anyone with a shortwave set back on the mainland. Two guys with radios and a protractor, FTW.

Boggles the mind.

msalama

11-14-08, 05:09 PM

How in the WORLD does someone credit the Russians for any part of the US victory against the Japanese?

Eh... _did_ someone?

I just pointed out that the Allied victory wouldn't have happened without a hard and bloody land war on 2 major fronts - the Pacific and Eastern Europe. Tater's observation of the American victory over Japan having been all but impossible without the Silent Service is, however, entirely correct... so you guys are of course right as regards its importance in the Pacific War!

Something that I OTOH never argued against per se ;)

Hartmann

11-15-08, 09:59 AM

msalama

11-15-08, 10:07 AM

American: a great torpedo computer / position keeper

Rockin Robbins

11-15-08, 07:25 PM

I would say that the American hardware was considerably better than the Germans'. You MIGHT say the German hardware was better than an S-Boat, but only marginally so. They were both basically World War I technology. But all the fleet boats were head and shoulders better than any U-Boat except the Type XXI, which didn't see enough service to see if it was any good or just a forlorn hope.

Just the 50% more firepower up front was enough to make the above statement. But there are several dozen reasons the fleet boat was the best in the world.

tater

11-15-08, 07:42 PM

The only thing I seem to recall was deeper diving due to round hatches or something like that (for u-boats). Course I don't think the later fleet boats were poor in terms of depth.

I'd say the germans had a marked superiority in optics, though, that's totally fair. And their worst torpedo nightmare could not have been as bad as the Mk 14 debacle, they get points for that.

AVGWarhawk

11-15-08, 08:21 PM

CaptHawkeye

11-16-08, 08:39 AM

German: better hardware , hull, and optics but poor life conditions and electronics.

American : better life conditions, and very good electronics like radar, a lot of firepower (torpedo load and torpedo tubes)

One is pretty hard pressed to say the Germans had "better hardware" and "optics" when you know about the enviornment your average ship designer worked in for the KM. :)

Rockin Robbins

11-16-08, 09:10 AM

Actually for the optics, all you have to do is look through the periscope. German optics were the best in the world. As far as "equipment" I couldn't agree less. American equipment was consistently several steps better than the Germans.

The only exception was the torpedoes themselves, which were copied from the German models. In untypical American fashion, we copied them slavishly, right down to the defects! So our equipment was functionally identical with torpedoes. The Germans, however, placed much more credibility and emphasis on front line decision making. When their captains came back with reports of torpedo problems, the German command listened and responded quickly to fix the problem.

The American torpedoes, copied from the Germans, had the same defects, but American brass lent no credibility to their men on the front line and in very France-like (Italians would tend to do the exact same thing) fashion, insisted that the equipment was fine and the men were defective.

The fault there wasn't so much the equipment, which was pretty identical to German equipment, but the misuse of authority.

Detail by detail, you consistently see better design in the American boats. I'm not counting the Type XXI because it was never tested in combat. It could have been a total failure. All we know is that the concept was superior. The machinery is suspect.

Hitman

11-16-08, 10:30 AM

In any event, the presence of the U-Boat in the Atlantic removed the option of making peace with the UK and guaranteed war with the US.

I have to disagree with that. First of all, the peace with the britians was never an option after war started for the own britians. Hitler insistently wanted to keep them out of his war (I have readed enough quotes of him professing his respect and admiration for the brits), and repeatedly assured them that he just wanted to go eastwards. In fact, he even toyed with the illusion of Britain actively helping him defeat communism. But the British external politics in WW2 era remained unchanged in one aspect: They did NOT want someone as powerful as themselves in Europe (Specially germany, and secondarily, France), no matter at which cost. It was not the presence of U-Boats in the war what prevented a negotiated exit; it was simply Britain's knowledge of Hitler being even more dangerous if he was allowed to continue his expansion with no opposition. I don't even think that, had Britain stayed neutral after the invasion of Poland, they would have continued to be so after Hitler attacked the USSR. They allowed Hitler to rearm and expand as a way of keepinga counterbalance to the soviets in Europa, and if the USSR had attacked germany first, it is not improbable that Britain would have aided the germans.

Germany couldn't handle the British, much less the Americans.

Germany could in fact have wiped away the whole british army (Not the navy or the air force) in a hand-to-hand confrontation in 1939, (which is logic, given that germany worked a non-democratic state, preparing for the war as single purpose, while Britain was a democracy with a peace-time economy and not the slightest will for entering another war) but the germans were historically never in a situation to actually invade Britain. They weren't in 1914, and they weren't in 1940, even if the Luftwaffe had won the "Battle of Britain" (Which it didn't).

It is more than probable, however, that if Hitler had not invaded the URRS and instead strengthened his submarine and aerial blockade around Britain, devoting all his resources to that -instead of building tanks for the war on the ast front- he could have forced an Armistice. By summer of 1940, just before the Battle of Britain, the UK was in a very delicate situation, facing alone the german power, and had it not been for the english channel, I doubt much that they could have survived.

I do agree however in that Germany had not the slightest chance to win a war against the USA, even if fighting just against them and nobody else. The dimensions of the industrial and human power of the US were too far from anything germany could even dream of.

Rockin Robbins

11-16-08, 01:21 PM

I believe that you may be right. But the existence of the phony war showed that Britain did not have the stomach for battle to the death, and might (emphasis on the might!) have been receptive to a face-saving gesture by the Germans after they evacuated Dunkirk and if the submarines were not trying to choke Britain, to the tune of:

not really a To our friends, the great British Empire:

We have seen your courage as you honorably lived up to your unfortunate treaty alliances with former countries of the European mainland. Your armies have aquitted themselves honorably in defense of your word. Proud and undefeated, they are now safely home in Britain, where they belong.

Those armies are back, those brave men have returned to their families because they were permitted to by my personal order to the German Wermacht. The war to unite the continent of Europe is over. The dastardly Danes, the slimy Swiss, the chequered Chechs, the filthy French are all defeated and under more enlightened German rule now.

Where do we go from here? Throughout history, the German people and the British have been joined by royal ties of blood and deed. Together we defeated the monster Napoleon last century and together we can confront the looming Communism of this century. We stand waiting for you to join the community of nations dedicated to that end.

I have issued orders that no German military unit is to attack British property, military units or civilian citizens. Our entire fleet of U-Boats, which rule the seas of the world, stand by to serve you. The future is yours to decide. We understand your chagrin at our actions on the continent of Europe. But you were not the target of that enterprise. Now you may decide to die attacking the nation who waits to help you in your glorious fight against communism, or join us in our common holy cause.

With hope, with sincere friendship and best intentions of creating a glorious new world of higher civilization, we wait for your decision.

Your pal,

Adolph
OK, fast talker, Churchill, your move! I don't think that Britain could have done anything other than stand down and smoulder in anger that Hitler had pulled another one of his masterful coups. Our own heroes, Lindberg, Doolittle and friends, would have applauded like crazy, cheering the whole world to its doom.

Damn, I'm cheerful this morning.

CaptHawkeye

11-16-08, 03:39 PM

FIREWALL

11-16-08, 03:45 PM

Ice Cream and better Toilets. :p :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

tater

11-16-08, 03:58 PM

The Axis (all of them) failed utterly at logistics. I was not just American industrial might, but the ability to efficiently get all that materiel to the battlefield that mattered.

If you can keep your front line forces in ice cream think about how much they must have that they actually need to do battle with.

There was a quote in some book (was it a movie?) of Germans discussing a captured parcel to some regular US infantry soldier. It had cake in it, and the cake was fresh. The one guy talked about how soft the Americans were to have such luxury. The smarter of the two observed with amazement that we could ship something so perishable in the mail to a war zone so quickly, and what that meant in terms of our logistical support.

Rockin Robbins

11-16-08, 04:00 PM

Lt Cmdr. Duke E. Gifford

11-16-08, 04:10 PM

tater

11-16-08, 04:26 PM

Yeah! That was it. I thought it might was fictional. None the less, it was a very true statement.

It's mirrored by true accounts of prisoners (ETO and PTO) being brought to rear areas, seeing the ships unloading, and realizing with not the least uncertainty that they never could have won.

CaptHawkeye

11-16-08, 05:57 PM

Exactly. The dudes that say "Hitler threw the war" don't get that it just didn't matter. What was Hitler going to do against the world's three most powerful countries ganged up on him at once? Buy time. That's all. Even if Hitler had been blessed with foresight and didn't make his monumentally poor decisions, at best the Axis would have made it to 1946.

Germany's economy was craftsmen based. It was based on individual production and quick reaction to changes on the field. This meant that German weapons were often qualitatively better because they could adapt to changes faster. The problem is, German weapons were soooo individualized they were impossible to mass produce. Parts standardization was virtually zero. Another problem was that their were no production standards for equipment. German designers were essentially allowed to do whatever they wanted. This meant you had weapons with lots of useless features that were added just for the sake of having features. No questioning whether or not said innovation was practicle. I think their was a saying in the Wehrmacht that every tank and ship they ever had was a prototype. Not a production model.

As for the Japanese, the IJN could have eliminated every ship and airplane in the US Navy in 1941 with zero losses, and by 1945, they would still be facing an overwhelming opponent.

EDIT: Here's a good read on Germany's research and production enviornment in both wars.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-044.htm

Rockin Robbins

11-16-08, 08:17 PM

Hitler had one chance, and that is the one I postulated above, right after Dunkirk. Had he refused to attack Britain and boldly declared peace, it would have stuck. Nobody would have liked it much but it would have worked.

breadcatcher101

11-16-08, 11:48 PM

Like what tater said, I seem to recall reading about the designs of the two types. The U boats had 4 tubes allowing the press. hull to be a circle shape thus allowing more depth. The American boats went with 6 tubes resulting in a somewhat oval shape which hindered deep diving abilities.

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-17-08, 01:57 AM

U boats superior design for Atlantic and their mission not so good for crews, hot bunking, not the ammenities of US boats, officers good, but Command severly hampered by Berlin so capabilities of boats and torpedos not able to be used fullest. Disasterous orders like fight air on surface, and go to Med, all knew were wrong but had to obey. Some Equipment very good, optics legendary and true, electric boats promising but too late, trial cruises in secret proved them totally undetectable by Allied ASW. Air superiority of Allies severe harm to U boat arm.

US boats excellent, ys showers every 5 days, refrigeration, air conditoners not that good but helped keep electornics from damp mostly, great moral great food, exellent officers, boat design excellent, torpedoes awful, until fixed. If they had good torps at war start look at figures below and imagine what might have been done. All knew but Bu Ord not listen. Key to good boat was crew, captain, mission, doctrine, weps, and HQ in that order from what i hear from men from that time.

and ys ice cream much envied of other services.....gedunk called them. Sub save flier get gedunk as reward.

the numbers below speak a lot.....many good men paid for mistakes in target and strategy but obeyed orders...and did their duty. Both had fine ships and men, goals and strategy were what all believed in at the time, but history shows much suffering comes from such huge wars and outcome can be determined by production, US basically out built everyone combined, huge effort, and huge cost over time just noiw coming due. Submarine war was significant in Pacific for US, huge effort for Germany but high price. They did almost succeed tho, at one time there was 4 days food in UK, so it almost worked. The US built 240 subs during the war, Germany some 1000, but the US also built 1,390 major surface combat ships, 1,206 Major support ships of all kinds, 1,921 Patrol ships and craft, 882 mine craft, 44,912 landing craft, hundreds of thousands of planes, and much more.

US Submarine Success and Losses During WWII
At Start of War, 112 submarines in commission and 65 on order. When hostilities ceased on 14 August 1945, the Navy had 232 submarines in commission.
10 million tons of military and merchant shipping lost by the Japanese during WW II, US submarines accounted for a total of 54%.Comprising less then 1.6% of all US Naval personnel in the Pacific, yet accounting for more then half of all enemy shipping sunk. Princple targets were in the Pacific, all Japanese shipping, unconditional warfare, Atlantic and beyond, enemy combatants and shipping.
52 Lost to all Causes
1941-1942
USS SEALION (SS 195) December 10, 1941
USS S 36 (SS 141) January 20, 1942
USS S 26 (SS 131) January 24, 1942
USS SHARK (SS 174) February 11, 1942
USS PERCH (SS 176) March 3, 1942
USS S 27 (SS 132) June 19, 1942
USS GRUNION (SS 216) July 30, 1942
USS S 39 (SS 144) August 16, 1942
1943
US Boats Lost 1941-1945
USS ARGONAUT (SS 166) January 10, 1943
USS AMBERJACK (SS 219)February 16, 1943
USS GRAMPUS (SS 207) March 5, 1943
USS TRITON (SS 201) March 15, 1943
USS PICKEREL (SS 177) April 3, 1943
USS GRENADIER (SS 210) April 22, 1943
USS RUNNER (SS 275) May 28, 1943
USS R 12 (SS 89) June 12, 1943
USS POMPANO (SS 181)August 29, 1943
USS GRAYLING (SS 209) September 9, 1943
USS CISCO (SS 290) September 28, 1943
USS S 44 (SS 155) October 7, 1943
USS WAHOO (SS 238) October 11, 1943
USS DORADO (SS 248) October 12, 1943
USS CORVINA (SS 226) November 16, 1943
USS SCULPIN (SS 191) November 19, 1943
USS CAPELIN (SS 289) November 23, 1943
1944
USS SCORPION (SS 278) January 5, 1944
USS GRAYBACK (SS 208) February 26, 1944
USS TROUT (SS 202) February 28, 1944
USS TULLIBEE (SS 284) March 26, 1944
USS HERRING (SS 233) June 1, 1944
USS GUDGEON (SS 211) June 7, 1944
USS GOLET (SS 361) June 14, 1944
USS S 28 (SS 133) July 4, 1944
USS ROBALO (SS 273) July 26, 1944
USS FLIER (SS 250) August 13, 1944
USS HARDER (SS 257) August 24, 1944
USS SEAWOLF (SS 197) October 3, 1944
USS ESCOLAR (SS 294) October 17, 1944
USS DARTER (SS 227) October 24, 1944
USS SHARK II (SS 314) October 24, 1944
USS TANG (SS 306) October 24, 1944
USS ALBACORE (SS 218) November 7, 1944
USS GROWLER (SS 215) November 8, 1944
USS SCAMP (SS 277) November 9, 1944
1945
USS SWORDFISH (SS 193) January 12, 1945
USS BARBEL (SS 316) February 4, 1945
USS KETE (SS 369) March 20, 1945
USS TRIGGER (SS 237) March 26, 1945
USS SNOOK (SS 279) April 8, 1945
USS LAGARTO (SS 371) May 3, 1945
USS BONEFISH (SS 223) June 18, 1945
USS BULLHEAD (SS 332) August 6, 1945

Unterseeboot Losses WWII
Before Allied ASW warfare perfected, it was the die glückliche Zeit. most attacks on surface at night due to limited speeds. The principle target of U boat action was the merchants supplying the Allies and transports to battle areas and war ships on active patrol.
U Boats sank: By the end of the war, almost 3,000 Allied ships (175 warships; the rest were merchant ships) were sunk by U-boat torpedoes. the U-boat fleet suffered extremely heavy casualties, losing 743 U-boats and about 28,000 submariners (a 75% casualty rate).
1939
57 U-boats were capable of going out to sea when the war began in September 1939. When the year ended 9 of them had been lost.
1940
24 boats were lost in 1940. U-31 was actually sunk twice so she appears twice in that number.
1941
35 boats were lost during 1941.
1942
The U-boat fleet lost 86 boats during this year, most of them in the latter half the year. A sign of things to come ...
1943
With the biggest convoy battles of the war and the highest number of boats at sea, stakes were high. In May 1943 the biggest loss to befall the U-boat fleet came with loss of 41 boats. Overall losses in 1943 were 242 U-boats.
1944
This year was even worse than 1943, steady losses all year brought the total up to 250 boats when the year came to and end.
1945
With the war coming to an end, overwhelming allied forced all around them, Germany lost over 120 U-boats in action in the first 5 months of the year.

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/index.html
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/
BEST sHIP SUMMARY Site:
major powers WWII
http://www.acepilots.com/ships/main.html
Excellent ship by ship class info:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/
US Naval Historical Center
http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html

and in the end, war is a last resort, and a sad one for everyone, for there are other ways to fnd ways to work together, so many times there were chances to turn to a difffent path in 1938 and 1939, i hope we are learning.

and btw, i saw a post saying that radio discipline was responsible for losses, at times ys, but the IJN for instance, no radio use allowed over 5 minutes, and sub captains were ordered by standard doctrine to clear area at high speed immediately after. Indeed communications doctrine was so restricted that it directly impaired sub warfare for the IJN boats. U boats were hampered by requirement to keep in touch with U Boat Command ....and ys that let to detection at times indeed i believe and many surviving U boat men may say same. but they had their orders.

Hitman

11-17-08, 03:20 PM

You pretty much hit the nail on the head Hitman. Germany was at an extreme economic and industrial disadvantage against the allies. You'll always hear plenty of people acknowledging this, but then saying "yeah well X german super weapon could blow up 10 allied tanks anyway".

The problem is German's "super weapons" were useless. They didn't work. More than likely, they made Germany lose FASTER. They simply lacked the industrial base, organization, and personell to make a lot the ideas they had work. Moreover, it was the Americans, an allied power, that successfully researched, built, and used, the war's one true working wonder weapon, the nuke.

It is also important to remember that Germany came from the recent devastating results of WW1 in terms of economics and that the big crack of 1929 was just some years ago. Only the fact that it was under dictatorship made the country speed up and work like crazy with all resources focused in the war industry, but they also lacked the long peace-time development experience -they were deprived of that by the Treaty of Versailles- of other countries, so what they produced at first, specially in the Navy, was just an evoultion of what they ended WW1 with.

I would dare to say that had it not been for the newly developed tanks and airplanes, combined with the well planned tactics of Blitzkrieg (By coordinated use of both), Germany would have been again stucked in a trench warfare, and this time it would have lasted even less than in WW1. His potential in WW2 was IMHO by far under his potential at the outbreak of WW1, and only the apeasement policy in Europe prevented the other countries from having enough muscle to crush germany right in 1939.

But since tanks and airplanes developed for close support to them are limited to land warfare, there's where they stopped. Britain remained alive, protected by the sea, and a revival of the trench warfare appeared now in the air, and when facing a tank army as powerful as the own german one (The soviet). At that point, germany couldn't obviously win the war for the very same reasons they failed in WW1: Their strategic position in Europe leaves them isolated and unable to get supplies of raw materials.

Man is the only animal that crashes twice against the same stone....

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-17-08, 03:30 PM

The Kriegsmarine was promised time to develop a balanced fleet which would then be able to protect the lines of supply they remembered well the starvation and the privations of 1914-1918 and planned carefuly for it. Balanced major fleet units would sweep the RN from the sea lanes in major concerted advances, all arms would support each other, the fleet air arm would support them all. But someone who had visions of grandeur who held supreme position made erratic and wild decisions that all at Senior STaff level opposed, but vainly. Same on the Eastern Disaster, never never did they want that, the staff.... but all followed orders.

And in spite of it all, it almost worked,

Die große Hoffnung verloren

CaptHawkeye

11-17-08, 05:43 PM

Balanced major fleet units would sweep the RN from the sea lanes in major concerted advances, all arms would support each other, the fleet air arm would support them all.

This was never really the plan. Germany had largely given up on huge surface fleets after World War 1 since the position they were in post-Versailles made it totally impossible to operate huge fleets of roaming warships a la High Seas Fleet. So instead they operated on a concept of 100% merchant raiding. Which is what even the Bismarck was designed for. Even in this department, Germany was so strapped for matieral supplies they scrapped their only planned Aircraft Carrier due to sheer expense.

But someone who had visions of grandeur who held supreme position made erratic and wild decisions that all at Senior STaff level opposed, but vainly. Same on the Eastern Disaster, never never did they want that, the staff.... but all followed orders.

Other than Raeder, most of the KM was made up of ardent Nazis who supported Hitler to the end. Even supposedly moderate Doenitz remained an ardent Nazi throughout his whole life.

Not like it mattered, since even if Hitler didn't meddle in their affairs, the best the KM ever could have done was make the allies' supply situation a little bit more annoying. By 1943 the Atlantic is swarming with Escort Carriers, long range patrol aircraft, and tons of escort craft with experienced crews and excellent equipment. Germany's Naval situation was so poor that by 1944 most German submarines and warships were being sunk before they could even leave port.

And in spite of it all, it almost worked,

Die große Hoffnung verloren

Considering Germany lost all 4 battleships, most of its heavy cruisers, a majority of its destroyers, merchant raiders, torpedo boats, tenders, and some 793 U-Boats, it didn't really. Especially when it turns out that despite all of those losses, the allies only lost 1% of all Atlantic shipping tonnage to the efforts of the Kriegsmarine.

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-17-08, 05:50 PM

What is interesting about history is the various views of it. My understanding of the facts comes from my own family history and knowledge shared from their own experineces...and 35 yrs of study of both WWI and WWII and my understanding is differnt from many views shared or commonly held. But that is good, for in variety is much good.

I certainly dont mean to claim that the results were good or more than they were, but there was much that the Kriegsmarine achieved and much more that they could have achieved if the long plan was able to be carried out.

:)

CaptHawkeye

11-17-08, 06:03 PM

Admittedly hindsight is 20/20. So it's easy for us to stand back and say "well their was no way they could have won." Back in 1940 most people were convinced the Nazis and Japanese were going to win. Even by 1943 most allied leaders were still paranoid about the war effort, and felt that at any time the tide could turn back against them. Propaganda inflating the capabilities of the Axis was common all over the world since leaders had to convince people things were serious, and they were.

Also, if it's true that necessity is the mother of invention, then it's also true that desperation is the father of ingenuity. The Germans did experiment with weapons, ideas, and concepts that were good in theory. Which shows given how many post war allied weapons were designed with the groundwork German designers had laid. Cruise missiles, ICBMs, homing torpedoes and surface to air missiles were some of the ideas that were good. It's just that Germany relied too much on their development schedules rather than paying more attention to its conventional war effort.

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-17-08, 06:14 PM

The reality of the time was that both sides faced the facts at that moment, and the immediate future. Thus they made decisions based on what was happening at the time, and the U boats were taking a very heavy toll of shipping and the Allies did not know that their own ASW could improve as much as it did. That was what I was refering to in the impact of the Kriegsmarine thinking and planning, in this one arm of the fleet. If they had had a chance to develop the full range of the fleet in other areas as they hoped to, things might have been very differnt.

I found figures on the sinkings that may be of interest....
By June 1941, U boats had sunk 5.7 milion tons of Allied shipping, British shipyards had been able to launch only 800,000 replacement tons. For a year after the US entry into the war the Kriegsmarine virtualy contolled the Atlantic, by May 1943, half of the worlds 5,600 merchangt shiops of 1939 had been lost.

WWII Spencer C Tucker, P M Roberts, Jack Green, CC Kingseed, Malcolm Muir ABC-CLIO
Total Losses = 5,150 British, Allied and neutral ships of 21,570,000 tons (300,000 tons per month)
1. Submarines 2,828
14,686,000 tons

4. Aircraft 820
2,890,000 tons

2. Mines 534
1,406,000 tons

5. Other causes 632
1,030,000 tons

6. Raiders 133
830,000 tons

3. Warships 104
498,000 tons

7. Coastal forces 99
230,000 tons
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsAtlanticDev2.htm

U Boat Captains who Sank 50,000 tons
On 331 war patrols these 49 men sank 706 ships for a total of 3.534.129 tons.
U Boat Captains Sank who sank over 100,000 tons
On 259 war patrols these 34 men sank 873 ships for a total of 4.825.554 tons.
Warships of over 4,000 tons
13 warships larger than 4,000 tons sunk (188.368 total tons)
ships over 15,000 tons
21 ships larger than 15,000 GRT sunk (409.996 total GRT)

http://www.uboat.net/index.html

Rockin Robbins

11-17-08, 08:48 PM

It is most interesting that the Germans fixated on items that had nothing to do with the effectiveness of their U-Boats. They sacrificed the ability to take enough weapons to battle in order to make the shape of the pressure hull perfectly round instead of slightly oval.

That meant they could dive deeper: a completely harmless, if interesting attribute. A deep diving submarine is completely incapable of harming the enemy, who can pummel them at will. Their depth is no protection from hedgehogs, which explode on contact and don't care whether it happens at 10 meters or 300 meters. Deep diving did not make the U-Boat a more effective weapon. To get a non-consequential attribute, they had to give up consequential attributes: firepower, speed, endurance. That is typical German thinking. High quality but without vision. After all, to them war was not the last resort, but the first tactic. That alone shows a fatal lack of vision on the part of an essentially militarily oriented dictatorship.

The American designers, however, were willing to give up non-consequential attributes, like extreme deep diving to produce those qualities of speed, endurance and firepower that win wars. The American military was always seeking information on what was working, what was not, how were the Germans conducting submarine warfare, what can be changed to improve results. The Germans began and ended the war with very little change in strategy. They never conducted any tests to determine if their codes were secure or what the capabilities of Allied radar was. They already knew the answers and nobody from other more primitive societies was going to teach them anything.

Time after time, they eschewed opportunity and pursued impossible goals instead. They repeatedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in a suicidal rush to oblivion. All this is nothing more than evidence of collective insanity from what should have been the most civilized, cultured, industrious, creative nation on the face of the earth.

Finally, today, with the reunification of Germany and the way that was done at great cost to the people of Western Germany, we see Germany taking the rightful place she should have taken seventy years ago. They were just as defeated after WWII as they were after WWI. The difference was one of attitude and resolve. Today they give no quarter to any nation as a people who can serve as an example for any nation on earth as how a country can be a positive good to the world. The German people can be rightly proud of their country and its accomplishments this past fifty years.

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-18-08, 01:02 AM

those are all excellent points.

Rockin Robbins

11-18-08, 06:18 AM

those are all excellent points.

Whew! I was worried that my post might be read in a different spirit than I wrote it. That's too easy to do on a forum like this.

Gorshkov

11-18-08, 02:26 PM

Also Germans had better torpedoes than Americans due to their technological advantage. Look at German T-5 passive sonar fish and her US poor caricature called "Cutie"... :rotfl:

Rockin Robbins

11-18-08, 03:00 PM

A blank post! What a curiosity! Sure would like to know what the poster intended before prematurely hitting the post button.:rotfl:

Hitman

11-18-08, 03:22 PM

I don't completely agree with you here, RR.

The fact that U-Boats could dive deeper doesn't mean that they were planned with that in mind as primary objective and other attributes were sacrified.

The thing is, Type VIIs were designed exactly for what they were used for: Furious Wolfpack battles in medium range battlefield (The North Atlantic, blocking the UK), where shorter endurance and less weaponry was not that relevant since firepower of several U-Boats was to be concentrated and the bases were at reach (Take a look at Kretschmer's patrols in 1940, he went out, exhausted his torpedoes and went back to reload and go out again in 15 days). Instead, agility, quick diving times and deeper diving meant better chances of escaping from enemy pursuit according to the state of technics at the outbreak of the war. And I suppose the german Navy preferred a smaller U-Boat that could survive, rather than a larger one that couldn't. :hmm: You can't blame them for overestimating the potential of the Royal Navy escorts, can't you?

Also, your arguments fail to recognize that american subs were designed as fleet boats, and the outbreak of the war already deprived them from that function as the better part of the US Pacific fleet was crippled in Pearl Harbor. It was just pure luck for the americans that their submarines were able to fullfill a role (commerce raider) they were not designed for, and not intelligent decisions. ;)

The main problem for Germany in both Wars, (But extremely accentuated in WW2) was that civil leaders (Wilhelm I and Hitler) still had too much power to decide about pure military matters. It is well proven that Churchill worked much better when he acted as politician than when he tried to play the role of strategist in military matters, but Churchill was carefully prevented from continuing to do damage, and forced to let his generals work as such, while Hitler and Wilhelm I were never stopped.

Roosevelt never ever had nor the interest or the chance to intervene in military matters. He trusted in his Generals, and that paid off also a lot after some initial mistakes. In that, the americans were million years ahead from germans and even from the britians. The only thing that still worked wrong was a too big bureacracy in some military areas (I'm thinking mainly about the bureau of ordnance regarding the Navy) that with its stupid inertias from peace time made the Navy lose too much time at the start of the war, and some too cautious Submarine force admirals.

GlobalExplorer

11-18-08, 03:50 PM

I think it is easy to forget that it was these outdated, outgunned german submarines that were close to bringing an empire to it's knees (Buchheim).

Deep diving did not make the U-Boat a more effective weapon.

This is wrong. It took the British years to figure out how deep the U-boats went. When captured crews reported 200+m they considered it bragging or right out misinformation, because no other nations subs went that deep. Consequence: they set their charges much too shallow, and generally those depths make the blast much less effective. Why would the the germans haved dived deeper and deeper, exceeding their "safe" depths by 150%, if it was not making them safer?

Their depth is no protection from hedgehogs

Hedgehogs were deadly, that's undisputed, but they were developed .. because depth charging proved too ineffective. Add to that many dcs had much too little explosives, see Hirschfeldt: the germans were laughing about the US ones at the beginning of the war.

It is most interesting that the Germans fixated on items that had nothing to do with the effectiveness of their U-Boats. They sacrificed the ability to take enough weapons to battle in order to make the shape of the pressure hull perfectly round instead of slightly oval.

I rather think it was criminal how they ignored the fact that their underwater speed was insufficient, and radar of course.

A deep diving submarine is completely incapable of harming the enemy, who can pummel them at will.

That is typical German thinking. High quality but without vision. After all, to them war was not the last resort, but the first tactic. That alone shows a fatal lack of vision on the part of an essentially militarily oriented dictatorship.

Well we always tend to overengineer things, and that is because our mentality is to prepare for anything that could go wrong. Did you notice that when faced with new ideas germans always start to consider the risks? It is a flaw, but it also makes german technology much safer and durable, I think that's pretty accepted world wide.

I think there was nothing wrong with the submarines. They were simple, robust and effective offensive weapons, especially the Type VII. I agree though that it was a fatal mistake to stick with the designs much too long, instead of working harder to get new technology out.

I think the key to the (quick) defeat was rather that Germany were resting on their laurels too long, not training enough new pilots before or after the Battle of Britain, not rationing food, not building better submarines and jet planes, sticking with antique shoes and carbines, no winter clothing, etc.

They never conducted any tests to determine if their codes were secure or what the capabilities of Allied radar was. They already knew the answers and nobody from other more primitive societies was going to teach them anything.

Look, that the same ignorance prevailed with their enemies. Why is it always forgotten that the germans broke into the Allied codes as well? It just turned out to be fatal for the U-Boats because they were already outnumbered, their survival too much dependent on stealth. But I think both sides made the mistake of being much too conservative in analyzing the options of the opposing side, an important lesson learned from WWII.

Time after time, they eschewed opportunity and pursued impossible goals instead. They repeatedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in a suicidal rush to oblivion. All this is nothing more than evidence of collective insanity from what should have been the most civilized, cultured, industrious, creative nation on the face of the earth.

Do I have to say "unconditional surrender"? I think you are right here though, it was desperation, especially towards the end.

Finally, today, with the reunification of Germany and the way that was done at great cost to the people of Western Germany, we see Germany taking the rightful place she should have taken seventy years ago. They were just as defeated after WWII as they were after WWI. The difference was one of attitude and resolve. Today they give no quarter to any nation as a people who can serve as an example for any nation on earth as how a country can be a positive good to the world. The German people can be rightly proud of their country and its accomplishments this past fifty years.

We were utterly defeated, found guilty of unprecedented crimes, and could count ourselves very lucky that the new situation after the war changed everything. So finally could get rid of the stupid militarism, become one of the most tame and also, americanized societies in Europe. But we paid a high price in being reduced to a second rate nation. But thanks a lot, it's always nice to be acquitted of the Nazi stereotype (I was born decades after the war, and I am tired of it).

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-18-08, 03:58 PM

These are excellent and very cogent posts, bringing the differneces and the similarieis into sharper and sharper focus.

The U Boat and the US Fleet Boat were highly developed weapons that had both their technology and their range of missions AND their tactics and strategic use evolving rapidly as the two sides of both Ocean Areas battled with each other.

As both fleets found plans pre war were changed radically by actual war and the reality of how it changed from projections. Both the USN and the IJN boats were freed from their fleet role but the IJN did not figure that out fast enough....

IN the atlantic, the U boat role as Sea Lane breaker worked but they could not change the physcial characteristics of the boats already in serivce to make them more effective in the face of fast improvment of Allied ASW and ASW Air. My grandfather used to say you plan for the battle you must fight in 5-8 years but you fight on ships built for the battle of 5 years ago.

re the Supreme leaders of WWII, they all had their fingers in the pie from what I hear, but ys, the USN was of the four major powers the most independent much because of the vastness of their efforts, the fleet grew to gigantic proportions and the actions had to be decided by the Admirals on the spot, something their equal numbers in the IJN, the KM and even the RN would have much desired, for Churchill did sadlly mess around quite often with strategy and tactics, but after a while they were able to keep him away.....he was a fool in such matters and directly caused the terrible debale of the idiotic invasion at Gallipoli, but that is another war and another story. FDR meddled a lot before the start of the US part of the war, he actually sent several semi secret missions to try to trigger a Japanese response, including a poorly armed schooner carrying a US Flag that was later portrayed in a movie....but Pearl Harbor did his desired result for him. He always fancied himself qualified to approve military matters and was fortunately unable to do more in the Pacific than he did in the Atlantic Theatre....for the outcome was able to be directed by the new lessons that the USN was learning fast.

Great comments from all hands here, remarkble and I think very good observations.

And I agree with GlobalExplorer's observations about the actual effectiveness of the U boat in combat and the robust nature of German design and planning, ..... and it was indeed widespread on all side to under estimate the enemy, in many ways, including codes.

There were many brave men in service in Germany as well who did not follow the Nazi line, yet who did their duty as best they could, modern societies are vulnerable to demagogs, US as much as anyone if one looks at modern american society which is rife with such adulation and poor judgment. From back then, to now, much we can see and learn.

tater

11-18-08, 04:19 PM

I think the key to the (quick) defeat was rather that Germany were resting on their laurels too long, not training enough new pilots before or after the Battle of Britain, not rationing food, not building better submarines and jet planes, sticking with antique shoes and carbines, no winter clothing, etc.

Actually, the failure of the u-boats was not the hardware (on either side), it was the squishy bits inside, and the squishies back at HQ.

In short, the failure was one of doctrine.

Unrestricted warfare was a good doctrine.

Concentration of firepower (wolfpacks) was good doctrine.

A certain amount of centralized control is even OK, but the data used needs to come from something other than your submarines.

Having your boats (that rely on stealth) routinely use long range radios is terrible, awful doctrine.

Had the germans put the pack commander in localized control, with only very short range radios, things might have gone better for them.

On the other side, US doctrine started out terribly wrong. Deep submerged attacks on sound alone for fear of air attack was bad. The whole "fleet boat" concept was obsolete---not because of Pearl Harbor, it was simply wrong, period. The whole notion of the "silent service," OTOH, was great submarine doctrine, and served them well throughout the war. They also quickly changed when they observed reality.

The fact is that overall, u-boats were incredibly ineffective vs convoyed ships. They should have realized this, and changed their thinking.

Rockin Robbins

11-18-08, 07:36 PM

Unrestricted warfare was a good doctrine.

There's where we differ. Unrestricted warfare was good doctrine in the Pacific. It was suicidal doctrine in the Atlantic. Without attempting to strangle Britain, in the process having no choice but to attack American ships, Hitler could have intimidated his way to peace after graciously allowing the British army to escape at Dunkirk.

With America full of German expatriates and sympathizers, Britain contemplating her naval (hehe) and wondering whether to sacrifice millions of lives to a cause of dubious nature and with small chance of success, the Nazis had an excellent chance of ending the war, at least long enough to be ready for the real war, right there.

What's the plea of the U-Boat fanboys? If only they had had that extra four or five years to build that they were promised? The time was available right after Dunkirk. But Hitler was a blood-crazed pitbull, no longer thinking of anything but killing whatever blundered in front of him. He refused to act or even consider whether he was acting in his own best interest. It makes you wonder whether the entire war was nothing but a suicidal impulse.

Unrestricted warfare unrestricted the options of Britain and the United States and restricted the options of Germany. The only option it left her was to die. It was a terrible decision for the fans of Germany, removing all hopes of any semblance of a victory or even a draw. The moment unrestricted submarine warfare was declared Germany was doomed.

Gorshkov

11-18-08, 07:39 PM

I think warfare reality and developed strategy of German and US submarine forces was so different that any comparisons here are very questionable...that is why Rockin's laughing on "too deep" U-boats max. depth is so laughable... :rotfl:

tater

11-18-08, 07:51 PM

We would have gotten into the war in Dec. 1941 regardless, with "Germany First" as our plan. Nothing would have stopped that.

Remember, also, that Germany declared war on the US first. I don't think the probability of any negotiated peace between Britain and Germany was any higher than all the air in the room I'm in moving to the upper left corner, frankly. Possible, I suppose, but amazingly improbable.

GlobalExplorer

11-18-08, 08:44 PM

'The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. Winston Churchill

A major fault lied with the Germans themselves never exploiting the U-boat strategy. Doenitz always said he wanted at least 300 boats, which he barely got when the Battle of the Atlantic was lost (in the beginning he had less than 50), and the boats were already reduced to cannon fodder.

The biggest reason for the german mistakes was the already mentioned boot licking attitude in Nazi germany, the instinctive packing around an alpha male: Hitler, Goering, Doenitz on the administrative level, the glorification of war heroes: Galland, Prien, Rommel. That killed self reflection, personal responsibility, and timely recognition of flaws. From 42 onwards german leaders were only covering up mistake after mistake. Truely a failure of an opressive vs. a liberal society.

But if we talk about U-Boat efficiency it makes a big difference if we talk about the first two years, when the Germans were clearly in the advantage, and Britain a bit slow in coming up to terms. Or after 42/43 when the battle in the Air and Sea was lost, and the entrance of the USA meant that the war as a whole was a lost cause.

Having your boats (that rely on stealth) routinely use long range radios is terrible, awful doctrine.

Concerning Radar on the american boats, I agree that is overrated, though it gave them an almost unfair advantage. It was much more important that the Japanese had no radar of their own. In general subs can do very well without Radar, and were most effective before it was invented. Once it was there, all subs were on the defense, especially in the case of the U-Boats, which had to operate under total enemy air supremacy.

Had the germans put the pack commander in localized control, with only very short range radios, things might have gone better for them.

Possibly, possibly the advantages would have been reversed because the germany were unable to realize the capabilities of huff duff.

GlobalExplorer

11-18-08, 08:56 PM

Remember, also, that Germany declared war on the US first

One gets the impression they did it only because they could sink more tonnage, at a moment when the numbers had become dissappointing due to more effective british asw. If that is really the case, doesn't it underline that there was really something wrong with their sense of realism?

I don't think the probability of any negotiated peace between Britain and Germany was any higher than all the air in the room I'm in moving to the upper left corner, frankly. Possible, I suppose, but amazingly improbable.

That is an interesting question, but one that will never be answered. With Churchill in power, no way, but with another leader? Even he himself was fully aware that his pursuit of the war meant the ultimate sacrifice: the economic ruin of the British Empire, in order to save the free world. Britain lost the war to the two new superpowers in that respect.

breadcatcher101

11-18-08, 09:30 PM

The fact that Germany declared war on the US is interesting in the fact that the intent was that Japan should return the favor and declare war on Russia. Hitler in having a two front war had simply bit off more than he could chew. Should Japan had engaged Russia at that time it would have been a big help to Germany. Japan however in fighting China already to her west did not have any interest in adding Russia to her list of foes.

So like some soap opera you have the US pledging to defeat Germany first when they were attacked by the Japan--not Germany--at Pearl, Hitler declaring war on a nation, America, one he went to great lenghts to avoid doing so, and the don't ask don't tell policy between Russia and Japan--who by treaty should be at war--not only not fighting each other but behaving almost like friends!

tater

11-18-08, 10:04 PM

Radar is a double edged sword (as it certainly is now). At the time, US boats had radar, but if you read about specific boats, the skippers were very aware that their radar might be detected, and they in fact detected enemy radars sometimes themselves.

Unlike normal RDF gear, they knew that the enemy was not as capable in terms of detection and so were a little more loose with it.

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-19-08, 01:00 AM

the IJN had radar towards the end but not that good and not that widely deployed.

Hitman

11-19-08, 08:06 AM

Again very interesting comments here :up:

Had the germans put the pack commander in localized control, with only very short range radios, things might have gone better for them.

Here's an interesting fact that not everybody knows: The original purpose of the Type IX U-Boats was to serve as control station for the Flotilla Chief in the Front :) i.e. the flotilla chief would embark in a Type IX and lead a wolfpack of Type VIIs from his unit to engage the convoy in the North Atlantic. Hence the longer range and endurance of the Type IX, as it was prepared as sort of battlefield high command post.

The idea got buried due to the lack of enough units and the development of long range communications; Dönitz and his HQ made here one of the biggest mistakes by later not realizing their codes had been compromised despite all evidences.

The biggest reason for the german mistakes was the already mentioned boot licking attitude in Nazi germany, the instinctive packing around an alpha male: Hitler, Goering, Doenitz on the administrative level, the glorification of war heroes: Galland, Prien, Rommel. That killed self reflection, personal responsibility, and timely recognition of flaws. From 42 onwards german leaders were only covering up mistake after mistake. Truely a failure of an opressive vs. a liberal society.

:yep: After all, Hitler was just a private from WW1, his real knowledge of military tactis at high level was equal to zero, and despite having proven very intuitive in certain matters, and with a sharp eye in politics, he failed to accept his own errors in military command. Also, the german forces were completely caught by surprise with a war in 1939; Hitler had assured his high staff that there would be no war before 1945 (Navy's Plan Z had 1946 has main objective for full completion).

BTW Global, I'm currently reading Adolf Galland's memories and what a lesson he teaches of how ridiculously bad was conducted the war by Hitler and his friends. Even if they had not commited crimes against humanity or started an aggression war, they should have been hanged for their negligence in decissions-making.

In all, I must say that I'm sorry that germans lost WW1 (Somehow I think that if they had won it there would have been no WW2, as they probably would not have done a Versailles Treaty and an explotation of the defated nations like UK and France did), but I really, really thank God for them having lost WW2. It sends shivers down my spine to think about a nazi germany victorius and with nuclear weapons in his arsenal :o

tater

11-19-08, 09:49 AM

Admittedly hindsight is 20/20. So it's easy for us to stand back and say "well their was no way they could have won." Back in 1940 most people were convinced the Nazis and Japanese were going to win. Even by 1943 most allied leaders were still paranoid about the war effort, and felt that at any time the tide could turn back against them. Propaganda inflating the capabilities of the Axis was common all over the world since leaders had to convince people things were serious, and they were.

US leaders never thought the japanese were going to win. I have quotes from before the war of a US Admiral telling a japanese diplomat in no uncertain terms exactly how Japan would lose a war with the US should they start one. He was dead on (it was in Willmott's Empires in the Balance (which is a GREAT book, BTW). He points out that this was not a belief specific to this one guy, it was the standard belief regarding Japan, and why "Germany First" was the policy, beating Japan was a foregone conclusion to the Pentagon (even just before there was a Pentagon ;) )

I should add the the Japanese themselves didn't think they were going to win. The IGHQ literally classed their chances in the upcoming war as a "90% chance of 'national death'." (quote from an IGHQ officer in a 1961 interview was in Combined Fleet Decoded, also an excellent book)

tater

GlobalExplorer

11-19-08, 01:32 PM

BTW Global, I'm currently reading Adolf Galland's memories and what a lesson he teaches of how ridiculously bad was conducted the war by Hitler and his friends. Even if they had not commited crimes against humanity or started an aggression war, they should have been hanged for their negligence in decissions-making.

I would be careful imo Galland was the epitome of an aristocratic *******, trying to put the blame on unworthy proletarians and civilians. It was exactly the same elitist folks that created the Dolchstoss myth and opened up the way for the Nazis before WWII. His defects as a leader are illustrated perfectly by how he used his squadron mates, whose purpose was reduced to lead prey directly into his reticule, so that he could build up his warrior record. It is exactly that german idealization of the super-hero that I am criticising and that apparently works even into the presence. In contrast the British never put much weight on aerial victories, or merchant tonnage, what mattered was only that germans came down, not who got the credit.

In all, I must say that I'm sorry that germans lost WW1 (Somehow I think that if they had won it there would have been no WW2, as they probably would not have done a Versailles Treaty and an explotation of the defated nations like UK and France did),

Careful, I don't see why you should give this much credit to our WilhelmII, why wouldn't he have done exactly the same thing, with that massive chip on his shoulder? The kind of ideas the germans had for post WWI was illustrated nicely by the treaty of Brest Litowsk, which was at least as exorbitant as Versailles.

The best would have been if there had been no WWI in the first place, if the Kaiser could have struck a deal with his cousin, and continued german prosperity in the middle east and the second rate colonies. However what does it matter what he did? The wars in the last 100 years were part of a continuous process, requiring constant elimination of superpowers. That process was over in 1990, when there was just one left, and now we're already in a completely new age.

GlobalExplorer

11-19-08, 01:58 PM

:yep: After all, Hitler was just a private from WW1, his real knowledge of military tactis at high level was equal to zero, and despite having proven very intuitive in certain matters, and with a sharp eye in politics, he failed to accept his own errors in military command.

I don't think so, in his early career he must have been a brilliant mind with exceptional charisma. Clearly later on defects in his personality took over (repressed sexuality), as well as physical handicaps (Parkinsonism), and he should have been removed from power when it was clear that he was retreating into his own world and in fact didnt give a damn about his people. But at that point the messianic cult of the super human that germany was indulging in was already irreversible. This is nicely correlated with the fact that in the end everyone put the blame on Hitler, when in fact he would have been just an ordinary guy had it not been that 100 million people bestowed complete responsibility on him and his messianic powers.

Still it would have been interesting to hear him defend his case, and outline what led him to his strategic decisions, which imo were sound, though later on more and more uncorrelated with reality. Has anyone ever considered that maybe later on information was handed him only through a pink filter?

P.S. Please let me stress that I am trying to reduce the discussion to Hitler the strategist and politician, his acts against humanity are on a completely different level.

Hitman

11-19-08, 03:43 PM

I would be careful imo Galland was the epitome of an aristocratic *******, trying to put the blame on unworthy proletarians and civilians. It was exactly the same elitist folks that created the Dolchstoss myth and opened up the way for the Nazis before WWII. His defects as a leader are illustrated perfectly by how he used his squadron mates, whose purpose was reduced to lead prey directly into his reticule, so that he could build up his warrior record. It is exactly that german idealization of the super-hero that I am criticising and that apparently works even into the presence. In contrast the British never put much weight on aerial victories, or merchant tonnage, what mattered was only that germans came down, not who got the credit.

Yes, he had also his weak points, but most of what he tells about Göring's and Hitler's decissions is confirmed by other sources. I knew anyway I should take his narration with a grain of salt from the very beginning because his combat pilot baptism of fire was here in Spain, and what he narrated wasn't exactly the same version I know from different sources :)

Anyway I don't consider him a "hero", but just a very experienced combat aviator that went through the whole war and had much experiences to tell.

Careful, I don't see why you should give this much credit to our WilhelmII, why wouldn't he have done exactly the same thing, with that massive chip on his shoulder? The kind of ideas the germans had for post WWI was illustrated nicely by the treaty of Brest Litowsk, which was at least as exorbitant as Versailles.

The best would have been if there had been no WWI in the first place, if the Kaiser could have struck a deal with his cousin, and continued german prosperity in the middle east and the second rate colonies. However what does it matter what he did? The wars in the last 100 years were part of a continuous process, requiring constant elimination of superpowers. That process was over in 1990, when there was just one left, and now we're already in a completely new age.

Of course I would have loved that no WW had ever happened. My grand-grandfather studied medic in Berlin in the glory days of the Empire (End of the 19th century) and was so much impressed by the german science and culture that all the generations of my family since then have received german education. How I wish I could have seen the magnificient Berlin of that era, or of today but without the horrors of WW1 & 2, that have destroyed so much beauty and art :cry:

I was just trying to illustrate the point that even if being so pro-german as I am, I celebrate the fact that Germany lost WW2. Winning WW1 could have turned like you suggest, but that would have been just a change in situations for the countries that fought. Nothing compared to what would have happened if Hitler had won :o

in his early career he must have been a brilliant mind with exceptional charisma

That doesn't make him a brilliant military! It's like having that brilliant mind but not studying laws: You will never be a brilliant lawyer, no matter how much potential you have.

His political side was a completely different matter, however, that's something one must concede.

Clearly later on defects in his personality took over (repressed sexuality), as well as physical handicaps (Parkinsonism), and he should have been removed from power when it was clear that he was retreating into his own world and in fact didnt give a damn about his people.

I readed some time ago an interesting article (Though I can't remember where) explaining how his personal doctor (A supposed visionary of his area) made experiments with him regarding medication, and the drugs he put into Hitler exaggerated his character and caused furious attacks of incontrollable rage and extreme highs/lows in his feelings. It was not just his personality and the germanic cult of a leader (Having no criticism and opposition) what deteriorated him so much, there was apparently more.

But at that point the messianic cult of the super human that germany was indulging in was already irreversible. This is nicely correlated with the fact that in the end everyone put the blame on Hitler, when in fact he would have been just an ordinary guy had it not been that 100 million people bestowed complete responsibility on him and his messianic powers.

I readed some time ago an interesting doctorate from a teacher of administrative law in the university where he studied the origins of the german concept of authority and loyalty to the state and the man who represents it. He defended in his tesis that it is rooted already in the medieval Knights of the germanic military branches and their pacts of fidelity to the king in the era of the Sacred Roman-germanic Empire, and was greatly extended in the prussian social organization, later in the whole germany as it was unificated under the prussian kings, and Hitler benefitted from that greatly by occupying the vacuum left by the Kaiser in the eyes of the Army, and of most germans.

Ordinary guy? How unfortunate that his paintings didn't sell well, I have seen some of them and they weren't that bad!

GlobalExplorer

11-20-08, 12:19 PM

I readed some time ago an interesting article (Though I can't remember where) explaining how his personal doctor (A supposed visionary of his area) made experiments with him regarding medication, and the drugs he put into Hitler exaggerated his character and caused furious attacks of incontrollable rage and extreme highs/lows in his feelings. It was not just his personality and the germanic cult of a leader (Having no criticism and opposition) what deteriorated him so much, there was apparently more.

After nearly everything has been said about this man, the psychological aspects were mostly overlooked. As it seems he not only suffered from mania (or maniac depressive disorder), Parkinsonism, but also from a complex repressed sexuality: allegedly he never had sex with Eva Braun, instead had cultivated a sadistic relationship with his niece (who later killed herself). Apart from these things which he obviously could keep under the carpet, the extreme confidence he radiated is nicely correlated with the diagnosed mania, and his later mood swings also fit into the picture.

Hitman

11-20-08, 12:47 PM

Yes I had readed about that in J.A. Vallejo Nágera (A very famous spanish psychiatrist who directed a hospital in New York) in his book: "Locos egregios" (Famous mads), an essay to make a psychiatric diagnosis about the personality of a series of famous personalities in history: http://www.fisterra.com/human/1libros/no_ficcion/locos_egregios.asp

BTW I can only recommend that book to anyone, it's a very interesting and enjoyable read.:up:

Admiral Von Gerlach

11-20-08, 01:36 PM

Yes I have read that book with great interest, I studied the leaders of WWII and thru history in research and decision making in large complex socities is not easy, but Hitler was clearly mad and deranged and his military decisions ruined any hopes of rational planning and indeed humane conduct of the war, WWII. WWI was a international suicide pact that was carried out by all the major powers, and sadly destoryed much that was good. We have recovered a lot but the world might have been quite different. This is an excellent discussion and I read it with much appreciation and interest. War is in the end only an extension of policy that has failed to understand how to negoitate and act in a realistic and compassionate way....ie a failure of compromise and understanding of other ppls and countries needs and challenges. There are no victors in War and there is no glory..but there are many brave and dedicated people and much sacrifice.

Hoss1193

11-20-08, 09:41 PM

Great thread, lots of good discussion. On the original subject of US vs German submarines, here's my thoughts...

I agree with most of the comments about depth vs firepower (torpedo tubes), range, etc...but I don't think that these were defining factors in the success/failure of the respective US/German submarine campaigns. Regarding the spot-on observations about comms discipline - fully concur that this had a significant impact, but even this, I think, didn't have a decisive effect on ultimate outcomes.

Bottom line, from my perspective, is that at the tactical level, both USN & KM had effective boats manned by tough & proficient skippers and crews. Relative strengths/weaknesses notwithstanding, their differences are far outweighed by the similarities: diesel-electric boats, with basically same speed/range/depth characteristics, armed with comparable torpedoes. Sure there were differences, but they were differences of degree rather than kind.

In the big picture, one campaign was successful and one failed because they fought very different wars. Two big reasons:

1) At the strategic level, the Allies' industrial/economic advantage was just too insurmountable. This factor, of course, came into play in all theaters, for all services. As one poster mentioned, Allies reached a point where they were building ships much faster than Germany could sink them. The US submarine force didn't face this problem in the Pacific.

2) Allies put high priority and achieved success in rapidly improving ASW doctrine, technology, and force structure. Japan did not - not even an effective convoy organization, let alone production of improved, dedicated ASW surface and air capability. Assuming even a semblance of historical accuracy, we see this ourselves in SH3 & SH4. Not far into an SH3 career, you reach a point where lone slow ships are extremely rare, while aircraft & escorts increase in number and effectiveness. The SH4 skipper, doesn't experience that; the tactical challenge in late '44 isn't much different from early '42; aircraft aren't any scarier, escorts aren't much more effective, and there's still plenty of lone slow merchies plowing around almost 3 years into the war who apparently haven't yet deduced that there's a submarine threat out there - Straight non zig-zag courses, non-convoyed.

I'm not trying to say "that's the way it was because Ubisoft says so"...just trying to point out that the game does a decent job of reflecting historical fact: US/UK effectively responded to the submarine threat, while Japan didn't.

Another way to look at it is role-reversal; if US skippers/crews in US fleet boats had tried to fight the Germans' North Atlantic campaign...they probably wouldn't have done much better. And vice versa for German U-boats waging the US Pacific war...they probably would have achieved similar results against the Japanese ASW defense.

Ok...standing by for counterfire. Batteries released! :)

Rockin Robbins

11-21-08, 06:40 AM

Yes, load up the HE..... Fire when ready!

The US would not have used submarines in the Atlantic for offensive purposes if the roles were reversed. Submarines were not appropriate to the task at hand and could only lead to defeat. The Germans used submarines because they were the only tool in the toolbox and they didn't know what to do. If Raeder were to exert any cajones in the war, it would have to be with submarines. An admiral without a viable navy is just a front-line private on the Russian front.

Why were submarines inappropriate weapons for the Germans? Let's look at the Pacific war and why subs WERE appropriate there. Japan, working alone, used its merchant fleet to go out, fill up with supplies from captured oil fields mostly, and return those supplies to the island of Japan. We were able to isolate the island, knock down Japanese supplies in Japanese bottoms and choke off any replacements of war matériel for the future. The key is Japanese cargo, Japanese bottoms, no foreign entanglements.

Against Britain, Germany was sinking ships of a number of nations, bringing in supplies from multiple sources, not just of food and raw materials, but finished products. The only way to choke off Britain was to bring those supplier nations into the war. The United States is not an island, was self sufficient and not subject to strangulation by submarine encirclement. The war was lost as soon as the decision was made to use a weapon that was inappropriate to the job at hand. Using U-Boats was one of the the worst decisions of the war.

GlobalExplorer

11-21-08, 01:49 PM

@Rockin Robbins: Look that just makes very little sense. Britain was extremely dependent on her atlantic imports, and a relatively small number of U-boats were an excellent way to hurt her war machinery. Look at the resources the allies had to muster in order to eventually counter them. Even if the boats didn't sink any ships at all, the convoy system alone meant a drastic reduction in transport capacity, because ships had to wait in port before all were ready and then wait again for unloading. The reason no more was achieved was rather in Germany diluting her was efforts on all fronts, when Dönitz said he wanted at least 300 boats he got only 100, during Paukenschlag there was a genuine chance to disrupt US shipping for several months, had it not been conducted by just a dozen boats. Even Churchill, who was certainly no coward, said the u-boats scared him more than anything else.

Rockin Robbins

11-21-08, 05:20 PM

I thought I was clear. Britain could not be starved because her stuff (technical term) was shipped on foreign bottoms from nations not subject to U-Boat strangulation. Sinking those boats from nations, especially the United States, resulted in a war they could not possibly win. 300 U-Boats would only have been 300 more coffins on the bottom of the Atlantic.

A submarine is a proper weapon if:

1. You are fighting an island nation without raw materials of its own which is importing raw materials on its own bottoms so that you draw no nation into the war who you cannot beat.

2. You control the sea and air at least enough to give your subs relatively safe passage into and out of the enemy shipping lanes.

3. If there are any choke points between where you are and where you need to be, you need to control them.

4. The presence of the submarines needs to be unknown enough that convoys cannot easily bypass them because the subs are slow. Chatting promiscuously on the radio is suicide.

Germany had three strikes there. None of these conditions were met. Therefore, they were blasted out of the water in the Bay of Biscay on the way out and blasted there again on the way in by unhindered air and sea forces of the enemy. They had no control of the sea or air so hunter-killer groups could swarm and kill at will. They broadcast their whereabouts like a couple of schoolgirls on cell phones. And in order to do as well as they did, they drew the United States, an unbeatable foe, into the war when there was no reason to do so.

All this makes "very little sense?" The submarine was an inappropriate tool for Germany to use in WWII. There was no reason for the Germans to fight the United States, or Britain, for that matter, except that the inappropriate use of the subs made it impossible to avoid. Doenitz had plenty of subs for operations that made sense. He did not have enough to attempt the foolishness that he engaged in. He would have lost even with his 300 subs.

Hoss1193

11-21-08, 06:17 PM

I think RR is right on regarding the larger strategic & political impacts. In my post, I was simpy comparing the submarines & crews themselves...saying that there was no hugely decisive advantage/disadvantage at the tactical unit level. If US subs/crews had tried to fight the German campaign, they too would have met failure, and vice versa.

I do agree that comms discipline was huge factor.

Where I *do* differ from RR a little and lean toward Global's viewpoint...I *do* think that with sufficient U-boats, the KM might have been able to force UK out of the war; perhaps not outright surrender, but at least an offer of armistice - which I think Germany may very well have accepted, even with crazy Adolf at the helm. BUT; after Dec 1941, this wasn't possible, because US entered the war. At that point, yes, I agree with RR; quickly became futile for the U-boat effort. Fully concur that number of boats involved in Drumbeat was irrelevant in the long term.

Ironic that Germany's "ally" actually forced the event that sealed the Reich's doom. And still incomprehensible to me that Germany declared war on the US...it's not entirely clear to me that, Pearl Harbor notwithstanding, Roosevelt and Congress would have immediately jumped into the war with Germany without that. Sure, Roosevelt *wanted* to....but domestic politics were what they were. Germany's declaration freed him politically.

Even today, I've met quite a few folks from that time period who've told me that they fully supported war vs Japan because of the Pearl Harbor attack, but didn't think that Europe was our fight, and would have been quite content not to enter that conflict. I think that's somethiing that isn't much discussed today.

Another interesting "what if" variable: Today the idea of a separate peace between Germany & USSR seems kinda weird - of all the various combatants, these two in particular seemed more than anyone else to be implacable foes locked in a death struggle. The truth may have been more complex than that. In 1943, Germany was clearly in trouble, but USSR wasn't in much better shape. Sure both countries were able to continue the war, but I think at that point the attractiveness and possibility of a peace agreement (or at least a "non-war" agreement, kinda like Korea today) was much more real than is commonly perceived today. Diplomats of both countries were in contact with each other in neutral countries (most notably in Stockholm), and there was a lot of discussion about such an arrangement. Indeed, that was probably Roosevelt/Churchill's biggest worry throughout 1943 - that Russia would stop fighting. The entire Africa/Mediterranean campaign from Casablanca to Anzio was fought just for that reason....to convince Stalin to stay in the Alliance.

So..."what if", even after US entered the war, the U-boats (again, in sufficient numbers), had been able to harass/interdict Atlantic shipping to the point of *delaying* the North Africa/Sicily/Italy/even Normandy operations because of restricted flow of war material? Maybe delay them enough that USSR just said "enough is enough" and bowed out.

Doesn't mean US/UK would have quit also. And doesn't mean Germany would have "won" either. But would have led to a longer war and possibly an outcome for Germany not quite as stark as Unconditional Surrender.

Rockin Robbins

11-21-08, 10:17 PM

Wow, all that is really hard to say because Hitler was crazy. Irrationality will always be confusing. And Hitler was irrational all the way from the most simple basic decisions to global strategy decisions. Irrational and very dangerous to his own people. This cut off his ties to reality altogether as terrified underlings sought to feed him what he wanted to hear right then and then get out of sight. All the "might haves" that make sense to us would have made no sense to him at all.

My speculation also is baseless, because I don't believe Hitler was capable of pulling it off. It's just fun to speculate. Someone else would have had to have been in charge to make anything different happen than what did.

gAiNiAc

11-21-08, 11:25 PM

If I may chime in here.........

A submarine force is useless without a surface Navy. The most you can achieve is some interdiction.

The reason the USN subs were so successful is because the IJN was actively engaged by US surface forces.

Surface (and Air) forces in the Atlantic had nothing else to do other than solve the ASW problem.

Germany could not effectively counter the allied surface fleets. They had none of their own. Pretty ridiculous to start a war where Naval Supremacy will most likely be a factor without a Navy.

Remember as well that the "strangling" of the UK was supposed to culminate with a Nazi amphimbious invasion. "Overlord" was a stillborn. Their moment of opportunity waxed and waned with the turning of the Air Battle Of Britain.

It's impossible to take the submarine platfrom and analyze their strategic implications in a vacuum.

Submarines are properly employed as part of a fleet.

GlobalExplorer

11-22-08, 03:28 AM

You guys are forgetting that the U-boats war was fought against Great Britain and not the USA, and that the whole strategy was based on the realities of 1939 - 1941, when Germany still had a chance to defeat Britain with swift action as it had with France. From 1942 onwards, I agree, Germany had missed her small chance and it was a lost cause once Britain and the USA were geared up for war, and with Russias neverending supply of cannonfodder.

Had Germany build and concentrated a maximum number of boats as well as her whole airforce to the siege of Britain, while she was struggling with the most basic ASW measures, and the USA was a teethless giant, this had a realistic chance of completely disrupting Britains imports, forcing Churchill out of power and getting an armistice in 12 months. That was the plan, and it was not impossible in '40 and '41, but it was never carried out. Instead Hitler conducted the Atlantic campaign more like a propaganda war that would give him of a big number of war heros and propaganda material for very little investment.

Therefore, they were blasted out of the water in the Bay of Biscay on the way out and blasted there again on the way in by unhindered air and sea forces of the enemy.
They were never "forced" out of the Biscay, because they weren't given any airplanes of their own, which was rather neglect from their leadership.

They broadcast their whereabouts like a couple of schoolgirls on cell phones.

What are you talking about? The only people behaving like schoolgirls were US skippers at the beginning of the war.

And in order to do as well as they did, they drew the United States, an unbeatable foe, into the war when there was no reason to do so.
The USA might have been unbeatable but that matter less as long as Germany was also an "unbeatable" foe wrt their land force. In that respect the attack of Russia was much more fateful than the attack of the USA, because the USA was the only country that was not going to sacrifice 5 , 8 , 10 million soldiers and not the 400.000 or so they eventually lost on all theatres. Even in 1944 Germany would have easily stopped stopped Overlord, had it not been for the Russians.

Hitman

11-22-08, 08:20 AM

You guys are forgetting that the U-boats war was fought against Great Britain and not the USA, and that the whole strategy was based on the realities of 1939 - 1941, when Germany still had a chance to defeat Britain with swift action as it had with France. From 1942 onwards, I agree, Germany had missed her small chance and it was a lost cause once Britain and the USA were geared up for war, and with Russias neverending supply of cannonfodder.

Had Germany build and concentrated a maximum number of boats as well as her whole airforce to the siege of Britain, while she was struggling with the most basic ASW measures, and the USA was a teethless giant, this had a realistic chance of completely disrupting Britains imports, forcing Churchill out of power and getting an armistice in 12 months. That was the plan, and it was not impossible in '40 and '41, but it was never carried out. Instead Hitler conducted the Atlantic campaign more like a propaganda war that would give him of a big number of war heros and propaganda material for very little investment.

Agree COMPLETELY

A decided and brutal U-Boat blockade (With enough U-Boats) at the beginning of the war would have effectively strangled England and forced a negotiated peace. The USA would have been too slow to react in 1939, but the thing is, Hitler always believed (And failed) that he would be able to keep Britain out of his crusade against the Soviet Union. That's the reason he never approved to invest resources in U-Boats, but instead diverted them to panzers and surface ships (More useful against the USSR than submarines).

Hartmann

11-22-08, 12:49 PM

Yes. if germany don´t change his tactics during the england battle and continues bombing factories, airfields and harbours, this together with a decided u-boat blockade could strangled England and forced them to surrender or negociate.

Rockin Robbins

11-22-08, 01:12 PM

First of all Germany had no planes that could reach more than a third of Britain. You can't conquer a nation you can't touch. Secondly, Germany had no way to transport the invasion across the English Channel. This very basic qualification for any invasion has, for some reason, been ignored by those who champion German possibility for victory in WWII.
Conclusion: the Battle of Britain and subsequent invasion were never possible from the beginning. Hitler was only wasting his best-trained pilots tilting at windmills.

Second, the only way to strangle Britain with the subs was to sink American shipping. Doing that would have brought the US into the war with or without Pearl Harbor. Without Pearl Harbor, you can imagine the consequences. With Pearl Harbor it just doomed Germany. Had Britain signed any type of armistice, it would have been short-lived as they would have been necessarily liberated right away to give us the indispensible base of operations they were in order to prosecute the war.

Third, if there were no attack on Russia is absurd. Hitler's goals in order of priority were the killing of all Jews and the conquest of Russia. Everything else was just an obstacle to those two goals. The top two obstacles as he saw it were the French, a mere nuisance, (use a french-derived word to describe them: how appropriate) and the Italians (sometimes with the friends you have you don't need enemies). In other words, Russia was a primary goal of Hitler's war, not an unfortunate error. The United States was an unfortunate error, and the UK as well. I believe we tend to unjustly minimize the British contribution to victory.

If Britain were neutralized, it would only have been for a very short time, as the means of making them capitulate must bring the US into the war. Conclusion: build half the number of submarines, use them for defensive purposes, use the saved raw materials for more land based weapons and win the continent of Europe.

Of course Hitler was capable of none of this.

GlobalExplorer

11-22-08, 02:48 PM

@RR no disagreement to what you say this time but didnt you silently change the topic? From the question of the best submarine strategy for Germany / USA to the question if Germany had a genuine chance to achieve world domination? (I don't think she had).

Yes. if germany don´t change his tactics during the england battle and continues bombing factories, airfields and harbours, this together with a decided u-boat blockade could strangled England and forced them to surrender or negociate.
That's exactly what they tried, and failed with miserably. Germany was not in a position to achieve anything with an air offensive against the British mainland. They did not have the right equipment, there were serious defects in the Luftwaffe, all in all they were fighting the battle under the most unfavorable conditions.

Nazi propaganda had done its utmost to convince the world that the Luftwaffe was invincible, and they were so successful that in the end they were fooled by it themselves. Hitler definitely believed it, but a closer look reveals that his officials had tried to impress him with inflated numbers, especially after they had been complacent to make good the losses from Poland, Norway and France.

I am not saying it would have won WWII, but the best strategy would have been to concentrate all efforts of all arms on Britain. That would have meant building more U-Boats, and use them together with a new naval airforce (built from 4-engined types with sufficient range) to attack british shipping, thereby negating all the British advantages of fighting over their mainland which made Battle of Britain such a glorious affair for the defenders.

The RAF would have had a hard time struggling against lone Fw200s and torpedo planes, as the british escorts against U-Boats. And they would have lost many many pilots in the icy atlantic. In fact the Luftwaffe had at least had a basic sea-rescue service, the RAF had none. German airplanes were very effective against convoys, as demonstrated in Norway where they had some naval bombers. And a few hundred long range interceptors along the French coast could have turned the tables on coastal command, in that case Biscay could have been their cemetry and not that of the U-Boats.

Apart from a couple of nightfighters the germans never had any airplanes over France after Barbarossa which gave the RAF years to build up before the invasion, and it was a death sentence for the U-boats.

P.S. Let me add the germans had many additional options on their sleeve, like sending commando troops over the channel, frogmen and explosive ships into british ports, torpedo boats, long range artilley and rockets, mines, etc, and they never used them. Britain was extremely vulnerable from the sea.