U-Boats cost Germany WWII!

[Rockin Robbins]

In another thread comparing SH3 and SH4 I raised the irrelevent question of how different U-Boats were than American submarines. So I decided to start a new thread to discuss design and use of both types of subs.

Much has been made of the similarity of German strategy in the Atlantik and American stategy in the Pacific. They were both unrestricted warfare upon the shipping of the enemy nation with the intent of denying them supplies necessary to prosecute the war. So why the difference in outcome?

The German U-Boat was a badly designed vessel, used in an inappropriate manner which actually guaranteed total defeat for Germany. The American fleet submarine, while not built for the purpose and strategy with which it was used, fit its use perfectly.

Let's look at the German side first. Fundamentally, the greatest flaw in the dominant Type VII U-Boat design was that it was too small and did not carry sufficient firepower to make a difference when acting alone. Carrying only 14 torpedoes, some of which were carried on the exterior of the hull, against a 20 ship convoy, they were urinating on a forest fire. Even during the best times, the U-Boat fleet had only a few months where they destroyed more shipping than the Allies built. The battle of the Atlantik was a war of attrition and the U-Boat fleet didn't have the firepower to destroy quicker than the Allies built their fleets. It was only a matter of time before they were overwhelmed, even by inferior equipment. They were doomed by design.

Then there are fatal flaws in the German strategy, borne of the critical difference between Japan and Britain. Japan stood alone, with few supplies of her own and depended on her own merchant fleet to bring war supplies to the home island. Total submarine warfare sank the merchies, denying Japan supplies to produce ships, planes and weapons. The result was victory in the Pacific.

However, Germany's war against Britain was only superficially similar. The differences made unrestricted submarine warfare a foolish proposition. British supplies came not on British bottoms but on neutral ships as well. In order to starve the enemy, Germany had no choice but to sink American merchants. But America was not subject to starvation by U-Boat strangulation. Once American war production ramped up, even with poor defenses against U-Boat attacks, ships were being built faster than the U-Boats could ever sink them. The war was over, even though it took a few years for Germany to acknowledge the fact.

Using U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, then, was a colossal blunder, wasting valuable resources which could have been used to produce planes, tanks, weapons....you know, actually useful war materials! Coupled with the equally idiotic Battle of Britain, Germany could only choose to die then or later. The war was unwinnable.

Notice that I said nothing about Enigma machine follies or the incessant radio chat that doomed thousands of German sailors. They were just sidelights of the essential flaw.

Just think if after Dunkirk Goering had made a special broadcast: "To our comrades across the Channel. We have allowed your army to escape Dunkirk because we have no quarrel with our friends in England. We realize you had unfortunate obligations due to your treaties with European countries, but those obligations are now satisfied. Germany has realized her aims. It now lies to us to reform a new world in our own image, leading civilization on to the greatness that only we working together can achieve." No U-Boat unrestricted warfare. No Battle of Britain. No Americans in the war. I'd say Germany would have won. U-Boats lost the war.

Let's go to Japan! America did not merely copy German submarine strategy. First, they determined that it was appropriate to the situation and could result in victory. Japanese war materiel was entirely made in Japan from supplies shipped there on Japanese bottoms. Therefore, sinking Japanese merchants would deprive Japan of the ability to continue the war. American submarines were supplied with 24 torpedoes apiece, enough to justify the long transit times to and from reloading, and giving each submarine enough punch to remain on station for a telling amount of time, delivering significant blows to keep ahead of Japanese production. This minimized the need for excessive radio chat. In fact American boats acting in wolfpacks still did not use the radio very much. They knew the results of radio direction finding. And this appropriate use of a weapon which fit its theater of operations perfectly resulted in victory for the Allies in the Pacific.

So there you go!:lol: Pop out those "so many ways" that I am wrong.

The following has been a reasoned troll to generate discussion, not animosity. I hope we can have fun with this, not fight.

[AVGWarhawk]

All I can say for both theaters, it was no simply victory.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think the U-boat was necessarily a flawed design. I think bureaucracy was the fatal flaw in the U-boat arm. The U-boat was designed with the war it had to fight in mind. Smaller size wasn't a downfall as the Atlantic theatre was smaller than the Pacific. They didn't need to be as big as fleet boats. Especially once the U-boat bases on the coast of France were established.

If Doenitz had the numbers he asked for in the beginning of the war, they would have certainly been able to put more of a stranglehold on Britain. You can blame Hitler's obession with battleships and the misallocation of resources towards surface ships and the Graf Zeppelin project, when they could have been used to build up the U-boat fleet to the critical mass needed in order to completely encircle Britain.

There's certainly a lot of decisions that were made that bring up a lot of "if's". If Hitler hadn't been so obssessed with keeping boats out of the action defending the coasts of Norway against an invasion that never came, and sending them on suicide missions through the Med trying to help Rommel, they would have been able to focus on the Atlantic where they needed to be. If the development of the Type XXI was given the priority it deserved instead of being relegated to the back burner once the war was "won", they would have had that asset available. If the schnorkel had been installed in boats prior to 1943, it would have helped tremendously. If the Germans had realized the importance of radar (going back to your point about the Battle of Britain...one of the major blunders of the Luftwaffe was not taking out British radar installations which gave the RAF early warning enough to scramble during air raids), they would have certainly made more progress in that arena as well. It's not like the technology was unknown to them, it's just that they didn't know how to use it.

[Reinhard Hardegen]

In 1942 6 u-boats almost stoped the convoys up and down the east coast of the united states. If Hitler would have let more boats into the US waters then all shipping would have come to a crawl and the UK would have had to drop out of the war. No D-day, no one to come to the aid of the allies in the war.

In just 8 months U-boats had almost won the war in the US waters. If they had the 20 - 30 boats there, it would have been a differant war.

[Sailor Steve]

Just think if after Dunkirk Goering had made a special broadcast: "To our comrades across the Channel. We have allowed your army to escape Dunkirk because we have no quarrel with our friends in England. We realize you had unfortunate obligations due to your treaties with European countries, but those obligations are now satisfied. Germany has realized her aims. It now lies to us to reform a new world in our own image, leading civilization on to the greatness that only we working together can achieve."
Well, the first problem with that scenario is that it supposedly actually happened. The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance. The British Ambassador, Sir David Kelly, reportedly replied "We're not easily frightened. Also, we know how hard it is for an army to cross the channel. Last little corporal who tried came a cropper. So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! And even then we won't listen."

At least that's the way Battle Of Britain tells it.:rotfl:

I'll have to find it in a book to verify, but until then...

[Ducimus]

Somebody's just itchin' for some debatin'. :rotfl:

my 2 cents worth:

1.) Code breaking, and not knowing it had been broken
2.) Lack of advances in electronic warfare


And on that note, im GLAD they lost, and good riddence! You'll never find me saying, "well, if uboats had done this or that theyd have won the war!" as if cheering for ones favorite football team. In discussions such as these, i think its important to keep ones perspective on reality.

[Donner]

And on that note, im GLAD they lost, and good riddence! You'll never find me saying, "well, if uboats had done this or that theyd have won the war!" as if cheering for ones favorite football team. In discussions such as these, i think its important to keep ones perspective on reality.

What he said!:up:

I consider the men of the U-bootwaffe heroic. I have been fortunate enough to make friendships with several U-boat Ritterkreuzträger commanders as well as ordinary seamen, torpedomen, and machinists. I have discussed their experiences with them at length and I am in awe at their bravery. They are all very kind gentlemen and they have been helpful in my research and patient with my many questions. They have and will continue to have my utmost respect.

But having said that, I am also thankful that they lost.

[cmdrk]

Atlantic Theater:
Allied cost in shipping, escorts, and planes - $17 billion
German cost in subs - $2.7 billion

Cost ratio 6 to 1

Pacific Theater:
Japanese cost in warships and merchants - $18 billion
US cost in subs - $873 million ($0.873 billion)

Cost ratio 20 to 1

Note:
Atlantic cost is for sunk merchants and cost of escorts/planes used during the battle. The sunk merchant tonnage cost was about $6.2 billion. The Allies spent $14 billion to replace then increase total merchant tonnage.

The Japanese cost is based on Dollar to Yen exchange base on the cost per ton to build a destroyer in the respective countries ($1.8 per Yen). The costs are from warship and merchant tonnage sunk, plus cost of escorts built.

Per info from Cmdr. M. Poirier's analysis at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

U-boats lost the war? No, sir I disagree. Yes, you have many valid points which I agree with but WW2 was not a one-dimensional war. Hitler's mismanagement and the attrition rate when up against the USSR and USA. I think his greatest blunder was war with the soviets. They hand a non-aggression pact signed up. The Ost Front War bled Germany dry. If Japan had agreed to attack the Russians when Hitler invaded the East in 1941 things may have been different. I have no respect for nazis. My father was with the RAF and things he saw made him fight on. I just wish he had sent a u-boat to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.

I'm just glad the allies knocked the stuffing out of the bad guys.

[Rockin Robbins]

But the U-Boats sinking merchie convoys off the US coast meant nothing. That shipping was a lifeline to nobody. And once us not so quick-witted Americans learned to turn off lighthouses, stop broadcasting directional signals in the form of peacetime radio stations and in general to behave as if we were in a war The situation changed.

The US was no island that could be hurt meaningfully by U-Boats and any thought that greater U-Boat success would have changed the war is just fantasy. Admiral Danial Gallery demonstrates that at their greatest time of sinking Allied shipping, they were losing because the Allies built more tonnage than unhindered U-Boats could send to the bottom. Sinking Atlantic merchants did nothing to stifle the production of Allied weaponry, as sinking Japanese shipping in the Pacific did. They were swatting an ostrich with a fly swatter.:eek: It only made the ostrich mad.

They Type XXI would only have forced the Allied ASW plotters to draw bigger circles. Once the hole in the middle of the Atlantic was plugged, the U-Boats had nowhere to hide from the planes of the ubiquitous jeep carrier hunter-killer groups.

No change in the nature of a weapon that lost the war just by virtue of using it could have resulted in a German victory. The order to commence unrestricted submarine warfare was the order to hand victory to the Allies. Once carried out, nothing could have changed the outcome. Each submarine built meant fewer tanks, trucks, planes, bombs, bullets, the list is much longer of the materials that were sacrificed to build submarines. How would building more submarines of any type help?

Germany should have only used submarines for coastal defense and action against bona fide military targets. They should have left Britain alone totally aside from the necessity of politely nudging them from the continent.;)

The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance. That is very different from the scenario I laid out. In reality the German ambassador said, "You might as well quit now. It will be much worse for you if you keep fighting." That is a threat. I laid out a promise, with no threat implied. The British would have accepted that even if they had to throw Churchill overboard to do it. After all, they did make him walk the plank immediately after the war.

[cmdrk]

U-boats lost the war? No, sir I disagree. Yes, you have many valid points which I agree with but WW2 was not a one-dimensional war. Hitler's mismanagement and the attrition rate when up against the USSR and USA. I think his greatest blunder was war with the soviets. They hand a non-aggression pact signed up. If the nazis had stuck with it long enough there would've been a longer war if not victory for the enemy. The Ost Front War bled Germany dry. If Japan had agreed to attack the Russians when Hitler invaded the East in 1941 things may have been different.
But the Japanese were too busy in China at the time.

The Russian campaign was ill conceived and the German aim was too broad.

Concerning the Uboat war, Germany's effort caused the Allies to expend a considerable amount to counter. But, that would not work as the Allies had considerable more resources and production.

The only way I think the Uboat war could have worked was if Donitz had 100+ combat subs at the start. They were never really too far ahead of the curve as both sides ramped up their efforts.

[Ducimus]

Generally speaking, i don't think the men of the uboat arm were bad, just their cause was. Which, to play on words, wasn't just. Thats one of the beautiful things about the pacific, the cause was just.


But, to get back on topic some. The effect of code breaking and radar can't be emphasized enough, in both theaters acutally.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

No, not the case of Japan was busy with China. Japan had a squirmish with Russia and they got their butts kicked real bad. They sure didn't want that again and were wary of a war with Russia.

[joea]

U-boats lost the war? No, sir I disagree. Yes, you have many valid points which I agree with but WW2 was not a one-dimensional war. Hitler's mismanagement and the attrition rate when up against the USSR and USA. I think his greatest blunder was war with the soviets. They hand a non-aggression pact signed up. The Ost Front War bled Germany dry. If Japan had agreed to attack the Russians when Hitler invaded the East in 1941 things may have been different. I have no respect for nazis. My father was with the RAF and things he saw made him fight on. I just wish he had sent a u-boat to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.

I'm just glad the allies knocked the stuffing out of the bad guys.

Yup, the figure thrown around is 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front. True not 80% of u-boots sunk, but Germany put most of its resources into the Heer (and the Luftwaffe) not the Kriegsmarine.

[mookiemookie]

Ducimus is right, and I missed that point in my earlier post. Codebreaking and radio intercepts were also a major downfall for the U-boat arm. After all, what is a submarine when you take away it's greatest asset, which is stealth?

But I still disagree with RR. After Dunkirk in mid-1940, the Germans had Britain on it's heels. They had effectively confined them to the home isles and had free reign of France. A lot of people will say that Germany declaring war on the US was a mistake, but I disagree. If they had enough U-boats to cordon off Britain, they certainly could have declared war on the US and sunk every supply ship that was sent over. If you want to blame anyone for losing the war, I'd say blame the Luftwaffe. They came very close to knocking the RAF out of commission and clearing the way for Operation Seelowe. They switched tactics at the end to bombing civillian targets in order to break the will of the people. If they had continued focusing on military targets like airfields, ports and radar installations, they would have had air superiority and could have attacked at will. All the Allied ships in the world wouldn't have helped if there were no ports left to receive them.

It certainly would have cleared the way for an invasion of Britain, which would have been no easy fight, but it would have had the effect of taking away the staging point for D-Day. They had enough problems getting an invasion force across the English Channel....there's no way they could have done it across the Atlantic Ocean, especially if Doenitz had the numbers of U-boats he wanted. With a Type XXI prowling the seas at this point, (let's call it late '41/early '42 for arguments sake) the air gap would have been a non-issue. And by removing the escort carrier issue, you effectively remove the U.S.'s production advantages. Who cares if they can put a million planes in the sky if they can't find your U-boats, of which you have significant numbers to sink any supply ships that attempt to reach Britain?

By consolidating gains in the West, you deny the US a staging ground for any meaningful assault on Germany and certainly could be in a very strong bargaining position. All because you used U-boats in the way they should have been used and in the critical mass needed to make a difference.

[Myszkin]

Rockin Robbins, you must be joking! Do you really compare U-Boat and american subs? What for?

I ask, because...nothing compare to U-Boats! Badly designed? :lol: Let's see: operational depth for VII B and C U-Boat: 150-200m (1940-1942), operational depth for Tambor: 90m? 100m? Well...but Tambor had an air condition :rotfl:

U-Boat were fighting against the best ASW power of WWII - Great Britain and european allies. Japan? Yes, great carriers, battleships but ASW - poor, very poor (luckily for US subs)!

Type XXI U-Boat - a MASTERPIECE!

[Captain Vlad]

The effect of code breaking and radar can't be emphasized enough, in both theaters acutally.

They really can't. Allied superiority in radar was a massive force multiplier for our own submarine campaign and a massive inhibitor on the Germans.

Code breaking...well...we all know how important that was.

[Gino]

Comparing the war in the Atlantic with the war in the Pacific is like comparing apples with pears. Both are fruits...

Don't forget that the U-boats started the war in a highly unfavorable position. Doenitz asked for 300 U boats, so he could have 100 of them on station all the time. With the Wolfpack strategy he designed, and with that number of U boats, the war with Britain would have ended in only a couple of months. Doenitz was well aware of the possiblity of the US coming into the war against Germany.
Had he had the 300 boats he would only have had to finish the UK off, before the US entered the war. Mind also that in the US just before the war there was a lot of sympathy for the Germans. So going to war was not easy for Roosevelt.

In the Pacific the US only started using Wolfpacks at the end of 43, beginning of 44 (not sure about the date) so, three to four years after the Germans had already shown that it worked. Bureaucracy was the main reason why the US submarines took a lot of time to do the great job that we now know they did.
Also the US had a great advantage with the Japs, they could read their code already before the war. Had they not been able to do so, then the outcome in the Pacific would have been more costly and much later.

In both theaters one thing stands out as the major mistake: Both nations, Germany and Japan, didn't have a chance to win the war. From the moment Germany invaded Poland it was only a matter of time. Anyone that believes that Germany as well as Japan could have won the war is utterly wrong. The Nazis were a bunch of crooks that manipulated the Germans into war, at a tremendous cost and grief.
For Japan the end was inevitable when the US started to boycot them because of Mantshuria. By using old fashioned ideas of the Big Battle at Sea, they hoped to lure the US in to peace negotiations...

Luckily the current governments don't think and act like that...:hmm:

groetjes

[-Pv-]

Well Said Gino! Ultimately, it's the corruption at the root which leads to bad decisions which leads to failure, however confusing or temporarily successful the process in between.
-Pv-

[Rockin Robbins]

No, not the case of Japan was busy with China. Japan had a squirmish with Russia and they got their butts kicked real bad. They sure didn't want that again and were wary of a war with Russia.

Ever go on a cruise to patrol the Formosa Straights? Well, your compass doesn't work too well on the south end because that's where Tojo and the Japanese fleet wiped out the Russkies in a naval battle which should have scared us into adopting a different naval strategy then and there. Theodore Roosevelt bagged himself a Nobel Peace Prize for getting the Japanese and Russkies to declare peace after the Russian fleet was sent safely to the bottom.

That is why Tojo had the national stature to lead Japan to war in WWII. They would happily have scrapped with the Russian navy instead of us. But if they had met us capital ships to capital ships they would have cleaned our clocks too.

So the facts are the reverse of what you state. The Russians lost decisively.

[CaptainHaplo]

What a discussion!

First of all, lets get the obligatory out of the way - the ruling regimes in the Axis forces were the cause of the war, and the root foundation for the outcomes as well. Their ascent to power is viewed properly by history as a cost to humanity that can only be called a criminal calamity of huge proportions.

Uboat crews were Nazi's... This is historical fact. I can say it because I understand it. This does NOT mean that they believed the rhetoric - its a reflection of the society at the time. To be in Germany, as a German, during that time frame, you simply were a Nazi. With the brown/black shirt goon squads roaming - to not be a card carrying, dues paying member - well - my grandfather had a gun to his head when he was asked whether he was a member of the Nazi party..... a wrong answer meant his brains exited his cranial cavity, and he had a family to care for. I don't disrespect his choice in answering.

Yet very few people in Germany truly followed the rhetoric in their hearts. So I still honor the sailors and ordinary "joe's" who went out and did what they saw as their duty, not for Hitler or Hirohito or some party line, but because they loved their country.

Now to the discussion itself. The uboats did not lose the war for Germany. Not unrestricted submarine warfare, because sinking neutrals that were carrying supplies to the island nation of Great Britain was a necessary evil. If one wishes to fight a war and win, you cannot pull punches. As is often said - He who is the friend of my enemy is my enemy, while the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Countries were warned not to supply England, and that doing so put their ships at risk.

One flaw that comes from this mathematical what is built vs what is sunk comparison is that its not the weight of what is sunk, its what is sunk itself that matters. All the freighters making it thru carrying tanks and trucks and toilet paper dont matter a bit when an island must have the fuel and ammunition to drive and fight them, or the food that is required to feed their population.

The original arguement claims that the uboats failed to pack enough "punch" to stop convoys. BdU agreed, which is why the wolfpack concept became a major effort. One Type VII may not do much - but three or four hitting a convoy could decimate it - as happened more than once.

The Uboat war did not doom Germany. If anything doomed the "Battle of the Atlantic" for Germany, it was her ally, Japan. In attacking Pearl Harbor (which Germany had no knowledge they were going to do), they forced Germany into direct conflict with America. Up until that time, US hulls were being sent to the bottom and existing US escorts were used through the lend/lease program, but little resource was put into modernization/R&D of ASW since the war was undeclared. Once war was declared, ASW in the Atlantic took on a greater priority, and thus began the technological race that ultimately the U-boats lost. While the Battle of Britain became a tactical blunder, and thus hindered Operation Sea Lion, it was the decision to delay indefinitely Sea Lion itself due to lack of full air and sea control that created in High Command (aka - Hitler) the need to lash out toward another target - that being Russia.

While I could go on and on - like how both Stalin and Hitler knew that the Non-Aggression Pact was a farce (Stalin also had plans to invade Germany) there truly is not a "single" thing that caused the outcome of the war as a whole - it was the sacrifice of so many on the various fields of battle that did that - and for that we all can be thankful. I will also add that there are a few times it appears that divine intervention may have helped.

I also appreciate the tone this has - so far at least - been carried in. Well done to all for an interesting, thought provoking discussion with class.

[Torplexed]

No, not the case of Japan was busy with China. Japan had a squirmish with Russia and they got their butts kicked real bad. They sure didn't want that again and were wary of a war with Russia.
Ever go on a cruise to patrol the Formosa Straights? Well, your compass doesn't work too well on the south end because that's where Tojo and the Japanese fleet wiped out the Russkies in a naval battle which should have scared us into adopting a different naval strategy then and there. Theodore Roosevelt bagged himself a Nobel Peace Prize for getting the Japanese and Russkies to declare peace after the Russian fleet was sent safely to the bottom.

That is why Tojo had the national stature to lead Japan to war in WWII. They would happily have scrapped with the Russian navy instead of us. But if they had met us capital ships to capital ships they would have cleaned our clocks too.

So the facts are the reverse of what you state. The Russians lost decisively.
Admiral Togo, not Tojo wiped out the Russians at the naval battle of Tsushima in 1905 in the Russo-Japanese War. I think the 'butt-kicking' skirmish the original poster is referring to is the far later land battle of Khalkin Gol in Manchuria in 1939. General Zhukov basically crushed the Japanese with superior tank and infantry tactics to the tune of some 45,000 casualities during an undeclared border war. The Japanese weren't too keen on facing the Soviets after that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

[Rockin Robbins]

Atlantic Theater:
Allied cost in shipping, escorts, and planes - $17 billion
German cost in subs - $2.7 billion

Cost ratio 6 to 1

Pacific Theater:
Japanese cost in warships and merchants - $18 billion
US cost in subs - $873 million ($0.873 billion)

Cost ratio 20 to 1

Note:
Atlantic cost is for sunk merchants and cost of escorts/planes used during the battle. The sunk merchant tonnage cost was about $6.2 billion. The Allies spent $14 billion to replace then increase total merchant tonnage.

The Japanese cost is based on Dollar to Yen exchange base on the cost per ton to build a destroyer in the respective countries ($1.8 per Yen). The costs are from warship and merchant tonnage sunk, plus cost of escorts built.

Per info from Cmdr. M. Poirier's analysis at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html
Granted. Submarines are a very cost-effective means of waging war. Except that we could afford the cost and much more. The Japanese could not. The Germans could not. Similarly, we could absorb a number of casualties that would cost the Axis powers the wars and come back for more. We fought two years in the Pacific without winning a single battle, losing tens of thousands, caught our breath and spent more, lost more men and won. Victory comes only to those who are willing and able to pay the terrible cost.

The Kriegsmarine was willing but not able. If they had another 100 submarines, they would not have had enough crew to man them. One of the reasons the Type XXI never got into combat was their inability to train crews. Topp talked about that in a famous interview where he said the Type XXI couldn't have turned the tide. Numbers of subs don't win wars, the qualified and well-trained people in them to.

Hitler as part of the equation makes sense also. For my reasonable plan for Germany to work, Hitler would have had to be sane. A sane man wouldn't have even begun WWII to get to the point where they could consolidate their victory on the Continent, mollify Britain and then attack Russia at their leisure and with British and American aquiescence (the next step in my logic). After all, British and American supplies were instrumental if the survival of Russia. As it was, victory was initally by a small margin for the Russians. The unknown is how cohesive Russia would be if deprived of Stalingrad, Moscow and Kiev, losing the entire European part of Russia. Would the Asian Russians fight to regain Europe, or would cultural differences result in the Asians saying good riddance to their European oppressors? I can't begin to guess the answer to that one.

And you can meld the crazy ruler is the reason for defeat with my weird theory if you wish. A sane Hitler would (if he was still crazy enough to start the war:rotfl:) not have used U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, realizing that they had no choice but to attack American shipping and realizing that U-Boats were utterly powerless as a weapon against the United States. Once the US entered the war the Germans were losers.

@CaptainHaplo I agree with you about how amazing the discussion has been. I had some misgivings when I launched it as evidenced by my last paragraph about the spirit I hoped the discussion would have. It has had better than I dared to hope. It just shows what a great place SUBSIM is.

My theory is really more of a thought experiment than a reflection of reality because as others have said, it was the insanity of Naziism that caused the war to begin with and was responsible for the lousy choices Germans made throughout the war. If you believe my theory about consolidating victory on the continent, coopting America and Britain and then whipping Russia, you have to believe in a total reversal in the mindsets of Hitler and his henchmen. Of all the military leaders in Germany, only Admiral Donitz would have been capable of such imaginative thought and abandonment of Nazi doctrine to achieve victory.

I hadn't thought of your point that if you consented on any terms to be led by Nazis, you were one of them regardless of your personal beliefs. Maybe it's ownership of that lousy truth that has made the German people the great people they are today. If we Americans are smug about not being that stupid, I would counter by saying that there was another country in the world that could have gone that wrong: the United States of America. It's possible that Germany just beat us to it. Who knows. I just know that if Naziism happened in a country with the cultural richness of Germany, it could have happened elsewhere.

[kylesplanet]

This is a great thread and I must admit, RR has really peaked my curiosty. RR, your making alot of sense in you argument and I'm waiting anxiously for more! :yep: I love someone throwing out an unconventional idea that validates some of my own thoughts.:up:

[CaptainHaplo]

The Japanese reason for war was less "mad" by far - Japan needed the resources of the Far East, particularly Indochina - to continue to fuel the economic expansion they were undergoing. When the American policy of isolation and a trade embargo occurred, Japan had little choice but to go to war. Doing so meant that they ultimately HAD to face an American force intent on protecting its own economic interests. For an island nation that lacked the resources at "home" that were needed, there was little choice if economic growth was to continue.

However, the start of WWII in Europe was not due to the need for resources. The Rhine Valley was, and is today, a major source of industry. Germany, economically speaking, had the financial base to compete with just about any major player. The problem wasn't financial, it was the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was an insult to the idea of "German pride". It is often said that the seeds of WW2 were sown in the ending of WW1 - and that is very true. While the average German after WW1 did suffer economically, industry itself (and by that read corporations) were thriving. It was this economical disparity that allowed Hitler to stir the masses initially, by promising to return Germany to its "rightful" place and restore its glory - and in so doing, have the masses benefit. The same type of economic situation was what led to Mussolini gaining power in Italy as well.

Ultimately - the "New German Empire" grew too fast, made too many enemies (its own fault) and its few friends were to distant or inept to aid it. Had ole Adolf been content in uniting continental Europe and securing what resources Europe lacked (mainly oil) from the Middle East, we would have a drastically different world today. Thankfully, Adolf was a nutjob and the world avoided what could have been a far more greater disaster due to his and others blunders.

Had "greater Germany" extended more respect to the rest of Europe instead of setting up the numerous puppet governments, broken away from the "superior race" nonsense and the rest of the silly Nazi bullcrap, they might have stood a chance. But its a good lesson that such history teaches - when the foundation is rotten, it doesnt matter how big the house is - its going to fall....

Such was the history of the Greeks, the Romans, the 2 attempts by Germany, etc - yet for some reason - we as humanity still haven't learned.

[joegrundman]

I have one minor question here. People here have stated that WW2 began with Germany's invasion of Poland and the Anglo-French declaration of war, and that Germany was ultimately doomed from that point.

Given that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland at more-or-less the same time, ought Britain and France to have declared war on the Soviet Union too?

[joegrundman]

Also, @ RR

It is clear that the axis could never have conquered the US, but I don't think that would have been necessary. If Britain and the Soviet Union were defeated, the US would be equally unable to conquer continental Nazi Europe as they would have been to conquer the US.

Not without proposing the war would continue well into the atomic age, of course, with carrier borne atomic warfare. (nasty thought).

Anyway I suspect that if Nazi Germany had attained a victory in Europe, this would probabley have occurred before heavy US involvement, and the US would have had to accept the reality and signed a treaty.

you know what... there are some interesting but highly complicated board games that cover this era, such as A World at War. It might be quite cool to do a forum game here sometime.

[Storabrun]

Very interesting thread. Although I don't really see the reason to explain why a very much expected result did happen. My point is that Germany vs Brittish empire was a pretty even match to begin with. Add the Soviet union and USA to one side and it's like two grown men and a teenager against a teenager and his little brothers (Italy and Japan). Germany must have made a lot of good desicions, created a lot of good designs and doctrines to make this brawl last for almost 6 years.

[Torplexed]

I have one minor question here. People here have stated that WW2 began with Germany's invasion of Poland and the Anglo-French declaration of war, and that Germany was ultimately doomed from that point.

Given that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland at more-or-less the same time, ought Britain and France to have declared war on the Soviet Union too?
Poland wanted them to and reminded them of that fact. Remember, Neville Chamberlain was still Prime Minister of Britain and the time and didn't desire making the war any larger than it already was. Given how both powers were relatively helpless as it was to aid Poland against Germany, taking on the Soviet Union as well would probably have been counter-productive. France and Britain came very close to going to war with Stalin when he invaded Finland in the winter of 1940. But when plans fell through to put Allied soldiers in the country via Sweden it never happened. Hitler made it plain to the Swedes that Allied soldiers transiting a resource-rich Sweden on which he depended heavily for iron and nickel supplies would result in a German declaration of war on Sweden.

[Myszkin]

@joegrundman - Soviet invaded Poland on 17 Sep 1939 in pursuant to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Why GB anf France didn't declared war on Soviet Union?

Bacause they weren't obliged to do that. Poland-GB and Poland-France pacts were pacts in the case of war with Germany.

It's sad, but although the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany, no direct military action was rendered. France was in direct violation of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance that was signed in May 19, 1939, where France promised to attack Germany if Poland was attacked. Great Britain also refused to attack Germany, even though they had sworn to do so in the case of a German invasion. The Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, and the French Army enjoyed decisive numerical advantage on their border with Germany, but the Allies failed to contribute solid assistance.

In September 1939 Poland was alone...

[Rockin Robbins]

@joegrundman - Soviet invaded Poland on 17 Sep 1939 in pursuant to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Why GB anf France didn't declared war on Soviet Union?

Bacause they weren't obliged to do that. Poland-GB and Poland-France pacts were pacts in the case of war with Germany.

It's sad, but although the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany, no direct military action was rendered. France was in direct violation of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance that was signed in May 19, 1939, where France promised to attack Germany if Poland was attacked. Great Britain also refused to attack Germany, even though they had sworn to do so in the case of a German invasion. The Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, and the French Army enjoyed decisive numerical advantage on their border with Germany, but the Allies failed to contribute solid assistance.

In September 1939 Poland was alone...Yes, the Phony War, where words attempted to take the place of deeds and the time wasted was all to the Germans' advantage. To be fair, I HATE to contemplate the consequences of a French attack on anything. I wonder if the words "French" and "attack" can rightfully co-exist in the same sentence. Their whole plan was based on static defense, and that was the end of them. The British would have had to go through the French and the two of them mix like oil and water. They have a long history of mutual disdain, which even we Americans took advantage of to gain our independence from Britain. So if they HAD tried to fulfil their agreements immediately, I wonder how it would have worked out.

However, here's the ultimate injustice of leaving Poland to be devoured by two mad dogs. It was Polish mathemeticians, not the British or Americans who solved the Enigma code. According to the Ducimus theory, which is solidly based on fact, the moment those Polish mathemeticians landed in Britain and convinced authorities that they indeed could read the code and the British organized Bletchley Park with the Poles at the core, the Germans lost a battle decisive as the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of the Atlantik. Poland was not lost in vain.

[hyperion2206]

Here are my to cents and I make it very short so that you guys don't have to read that much.;)

1.The Navy wasn't ready for a war. In fact Hitler had promised Admiral Raeder that a war would occur not earlier than 1945. Because of that the German Navy lacked a lot of ships and and U-Boats.

2. Ther Germans started their research on radar, HF/DF and other eletronic devices rather late and thus had a major disadvantage.

3. The Allied could read the messages that U-Boats sent via Enigma and thus could locate and sink the U-Boats.

After all the U-Boats lost the war because they didn't have the technology and because the leadership (Hitler, Dönitz) made some grave blunders.

[Mush Martin]

I believe we are trying to compare apples and oranges
here.
a succsesful strategic anitsubmarine campaign
vs.
a succesful strategic submarine campaign.

Both are individually complex enough to
fill a lifetime and never finish.
there is no simple answer in their comparison
each campaign has enough in it to fill
volumes.
there are no single warbreaking factors on
either side.

I abstain.
M

[Rockin Robbins]

After all the U-Boats lost the war because they didn't have the technology and because the leadership (Hitler, Dönitz) made some grave blunders.
My position is that U-Boats could not have won the war, regardless of numbers or technology short of nuclear ballistic missiles. They were an inappropriate tool for the task at hand. The war was a hex nut. U-Boats were a phillips head screwdriver, a fine tool but not suited for the job.

Also, @ RR

It is clear that the axis could never have conquered the US, but I don't think that would have been necessary. If Britain and the Soviet Union were defeated, the US would be equally unable to conquer continental Nazi Europe as they would have been to conquer the US.
But that's my point. Both England and the United States had prominent people who were pro-German and a few who were even pro-Nazi (Charles Lindberg comes to mind). A little-known fact is that Churchill moved the British secret service, a shadow government and a duplicate Enigma decoding team to the US before our entry into the war for fear that the British would join forces with Germany. (read A Man Called Intrepid for all the juicy details) Germany could have taken advantage of that fact to avoid fighting either party at all. Then whether the US could conquer continental Nazi Europe would be moot. The US and Britain would have had no interest in doing so. Both fought not for conquest but in defense against an aggressor.

[hyperion2206]

After all the U-Boats lost the war because they didn't have the technology and because the leadership (Hitler, Dönitz) made some grave blunders.
My position is that U-Boats could not have won the war, regardless of numbers or technology short of nuclear ballistic missiles. They were an inappropriate tool for the task at hand. The war was a hex nut. U-Boats were a phillips head screwdriver, a fine tool but not suited for the job.


I have to disagree. The U-Boats were a great weapon and if Doenitz had 300 boats at the beinning of the war Great Britain would have been starved out pretty soon.
Again, the reason why the U-Boats weren't successful are the small numbers of U-Boats available and advanced allied technology.
But since you think that U-Boats were not suitable for the job at hand I've got one question: What kind of U-Boat would one need to defeat GB?

[Sailor Steve]

The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance. That is very different from the scenario I laid out. In reality the German ambassador said, "You might as well quit now. It will be much worse for you if you keep fighting." That is a threat. I laid out a promise, with no threat implied. The British would have accepted that even if they had to throw Churchill overboard to do it. After all, they did make him walk the plank immediately after the war.
I'm pretty sure the Germans tried the "we're brothers" approach, and I'm pretty sure the British would never have gone for it. Well, Chamberlain might have, but he was part of the problem anyway. I don't think it would have happened.

On the other hand, I have myself proposed a similar 'dissuassion' concerning the start of the American Civil War, so who knows? Speculation is always fun.

[edit] I see I've fallen behind the conversation. Never mind.

[hyperion2206]

The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance. That is very different from the scenario I laid out. In reality the German ambassador said, "You might as well quit now. It will be much worse for you if you keep fighting." That is a threat. I laid out a promise, with no threat implied. The British would have accepted that even if they had to throw Churchill overboard to do it. After all, they did make him walk the plank immediately after the war. I'm pretty sure the Germans tried the "we're brothers" approach, and I'm pretty sure the British would never have gone for it. Well, Chamberlain might have, but he was part of the problem anyway. I don't think it would have happened.

On the other hand, I have myself proposed a similar 'dissuassion' concerning the start of the American Civil War, so who knows? Speculation is always fun.

[edit] I see I've fallen behind the conversation. Never mind.

I don't know what the ambassador exactly said, but German ideology was that the English were Aryans as well. Actually Hitler didn't like to fight other Aryans.
BTW: German ideology although dictated that the Japanes were the Aryans of the far east.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't know what the ambassador exactly said, but German ideology was that the English were Aryans as well. Actually Hitler didn't like to fight other Aryans.
That makes perfect sense, since in the previous war the King and the Kaiser were first cousins. On the other hand, the British Royals changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg und Gotha to Windsor, so they probably didn't see it the same way.

[Rockin Robbins]

After all the U-Boats lost the war because they didn't have the technology and because the leadership (Hitler, Dönitz) made some grave blunders.
My position is that U-Boats could not have won the war, regardless of numbers or technology short of nuclear ballistic missiles. They were an inappropriate tool for the task at hand. The war was a hex nut. U-Boats were a phillips head screwdriver, a fine tool but not suited for the job.

I have to disagree. The U-Boats were a great weapon and if Doenitz had 300 boats at the beinning of the war Great Britain would have been starved out pretty soon.
Again, the reason why the U-Boats weren't successful are the small numbers of U-Boats available and advanced allied technology.
But since you think that U-Boats were not suitable for the job at hand I've got one question: What kind of U-Boat would one need to defeat GB? No kind of U-Boat could have defeated Great Britain. The reason for that is that Great Britain was very different from Japan.

Japan was importing raw materials on Japanese bottoms to make into war materiel. England imported finished goods and raw materials, but here's the dynamic: Britain was importing on other nations' bottoms, including the United States. If you sink those ships, you're fighting those nations. Supplies to the United States were not interruptable at sea unless Donitz could figure out how to torpedo a train 100 miles inland. Even Eugene Fluckey couldn't do that!

In addition, the US had to capacity to literally pave the Atlantic with ships. If you have a 1000 ship convoy, what are 100 active U-Boats going to do? (figure 100 on station, 100 in transit to and from and the other 100 in training or repair. My 100 on station is hopelessly optimistic. 70 would have been a best-case estimate with more than half of them not positioned to deliver a blow) What if you have 5 1000 ship convoys? This was entirely within the capability of the United States, which outproduced the losses inflicted by the U-Boats at the top of their form before ASW techniques were meaningfully good. Keeping the US out of the war was essential if Germany was to have any chance of lasting success at all. U-Boat use made that (therefore victory) impossible.

German victory depended on divide and conquer. First, keep the Allies from shutting down their war machine while they prepared for conquest. (done) Then keeping Britain and Russia happy while they controlled the European continent. (not done) Then making peace with Britain and the US so they could do what they pleased with Russia before Stalin could get aggresive (not done), because you know that given time Stalin would have attacked Germany anyway. Stalin was no pussycat, you know.:arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

Hyperion:
I don't know what the ambassador exactly said, but German ideology was that the English were Aryans as well. Actually Hitler didn't like to fight other Aryans.

Dead on. Hilter did now want a war with the Brits. Hilter just wanted them to understand that he wanted all of Europe and had no interest in the UK. In fact, I had read somewhere that Hitler was stunned when the Brits declared war on Germany.

Simple fact remains, there were not enough u-boats to keep up with the amount of merchant vessels slipping off the blocks at the construction yards. It is very similar to the Sherman tank. The German tank was far superior to the Shermans. It is just that there were Shermans being built like mad. Sheer numbers once again over came the issue at hand.

[Rockin Robbins]

No, not the case of Japan was busy with China. Japan had a squirmish with Russia and they got their butts kicked real bad. They sure didn't want that again and were wary of a war with Russia.
Ever go on a cruise to patrol the Formosa Straights? Well, your compass doesn't work too well on the south end because that's where Tojo and the Japanese fleet wiped out the Russkies in a naval battle which should have scared us into adopting a different naval strategy then and there. Theodore Roosevelt bagged himself a Nobel Peace Prize for getting the Japanese and Russkies to declare peace after the Russian fleet was sent safely to the bottom.

That is why Tojo had the national stature to lead Japan to war in WWII. They would happily have scrapped with the Russian navy instead of us. But if they had met us capital ships to capital ships they would have cleaned our clocks too.

So the facts are the reverse of what you state. The Russians lost decisively.
Admiral Togo, not Tojo wiped out the Russians at the naval battle of Tsushima in 1905 in the Russo-Japanese War. I think the 'butt-kicking' skirmish the original poster is referring to is the far later land battle of Khalkin Gol in Manchuria in 1939. General Zhukov basically crushed the Japanese with superior tank and infantry tactics to the tune of some 45,000 casualities during an undeclared border war. The Japanese weren't too keen on facing the Soviets after that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol
This one was ignored and it should not have been. My spelling needs checking there and I totally forgot about Khalkin Gol. I'll jump on board the proposition that the Japanese wouldn't attack the Russians on land after that. I don't think they were interested in achieving domination over frozen tundra anyway (a fine excuse after Zhukov was finished with them!:rotfl:). Any resources available there could more easily be obtained in the Dutch East Indies. Japan abandoned any plans to use Siberian resources.

In order for the Russians to attack Japan we're back to considering if the Japanese would have hesitated to deal with the Russians at sea. Nope. It would have been a repeat of Tsushima, only probably much worse.

So the Russians left the Japanese alone because they were busily preparing to hit Germany. The Japanese left the Russians alone because they didn't like Mr Zhukov and couldn't use all that ice:p. Actually they both were busy enough with other things. Neither one wished more complications to enter the situation. They smoked the peace pipe.

[AVGWarhawk]

I recommend the reading of this book:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301fabook86239/norman-davies/europe-at-war-1939-1945-no-simple-victory.html


Absolutely superb book on WW2.

[STEED]

U-Boats cost Germany WWII!

Not one bit.

22nd June 1941 did it.

First nail in the coffin -
Have you seen the logistics in the planning of Operation Barbarossa, make your eyes pop out. :o

Second nail in the coffin -
Stalingrad over stretched the German Army supple lines and how the hell were the Germans going to get the oil from the Baku oil fields?

Third and final nail in the coffin -
Hitler stripped the whole front for his big Kursk offensive and lost, resulting in Armour that could not be replaced.

Case Closed


PS: I believed America would had declared war on Germany if Hitler had not, after all, they were at war with Germany in October 1941 all but in name.

[CaptainHaplo]

While I agree that there is no question that the industrial power of the US combined with the rest of the Allies ultimately won the war, it seems some here are missing a very important point. England was on the brink of defeat in the summer 1940 - well before the US entered the war officially. In fact, the lend/lease program didn't begin until March of 1941 - so to argue that the production ability of the US was a guarantee of England's survival vs. the Uboat threat can't be used. I am a proud American, but I am enough of a student of history to know that we couldn't have saved England if Sealion had moved forward.

Yes, we could have built and sent a 1000 ship convoy..... but it could not have been done in time. War is more than just production ability. It takes time to build the ships, or if they are in use already - congregate them, load them, form them up with a suitable escort, and then figure the transit time. Not to mention the time needed to produce all the necessary articles a country at war would need - enough to fill a 1000 ships! This also doesnt even take into account the fact that even using every port in Britain, there wasn't enough dock space for that many ships....

I won't argue the fact that the US could have, given enough time, built enough of a lifeline to keep Britain supplied. But the time required would have been the issue. The decision to indefintely postpone Operation Sealion bought England a reprieve, and the decision to strike west was one of two turning points of the war for Germany. Had it not been for the hesitancy and incompetence (some say cowardice) of Raeder, the GrossAdmiral of the Kreigsmarine, Sealion would have moved forward and England would have fallen. It was his determination that both the RN and RAF had to be totally wiped out before an invasion of the British Isles could occur - and that is why Sealion was postponed and then ultimately cancelled.

Sealion was envisioned in such a way as to first destroy the RAF, then to force the RN to sortie in defense of an invasion - which would allow the Luftwaffe to smash the English Navy. The Kriegsmarine didnt have the surface strenth to match up with the RN, so it was left to the German air forces. Raeder was in such fear of the RN that he could not act without them neutralized. Had Raeder understood the tools at his disposal - aka - Doenitz and his U-boats, Sealion could have moved forward despite the outcome of the Battle of Britain. The fact that Raeder and Doenitz despised each other kept Raeder from truly utilizing the full force of the Kreigsmarine.

What should have occured (in hindsight) was a layered barrier of blockading uboats on both sides of the Channel. While the Luftwaffe had failed to destroy the RAF, they still held air parity at the minimum (though the decision to not base aircraft forward, closer to the front, was one of Goering's biggest blunders), and could have been used to negate any RAF threat to Sealion. Thus it still would have fallen to the RN to sweep the channel clear, and with the layered barrier defense in place, the results would likely have been catastrophic for the RN. Recall - this would have all occured in the late summer of 1940 - well before the major advances in ASW were fully in the field, so the Uboats still held a decisive advantage at the time. A successful in force landing of troops on Great Britain, as well as a well publicized major defeat of the RN at the same time, would have devastated morale. Once the landings were secured and could be reinforced from the "mainland", the British Isles would have been all but lost, as the major concern regarding an invasion was the lack of a home army to repel it. Recall the majority of the British forces were overseas, except for the remnants that had just survived Dunkirk - and that remnant was undersupplied, unorganized in the classic sense of a military meaning, and had just recently been routed by what would be the invading forces. Not a good equation - and this is why Churchill knew that the fate of England lay in the Battle of Britain.

Hitler's decision to strike west enabled England to have some breathing room. The Japanese decision to attack the US, with the result of our entering the war, sealed the fate of Germany. This was due to the D-day landings. Had Germany not had to create "Fortress Europe", they would have been able to concentrate forces against Russia, with a distinct possibility of a different outcome on the western front.

The Uboats were not intended to be anti-warship weapons - but during the early years of 1940, they could have been used as such given the advantages they held. This would have only been possible had they had assurance that enemy warships would become targets (using something like the above to funnel the RN forces into a specific area). Just sending them out to search for and find enemy naval forces would not have worked.

War is not just production capability - though logistics do have an important role. War is also the profuse use of every weapon at hand to win - and it was not the fault of the Uboat crews or captains that they were not used fully.

Make no mistake - what I have proposed above would not have been without cost, but the gains would have far outweighed the losses incurred when speaking in a purely strategic sense.

The U-boats didn't lose the war, they simply were not included in the equation properly in how to win it.

[Rockin Robbins]

22nd June 1941 did it.

First nail in the coffin -
Have you seen the logistics in the planning of Operation Barbarossa, make your eyes pop out. :o

Second nail in the coffin -
Stalingrad over stretched the German Army supple lines and how the hell were the Germans going to get the oil from the Baku oil fields?

Third and final nail in the coffin -
Hitler stripped the whole front for his big Kursk offensive and lost, resulting in Armour that could not be replaced.

Case ClosedAll that happened after the U-Boats lost the war. The things you state were just the Germans deciding HOW they would lose it. After all, the Russians could only put up such a great fight because of help Britain and the US were able to contribute. They would have fought Germany anyway with some effectiveness, but much less than they had.

Also, without the need to keep two fronts open, Germany would have been able to concentrate on defeating the USSR with its entire military. Germany could have attacked Russia with great chance of success if Britain and the US were neutralized by treaty.

You are correct that once Hitler's army GOT to Russia it was too big to handle. The Germans just expanded to the point that they were too thinly spread and the logistics didn't work so then they were beaten. Who's to say if they wouldn't have done that anyway with double the resources. Had they limited production of U-Boats, they could have had many more tanks, trucks, trains, more equipment and men to attack Russia with. Had they just punished the Russians, wiping out Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad, then falling back to a defensible line, building the infastructure to supply themselves without worrying about the western front, they would have been free to make other mistakes than the ones they did. But they would also have been free to win their Russian matchup.

As it was, with the Battle of Britain they eliminated any possible British goodwill and with U-Boat sinkings of American ships, they guaranteed American entry into the war with the British, taking away the option of starving Britain. Once that happened they lost the ability to put Britain out of the war, lost the abiility to limit Allied production of war materiel, since the US industrial capacity could not be injured by U-Boats or any other German weapon. Now, having to defend two fronts, they were unable to commit enough to the Eastern Front to win and didn't have the sense to surrender. The war was lost.

Had Operation Barbarossa not taken place, Stalin would eventually have attacked Germany and that would have been a fascinating and even battle. Could Marshal Zhukov have done to the Germans what he did to the Japanese?

So I see no nails in the coffin there. Those nails you cite were produced after U-Boats determined the course of the war. Even though Russia was attacked before unrestricted warfare was declared, the resources were already wasted on the submarines to do it. Unrestricted sub warfare was already an inevitability before the attack on Russia.

[AVGWarhawk]

IMHO the uboats did not cause Germany to lose the war. This is to simplistic in itself. There are many factors all culminating in the failure to win. The uboat was just but one of those factors.

[STEED]

All that happened after the U-Boats lost the war. The things you state were just the Germans deciding HOW they would lose it. After all, the Russians could only put up such a great fight because of help Britain and the US were able to contribute. They would have fought Germany anyway with some effectiveness, but much less than they had.

The Battle of Moscow in 41/42 was fought before any shippment was made to Russia.

Stalin would eventually have attacked Germany

Bullcrap, Stalin had no plans what so ever to attack Germany, after all Stalin was doing well selling oil and steel to Hitler his best customer. ;)

As for the U-Boats they were screwed right from the beginning, 20 odd year gap from WW1 to WW2 and hardly any improvement made to them. That's a bad start if there ever was one.

[TheSatyr]

The one thing I've always wondered about is what would have happened if "Warplan Orange" had actually come about?. The US Navy had thoroughly trashed the Spanish Navy in the Spanish-American War and the Japanese Navy crushed the Russians in the 1904-1905 war they had,so both sides had a history of victory.

I'm not sure who would have won,but I have no doubt it would have been a bloody and costly battle...for both sides.

[Rockin Robbins]

Sea Lion was not launched because it could not have succeeded. It took much more than Raeder's word to prevent it. Raeder was only the fall guy for a collective and sane decision. Had the Germans used such sanity against Russia they could have lasted longer. Unfortunately, as all of you have demonstrated the Wehrmacht only had one very nebulous plan: attack and relentlessly expand outward until you have no concentrated strength anywhere and have outrun your supplies, then die a glorious death. No matter which way you look, Hitler and his cronies were taking the finest military organization in the world (American generals considered that unless they outnumbered German ground units at least three to one there was no chance of success) and just pointlessly wasting it. Germans deserved better than the whole stupid war, stupidly begun, stupidly planned, stupidly executed in a hundred different ways, all fatal to their leaders' cause. Thank God for that!

[TheSatyr]

If Hitler had listened to his Generals and used rivers to defend behind and fought a true defensive battle instead of launching small offensive actions that had no chance of success,they might have been able to pull off a draw against the USSR.

No amount of human wave attacks would be able to dislodge a well postioned defender. That was a lesson the Japanese failed to learn in WW2.

[STEED]

Sea Lion was not launched because it could not have succeeded.

This point I agree with you. :up:

Sea Lion was BS and that is now a fact! :stare:

Way back in 1975 the veteran's of Germany and England met at Sanhurst, I'm talking about those involved in Sea Lion. Any how they concluded it was a no go, last year or the year before that Military experts went over the 1975 meeting and it was concluded Germany would had suffered a blood bath. To sum up Dover is invaded and the maxim the Germans would had got in land was about 15 miles lasting three or four weeks before they had to withdraw from lack of supplies.


Sea Lion build up. :rotfl:

D-Day build up. :ping: :stare: :yep:

[Jimbuna]

I recommend the reading of this book:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301fabook86239/norman-davies/europe-at-war-1939-1945-no-simple-victory.html


Absolutely superb book on WW2.

Very much agreed sir http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Rip]

The one thing I've always wondered about is what would have happened if "Warplan Orange" had actually come about?. The US Navy had thoroughly trashed the Spanish Navy in the Spanish-American War and the Japanese Navy crushed the Russians in the 1904-1905 war they had,so both sides had a history of victory.

I'm not sure who would have won,but I have no doubt it would have been a bloody and costly battle...for both sides.
Grab this and let us know what would have been the result.

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=326

The Year is 1922. World War 1 has come and gone and the world has settled into an uneasy peace. The alliance between the United States and the other powers is weak as the powers try to maintain peace in Europe. Fearful of the growing strength of Japan, the United States created a series of plans in case of a pacific war with Japan. Their name: War Plan Orange. Consisting of three different scenarios, War Plan Orange was a comprehensive and real life "What if" scenario for the war in the pacific. In the world of Matrix Games a different story is going to unfold, and Japan, seeking natural resources to grow their power, will turn the full strength of their navy against the industrial giant of the United States.


Enter War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922-1930, where you will command the pacific fleet for either power in four different campaigns. The two major campaigns will take you from 1922 - 1926 and from 1926 - 1930. With incredible attention to detail and historical accuracy, War Plan Orange is the perfect modification to War in the Pacific for anyone who loves the time period between World War 1 and World War 2. The lack of airpower and inefficient fuels, as well as the natural resources required by both sides make War Plan Orange a completely different experience.



Additionally there are two PBEM scenarios included, making War Plan Orange powerful enough to stand on its own, as well as one of the largest mods and expansions to be released for any game. War in the Pacific fans will rejoice and newcomers will stand in awe of the tactical battles that will be waged in one of the greatest wars that never was (or at least, never was until more than a decade later).

[CaptainHaplo]

Steed - you can't compare the two. The D-day buildup was necessarily much larger because not only was the proposed front much bigger, but any amount of logistical support not brought with the invading group would be forced to travel quite a larger distance than just across the channel. The reason that most discount Sealion is because of hindsight and without a clear understanding of what could have been. First off, one must recall that at the time Sealion was "in play", the Blitzkreig had never been countered. Looking at Sealion today, everyone sees an attack that is now regarded as a tactical blunder (let the spearhead pass, destroy the support elements) - but at the time no one had a clue on how to stop the blitz. The initial 15 mile incursion was detailed as being how far in the spearhead would likely get before it stopped to let its support catch up. The idea that it never moved forward again is because everyone assumes that the RN would have swept the channel, breaking the line of supply, and thus leading the existing elements trapped between a hostile force and water - leading to piecemeal destruction.

If one takes the Royal Navy out of the equation, which my admittedly unhistorical situation would do, there would be no breaking of the supply line across the channel, and if you think that Hitler would have been content to just give up one foot of the British Isles after a successful landing, you may want to reread your history. Sealion could easily have been the end of England. I will admit however, not exactly as it was planned - it would have taken thinking "outside the box" to make that happen.

Again - back to the question of the uboats - had they been used creatively - they could have had an even greater impact on events. This is not to say that they could have "won" the war, or lost it alone either - but they could have been used more effectively in a "combined arms" way. By using Sealion to make the RN come into the open so that the Uboats could get to them, in 1940 when ASW was still not as advanced as it became later, the Germans would have been following the advice of Sun Tzu - Strike at what your enemy must defend. By making them defend the channel, they (the RN) would have to expose themselves to an unexpected onslaught for which, at the time, it was ill prepared to handle.

[joegrundman]

Generally it can be agreed on that Hitler attacking Russia with a belligerent Britain still behind was a collossal blunder. You'd have thought that the ghost of Napoleon might have advised him of it. It is also agreed that Germany threw it's scant resources in too many directions, and that they took a far too leasurely attitude to ramping up their war economy.

But I think most what-if's focus on either a treaty with Britain or an invasion of Britain, or i suppose a more successful attack on the Soviet Union.

To focus briefly on the latter point, i think that although Japan could not have gained much by conquering eastern siberia, an attack would have forced the USSR to keep it's siberian divisions there, and they would not have been able to ship them West to fight the Nazis - which they did once they believed the intel that Japan intended to strike south east and west. Had that been the case, the great encirclement at Stalingrad may not have been possible, and who knows what may have happened if the Rostov fields had fallen and the USSR defeated...

Still, even then...maybe the USSR would still have won. I think we also overestimate the influence of the Murmansk convoys. Sure they helped but i think we in the west maybe like to play up how we saved the USSR from defeat.

But for Britain, i think RR's general point that once the US was in the war, the U-boats would have needed to be massively more effective to have an effect on the outcome holds true. Of course it is not possible to starve out the USA by submarine, just as it's not possible to starve out the USSR by submarine. But of course it took a few years for the US to get interested in fighting tyranny. Britain could have been blockaded. Neutrals could and were sunk under the treaties then present. Carrying contraband cargoes, unmistakeably moving towards Britain, or escorted by British escorts were all legitimate targets, weren't they?

I think the U-boat blockade could have been successful if the US was kept out of the war for longer, and if the resources had been concertedly drawn up with the vision of defeating Britain. But Hitler never really thought about britain, did he? It was not his plan. He was hoping to have a continental empire while Britian ruled the seas in some kind of partnership - or something.

Sealion was doubtful to succeed. IF the BEF had been captured entirely in France, there would have been a few months were britain lacked a full strength army, but even if Hitler did land a full army in britain, soon the full british fleet would arrive and his army would be stranded in half of Britain and start running out of supplies.

So i really think the U-boats were his only chance, and he should have had more of them, lots more. And the treaty would need to be signed before the attack on Russia, or the US entry into the war.

[joea]

So the Russians left the Japanese alone because they were busily preparing to hit Germany.

That actually is nonsense. If you're talking about Rezun's thesis that is.

[AVGWarhawk]

So the Russians left the Japanese alone because they were busily preparing to hit Germany.

That actually is nonsense. If you're talking about Rezun's thesis that is.

Moscow succeeded in a ceasefire with Japan into a formal armistice. Tripartite Pact was signed in 1940. Japan visted Rome and Berlin, included Russia in the pact. It was separate negotiations with Japan that Moscow was able to have a formal armistice. The Soviets were clearing the decks in Asia to give themselves a free hand in Europe. Besides, Japan was embarking in on a southern option that led up to Pearl Harbor.

[Ducimus]

As far as im concerned, Germany lost the war the instant they let the Little Corporal became head of state.

[odjig292]

I’ve got to agree with Captainhaplo that the British might have been brought to surrender in the winter of 1940-41 if Dönitz had been given the 300 U-Boats he had been promised at the start of the war. If you look at the statistics for the U-Boat war for 1940 and 1941, the Germans were sinking about 2.5 ships per month per active U-Boat that was at sea, and had a loss ratio of one U-boat per 30 ships sunk. Assuming they had 300 U-Boats on Sept 1939, and had 100 at sea per month, they would have been able to sink (100 X 2.5) or 250 ships per month and lost about 9 of their U-Boats. These would have been easily replaced.

The average British ship in those days was 5800 tons, so the 100 active U-Boats would have sunk about 1.25 million tons per month, compared to the actual 300,000 tons with 20 to 25 boats at sea. Don't forget this was the Happy Time. The British merchant fleet in 1939 was 3000 ships of 17.5 million DWT. They could buy another 500 ships from neutral fleets with 2.9 million DWT if needed. If Dönitz had hit the war running, he could have sunk 3000 ships in the first year, or about 85% of the British merchant fleet. If we assume that those sinking rates are too high and cut them in half, the British would still have lost the 3000 ships by September 1941. It wasn’t until 1942 that the Allies got their ship production up to 7.9 million tons and 14.6 million tons in 1943. By then it would have been too late, and Dönitz would have been dining at Buckingham Place.

In January 1942, the British were down to six weeks food supply with the actual U-Boat sinkings. They would have been out of food under this scenario and forced to surrender. The Germans would have been invited to come ashore as long as they brought food. Operation Sealion wouldn’t have been needed.

As for the Sealion invasion in mid-1940, it would have succeeded. I had an uncle in the army in Britain from 1939 on, and they only had 50 tanks in England after Dunkirk in May 1940. According to him, half of the Army and all of the Home Guard were using broomsticks to train, as their rifles were still in France. It wasn’t until late 1940 or early 1941 that everyone had a rifle.

[Torplexed]

As for the Sealion invasion in mid-1940, it would have succeeded. I had an uncle in the army in Britain from 1939 on, and they only had 50 tanks in England after Dunkirk in May 1940. According to him, half of the Army and all of the Home Guard were using broomsticks to train, as their rifles were still in France. It wasn’t until late 1940 or early 1941 that everyone had a rifle.
Here's a pretty good essay on why Operation Sealion was probably a doomed pipe dream. The most terrifying aspect is that if the Germans had gotten ashore the RAF would have begun bombing the beacheads with gas.

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html

[Powerthighs]

I happen to be reading Hitler's U-Boat War Vol. 1 by Clay Blair at the moment, and here is an interesting passage regarding the desired 300 U-Boats (pg. 100):


Donitz later suggested--and others have echoed him--that if Hitler and Raeder had listened to him and had built 300 U-Boats in the prewar years, the U-boat arm alone could have won the naval battle promptly. This is nonsense. A peacetime U-Boat construction program of that size would have been exceptionally provocative. It would have forced Hitler to abrogate his prized 1935 naval treaty with Britain almost as soon as it was signed, introducing a complex new geopolitical climate. In that era of intensely competing naval powers and renewed naval construction, it is unlikely that the British Admiralty would have sat on its hands and not proceeded to build U-Boat counterforces, such as large fleets of destroyers and modern ASW aircraft. Moreover, a massive U-Boat construction program would almost certainly have triggered the construction of a counterforce by the United States Navy, which, as one contingency, had to plan against a German defeat of the Royal Navy and the possibility of German naval aggression in the western hemisphere.

[PepsiCan]

That is very different from the scenario I laid out. In reality the German ambassador said, "You might as well quit now. It will be much worse for you if you keep fighting." That is a threat. I laid out a promise, with no threat implied. The British would have accepted that even if they had to throw Churchill overboard to do it. After all, they did make him walk the plank immediately after the war.

Nope, you're wrong here. When Chamberlain resigned in the spring of 1940, the British deliberatly went for Churchill. They wanted to fight on. That Atlee beat Churchill after the war in an election had to do with how both men saw the afterwar period. Chruchill saw the Iron Curtain, Atlee saw demilitarisation and rebuilding society. The voters found the latter a more attractive picture.

[PepsiCan]

U-Boats cost Germany WWII!

Not one bit.

22nd June 1941 did it.

First nail in the coffin -
Have you seen the logistics in the planning of Operation Barbarossa, make your eyes pop out. :o

Second nail in the coffin -
Stalingrad over stretched the German Army supple lines and how the hell were the Germans going to get the oil from the Baku oil fields?

Third and final nail in the coffin -
Hitler stripped the whole front for his big Kursk offensive and lost, resulting in Armour that could not be replaced.

Case Closed


PS: I believed America would had declared war on Germany if Hitler had not, after all, they were at war with Germany in October 1941 all but in name.

Nail 2b: El Alamein/Operation Torch - the defeat of the Africa Corps (300,000+ men & material lost & captured) and the loss of the battle of the Mediteranean. Invasion of Italy immenent

[STEED]

Nail 2b: El Alamein/Operation Torch - the defeat of the Africa Corps (300,000+ men & material lost & captured) and the loss of the battle of the Mediteranean. Invasion of Italy immenent

North Africa was a back water and thanks to that Italian hot head Mussolini who screwed up bought Germany in to the Med, Hitler was too chummy with Mussolini. Hitler should had said you created to mess you get out of it.

[STEED]

Steed - you can't compare the two.

Yes you can, D-Day took years of planing, intelligence, miss info fed to Germany, reckon and so on. The Germans believe a few months would do the trick, Hitler was right to call it off. Any how, Hitler plans lay in the Russia and the planning for Barbarossa started in Dec 1940.

[Jimbuna]

His biggest mistake.....opening a front in both the east and the west with two of the biggest manufacturing giants in the world.

[Rockin Robbins]

As far as im concerned, Germany lost the war the instant they let the Little Corporal became head of state.
Lotsa truth there!:rotfl:He was a suicidal psychopathic god from the very beginning. As such he could not succeed. I agree with everyone who says that had he not made the U-Boat mistake he would have made others, equally fatal. As lots of you have demonstrated, he actually exceeded his human allowance for just one fatal mistake. Unfortunately, it was fatal to a hundred million other humans as well.

@AVGWarhawk looks like the book you cited agrees with my assessment that Stalin would have been as dangerous as Hitler had he not been attacked first. I agree totally. Stalin was probably more evil than Hitler and believed all the Marxist-Leninist claptrap about taking over the world. He would have been much harder to defeat than Hitler, too. Looks like I've got to read that book!

@Steed I agree that Afrika was a sidelight in the war and Rommel had better things to do than play in the sand.

@everyone I am astounded at the knowledge and civility shown in this discussion, which could at any moment have descended into flame wars. SUBSIM really IS different than the nether regions of the Internet. You guys ROCK!:rock:

[donut]

Learned more about WWII,than I did from dear-O-Dad,& he lived it.:rock:

[Mush Martin]

As far as im concerned, Germany lost the war the instant they let the Little Corporal became head of state.


:yep::yep::yep:
Sun Tzu teaches us the state must be just and keep faith with
the people.

[cmdrk]

A very interesting discussion. A tip of the hat to you all.

A few points I'd like to hit.
The matter of the number of UBoats at the start of the war. If there were a larger number it could have been more effective, maybe succesful, providing the build up of boats didn't provoke a strong counter-build up of ASW ships. This would be tricky, but England and US both would have had to contend with political budget fights to allocate the funds to do so. The key to a successful military campaign is to apply enough force, at the right place and time. That was what I was referring to about getting a jump ahead of the production/deployment curve of key material, aka ships and men. The fact of history is Germany didn't get a big enough jump ahead to truly catch England flat-footed. They did with France 1940.

The invasion of England greatly depended on air superiority as Germany couldn't counter the English navy with warships. The conduct of the Battle of Britain - the shift to civilian targets - doomed the chance for air superiority. Any German force on English soil would have been cut off as noted by others. True, England was short of tanks and guns, but the German forces would quickly be short of fuel, food, and ammo.

The Russian campaign may have been launched because dictators often have to have an active enemy to maintain control over the people. The English front was stalled. The German people may soon feel that old injustices were avenged and look for a return to normal life. The German army was a political actor and Hitler needed their backing. They needed to be kept occupied and Hitler's eyes turned East. The early success of the Eastern front lead to increasingly broader aim to get it all quick. They spread their forces too thin and their momentum flagged. Then it was Hitler's give no ground attitude that doomed the German army. A few years later Army staff officers attempted an assination.

If Hitler could have waited until tensions flared between US and Japan.... :hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

RR:
@AVGWarhawk looks like the book you cited agrees with my assessment that Stalin would have been as dangerous as Hitler had he not been attacked first. I agree totally. Stalin was probably more evil than Hitler and believed all the Marxist-Leninist claptrap about taking over the world. He would have been much harder to defeat than Hitler, too. Looks like I've got to read that book!

Yes, Stalin was a tyrannt. Hilters/Europes war was really in the East with Russia. The numbers show this. The West was just a thorn in Hilters side. France and Poland were taken easily. Spain and Portugal were neutral. Hilter had no argument with England. England declared war on Germany for fear of attack which came anyway.

The book is excellent. It really is a culmination of years of study from all noted historians.

[STEED]

England declared war on Germany for fear of attack which came anyway.

Pardon. :huh:

I was always under the impression that France and Britain guaranteed Poland's independents and when Hitler attacked we were at war with Germany.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

Last week I found an old dusty paperback novel I had bought way back when I was in school. The historic novel was called 'Hurricats' and related the rocket-catapulted Hawker Hurricanes from Camships in the Atlantic. It was great reading. They were used to counter the 'Scourge of The Atlantic'. No, not u-boats, but the Focke Wulf FW-200 Kondor Maritime/Recon Bomber that sighted convoys for German u-boats. Funny, Churchill would refer that term to a Luftwaffe bomber than to a u-boat.:hmm:

[Tobus]

Japan was totally unprepared for the war they threw themselves in. This was most noticable in their navy: prepared for "the final victory" in one huge battle. This was their whole philosophy. Not one part of the Japanese war effort was gear towards a war, but always towards a single battle. As the war progressed, this became even suicidal (Yamato, Kamikazes).

They did not expect to fight long, and did not expect their merchantfleet to become targets in a drawn-out ordeal. Their navy was geared towards large engagements: carriers, battleships and cruisers, but precious few escorts and destroyers capable of ASW.

Convoys were only introduced later in the war, when it was basically too late. By then, they had fewer ships to guard, so setting convoys up with adequate escort was actually easier than in 1941.

Now, had the Japanese been prepared and geared towards a long, drawn-out conflict, not only in their escorting navy, but also on other fronts and tactics, the US fleetboats would have been very hard pressed, and might well have been defeated. Don't forget that the US Silent Service, was, in its early war days, an organisation lacking any form of resolve and performance, burdened by an enormous pre-war bureaucratic machine and geared towards a totally different kind of war: the war alongside other fleetunits engaging other battlefleets. They got exactly the opposite, had to go out as lone hunters, with no help form other units, be it navy, air force or army. On top of that, they also had their torpedoproblems, same as Germany, but including an enormous shortage of them, because they were made by only the Torpedo Directorate in a much too small amount.

In the end, they acquitted themselves very well, but that to a large degree came from a total disregard of Japan to defend it's own supplyforce, simply believing that destruction of that force "just could not happen", their shipbuilding geared towards fightingships, not mules.

If Japan demonstrated ANYTHING in those days, it was that going to war ill-prepared is tantamount to suicide on a national scale. But then, this was also a part of their entire military code...

Now for the German side: I think this has been debated to death, both in a lot of books (mych of which I own), and in this thread and elsewhere on the internet. In the end, the Germans just bit off way more than they could chew.

Some great books to end things and leave port Wilhemshaven:

A Writer at War; Vassili Grossman
Stalin, The court of the Red Tsar; Simon Sebag Montefiore
Silent Victory; Clay Blair jr.
The Second World War in the Far East; H.P. Wilmott

and a good insight of the times leading up to WW2:
Dark Valley, a panorama of the 1930s; Piers Brendon

[Rockin Robbins]

Now for the German side: I think this has been debated to death, both in a lot of books (mych of which I own), and in this thread and elsewhere on the internet. In the end, the Germans just bit off way more than they could chew. Piers Brendon

Yes the situation of Germany has been analyzed forever. I only started the thread because I had never read anyone (and I'm pretty well-read about the war) put forward the idea that the source of Britain's supplies made it apparent than sinking these supplies would bring a player into the war which could not be badly injured by any number of U-Boats. Also the wrinkle of resources wasted on U-Boats which could have been used to build tanks, trucks, trains, supply infastructure and weapons. Only because my viewpoint was so different from all I had read and heard did I bring it up.

Typical of Hitler's scatterbrain approach was the Battle of Britain. Again, he found himself without the right kind of equipment. He didn't have decent bombers and he could only overfly 1/3 of the British territory. In order to eliminate the RAF, Britain first would have to agree to move all its planes to the 1/3 of its territory that the Luftwaffe could hit! Even in that third, German planes could spend no more than 20 to 40 minutes over enemy territory. And as Steed (I think) brought up, German air bases were too far from the French coast.

No, it was a big mistake to attempt to strangle England in the first place. They did not have to fight the British. They could have declared victory after Dunkirk, wished the British well and waited for Stalin's attack. Then it would have been Nazi Germany, England and the US against Stalin.

In the US the isolationist Republicans of the time very well could have kept us out of the war, but Nazi fans like Charles Lindberg would have made a very persuasive case for our entry.

[AVGWarhawk]

England declared war on Germany for fear of attack which came anyway.
Pardon. :huh:

I was always under the impression that France and Britain guaranteed Poland's independents and when Hitler attacked we were at war with Germany.

I will look this bit of information over again. This I have not heard before but I have not heard of everything....that is what my wife says and usually she is right. :oops:

[Jimbuna]

England was duty bound by an Anglo-Polish military alliance to provide mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

[AVGWarhawk]

England was duty bound by an Anglo-Polish military alliance to provide mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. No offense. I'm going to look up this point when I get home today or tomorrow.

[odjig292]

RR's quote:I only started the thread {to} ... put forward the idea that the source of Britain's supplies made it apparent that sinking these supplies would bring a player into the war which could not be badly injured by any number of U-Boats.

If we go back to the concept that Donitz had 300 U-Boats at the start of the war, and was able to keep 100 U-Boats at sea at all times, think what he would have done to the US merchant fleet. Pukenschlag started with 5 U-Boats, but sunk over 600 US ships for 3.1 million tons losing only 22 U-Boats in return. Admiral King's reluctance to go to convoys inflicted the worst defeat in US naval history. If Donitz had wiped out Britain's fleet during 1940 and 1941, he could have tripled those loss numbers because he would have been able to dedicate his entire force against the American coast. My appraisal says the US was badly injured and it could have been worse.

[harzfeld]

I disagree that Hitler did not planned or wanted a war with England. U-Boat was part of Hitler's plot for a coming war with England, but the war with British came sooner than Hitler probably expected. So why built so many U-Boats for a war against Poland, France, and Russia while German didn't have to use their U-boats to take over those countries. German had enough resources that could have successfully handled Russia alone instead of spreading their resources thin against other countries. Basically, U-boats were for sinking shippings in attempts to cripple UK and to hide from Allied's planes and warships, to me that was just for a war against British and USA. Basically, Hitler was just rattling the cages to bring German into doom, and he probably didn't see that or he just didn't care. Maybe it would be different world if German or Hitler had better diplomatic skills to prolong the war or Hitler's quest. I rather just Hitler and Stalin war instead of WW2, or Hitler and Stalin locked up in the same pit cage fighting each other to death.

[SteamWake]

England was duty bound by an Anglo-Polish military alliance to provide mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. No offense. I'm going to look up this point when I get home today or tomorrow.

I take it with a shot of burbon and often increduility.

[Jimbuna]

England was duty bound by an Anglo-Polish military alliance to provide mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. No offense. I'm going to look up this point when I get home today or tomorrow.

No offence taken AV.....I feel similarly about http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/smilies/wiki.gif But it's fast and usually a fair 'generalised' reference source.
Try these links:
http://polskawashingtondc.blogspot.com/2008/01/french-and-british-betrayal-of-poland.html

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk19.htm

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Jimbuna]

England was duty bound by an Anglo-Polish military alliance to provide mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. No offense. I'm going to look up this point when I get home today or tomorrow.

I take it with a shot of burbon and often increduility.

I'm a dark rum man mesel.....love a drop o Nelsons Blood http://www.abfnet.com/forum/images/smilies/pirate_with_bottle_of_rum_lg_blk.gif

[hyperion2206]

Now for the German side: I think this has been debated to death, both in a lot of books (mych of which I own), and in this thread and elsewhere on the internet. In the end, the Germans just bit off way more than they could chew. Piers Brendon
Yes the situation of Germany has been analyzed forever. I only started the thread because I had never read anyone (and I'm pretty well-read about the war) put forward the idea that the source of Britain's supplies made it apparent than sinking these supplies would bring a player into the war which could not be badly injured by any number of U-Boats. Also the wrinkle of resources wasted on U-Boats which could have been used to build tanks, trucks, trains, supply infastructure and weapons. Only because my viewpoint was so different from all I had read and heard did I bring it up.

Typical of Hitler's scatterbrain approach was the Battle of Britain. Again, he found himself without the right kind of equipment. He didn't have decent bombers and he could only overfly 1/3 of the British territory. In order to eliminate the RAF, Britain first would have to agree to move all its planes to the 1/3 of its territory that the Luftwaffe could hit! Even in that third, German planes could spend no more than 20 to 40 minutes over enemy territory. And as Steed (I think) brought up, German air bases were too far from the French coast.

No, it was a big mistake to attempt to strangle England in the first place. They did not have to fight the British. They could have declared victory after Dunkirk, wished the British well and waited for Stalin's attack. Then it would have been Nazi Germany, England and the US against Stalin.

In the US the isolationist Republicans of the time very well could have kept us out of the war, but Nazi fans like Charles Lindberg would have made a very persuasive case for our entry.


I agree that the Luftwaffe could only cover 1/3 of GB but I think they didn't have to cover more. Let's face it the "Brits" would have never allowed the Luftwaffe air superiority over 1/3 of Britain. They would have thrown every fighter into this battle.

And I don't believe that England and the US would have suddenly helped Germany if it was attacked by Stalin. I think they would have just watched to see who wins that fight and then they would have finished the survivor (who would have endured incredible losse) off.

[Rockin Robbins]

I disagree that Hitler did not planned or wanted a war with England. U-Boat was part of Hitler's plot for a coming war with England, but the war with British came sooner than Hitler probably expected. So why built so many U-Boats for a war against Poland, France, and Russia while German didn't have to use their U-boats to take over those countries. German had enough resources that could have successfully handled Russia alone instead of spreading their resources thin against other countries.
Beautifully put! It's exactly my point that the U-Boats and war with Britain and the US were all avoidable and a hindrance to any lasting, real conquest. Reading Mein Kampf it is immediately apparent that Mr Hitler really hated the Russians. It is so interesting that he who thought treaties were ways to buy peace, and that the definition of peace was a short period of preparation for war, would have been so convinced that Britain would actually fight to the death if he attacked Poland and the Low Countries, not to even mention France, which has never been buddies with Britain. I doubt it ever occured to him that given a graceful way out, Britain would stand down gladly rather than lose another generation of men as they did in WWI. Those memories were still very fresh. Because of that, I believe with proper "encouragement" a peace would have been signed.

But Hitler was not a reasoning man. Otto von Bismark he was not. Von Bismark was all about building a greater Germany with skill and force only when absolutely necessary. Hitler was about destroying all that he could and dying gloriously.

[CaptainHaplo]

The problem with the Battle of Britain is the "escorts" that could reach and fight over the Isle for any amount of time were ME110's - and the Zerstroyer as it was termed was a total and utter failure as a fighter. Heck, it barely was passable as as a night fighter. The ME 109s, from where they were based, didn't have the range to cross the channel and really mix it up against the RAF for very long. While the Spitfire and 109 were evenly matched in some ways, the 110 was fodder for Hurricanes, Beaufighters, Mosquito's and just about anything else. In fact, if memory servers, there were only 3 birds in active English service that were not the equal of the 110 that were classified as "fighters". They were the Hawker Fury, the Gloster Gladiator and the Bristol Bulldog - all biplanes left over from the post WW1 era! Even the Defiant matched up well with the 110 - and would have been even more successful if someone had thought to give it forward firing guns.....

Even so, it was the decision to switch from attacking the radar stations and airfields - to bombing the cities, that lost the Battle of Britain for the Luftwaffe. This is what exposed not only the HE 111's, Ju 88's and Do17's to extreme danger, it also forced the bombers to be escorted by the useless ME110s - that were little more useful than the bombers themselves. Had the decision not been made, the Luftwaffe would have gained Air Dominance over the southern part of Britain - and there would have been little the RAF could have done about it. While I salute the Brits on their success in the Battle of Britain - the outcome would have been significantly different had the majority of 109's been able to participate.

So far, I haven't heard many dispute that a different outcome in the Battle of Britain would have changed the outcome of the war. Also -no one has spoke on my idea of using the u-boats to blockade the channel. No takers on that idea?

[Powerthighs]

My understanding from recent reading is that Hitler thought for a long time that he would be able to maintain peace with Great Britain (one reason for not building tons of U-boats before the war) while he took over most of continental Europe.

[Rockin Robbins]

@CaptainHaplo: using U-Boats to block the channel would leave supply ports unguarded, resulting in an amazing increase in supplies getting to Britain. Since the British were busily moving air bases and important facilities outside of the small part of Britain accessible to German aircraft, I believe it would have resulted in just another balance of abilities for the Brits. I don't think the RN would have had to attack the Channel because all British aircraft based outside the range of the Luftwaffe could easily overfly the channel and all of the contested airspace as well. The Luftwaffe did not have any bombers of sufficient load capacity to get the job done and their fighters were designed for close-in work, not projection of power. A different outcome of the Battle of Britain could only have been obtained by Germany using planes with the characteristics of B-17s, B-24s, P-47's and Mustangs, which were designed to project power over 500 miles. Sorry, Goering was no genius as Donitz was. The Germans didn't have the equipment to get the job done because Goering didn't understand his mission. The Battle of Britain was lost in the middle 1930's.

@Powerthighs: more support for my point! How the Sam Hill is Hitler to keep peace with Britain with an ocean full of U-Boats whose only conceivable purpose is to subdue Britain? And how many hundreds of tanks, how many hundreds of ME 109s, how many thousand pieces of artillery, how many trains, guns and trucks which could better have been used to subdue the continent did those useless U-Boats represent? I contend the U-Boat was a fine weapon with no proper application in the aid of the German cause. Just imagine the U-Boat fleet replaced by thousands of long-range bombers and fighters!

[Penelope_Grey]

Lot of top notch replies here, so I'll just go to Rockin Robs orginal post and the basis for mine, hopefully the rest of you don't mind.

Much has been made of the similarity of German strategy in the Atlantik and American stategy in the Pacific. They were both unrestricted warfare upon the shipping of the enemy nation with the intent of denying them supplies necessary to prosecute the war. So why the difference in outcome?

I believe, personally... the main difference in outcome was scale. The United Kingdom, had the United States and their industrial machine to help us out with our shipbuilding activities, Japan had, nobody. I believe that makes an enormous difference. Its not how well you can fight per se, but how well you can sustain the fight...

The German U-Boat was a badly designed vessel, used in an inappropriate manner which actually guaranteed total defeat for Germany.

I totally disagree. The U-Boat was designed to operate alone and independantly for purpose of finding and destroying enemy merchant shipping. It had both depth and underwater endurance superior to any American Fleet Boat, and other submarines.... yes, they were claustrophobic small tin cans, but, they didn't need to be enormous especially as their hunting grounds were not that far from Germany, and when they got France, even closer again. They were designed to fit the situation they were in.

The American fleet submarine, while not built for the purpose and strategy with which it was used, fit its use perfectly.

Again, the fleet boat from what I can tell, fit its role perfectly (by accident), the ability to prowl the vast expanses of the pacific was what was needed to fight Japan, and the number of weapons aboard meant that they could take the fight to the Japanese but good. One other thing, Japan was not an industrial giant. The stranglehold that America put on them they didn't have a hope of breaking loose of.

Let's look at the German side first. Fundamentally, the greatest flaw in the dominant Type VII U-Boat design was that it was too small and did not carry sufficient firepower to make a difference when acting alone. Carrying only 14 torpedoes, some of which were carried on the exterior of the hull, against a 20 ship convoy, they were urinating on a forest fire. Even during the best times, the U-Boat fleet had only a few months where they destroyed more shipping than the Allies built. The battle of the Atlantik was a war of attrition and the U-Boat fleet didn't have the firepower to destroy quicker than the Allies built their fleets. It was only a matter of time before they were overwhelmed, even by inferior equipment. They were doomed by design.

Again I dount that larger size would have made a difference. The type VII could be built quickly and in large numbers. The plan as I understand it being that as one wave of boats were coming back another wave would be out to take their place so there would always be a submarine force in operation.

Also large size was not necessary in the Atlantic, 1) they didn't have to travel very far, and 2) against convoys the smaller size made them a lot harder to find prior to the advancements in ASW. Large size here would have been a definate hinderenace.

Again, Donitz was fully aware that the numbers of submarines he had when war started were insufficient, had he had the numbers he wanted... he could have strangled the UK to submission and made it impossible for us to keep fighting. As it stands they were forced to play catch up right the way through.


Then there are fatal flaws in the German strategy, borne of the critical difference between Japan and Britain. Japan stood alone, with few supplies of her own and depended on her own merchant fleet to bring war supplies to the home island. Total submarine warfare sank the merchies, denying Japan supplies to produce ships, planes and weapons. The result was victory in the Pacific.

Britain also relied on her shipping lanes as heavily as Japan did.

However, Germany's war against Britain was only superficially similar. The differences made unrestricted submarine warfare a foolish proposition. British supplies came not on British bottoms but on neutral ships as well. In order to starve the enemy, Germany had no choice but to sink American merchants. But America was not subject to starvation by U-Boat strangulation. Once American war production ramped up, even with poor defenses against U-Boat attacks, ships were being built faster than the U-Boats could ever sink them. The war was over, even though it took a few years for Germany to acknowledge the fact.

True, neutral ships, which is why U-Boat captains had permission to sink any ship neutral ship if it was headed to the UK. America was not subject to U-Boat strangulation no... but, it was effective strategy to sink the ships before they even begin their journey over to Europe. However, it didn't last because as you say production was beyond sinkings.

Using U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, then, was a colossal blunder, wasting valuable resources which could have been used to produce planes, tanks, weapons....you know, actually useful war materials! Coupled with the equally idiotic Battle of Britain, Germany could only choose to die then or later. The war was unwinnable.

Not quite as simple as that, during 1940 (I think it was), the UK came to within 3 and a half weeks of being knocked out of the war, the U-Boats very nearly won beat us into submission, Churchill himself always maintained, the only thing he sweated during WW2 was the threat of Germany's submarine force.

However I wouldn't say U-Boats were the cause of Germany losing, far from it, the Russians were the single biggest cause that Germany lost. Again though, Hitler needed the resources that lay inside Russian lands so he never had a choice... swings and roundabouts innit?

Fact remains in the early parts of the war, we the British did not know what these U-Boats were capable of, and were nto sure how to effectively combat them. The German U-Boats were a good design for their purpose and with huge underwater endurance and the ability to dive to depths of 600 feet, small size to penetrate convoys... they were formidable.

Advances in allied technology was what cost the U-Boats the war in the atlantic. Radar, breaking of enigma, better air cover etc.... the U-Boats did not advance to meet the new challenge. In short, there was never enough U-Boats in the Atlantic, the strategy said that you needed plenty of Subs, subs that Doenitz didn't have.

Let's go to Japan! America did not merely copy German submarine strategy. First, they determined that it was appropriate to the situation and could result in victory. Japanese war materiel was entirely made in Japan from supplies shipped there on Japanese bottoms. Therefore, sinking Japanese merchants would deprive Japan of the ability to continue the war. American submarines were supplied with 24 torpedoes apiece, enough to justify the long transit times to and from reloading, and giving each submarine enough punch to remain on station for a telling amount of time, delivering significant blows to keep ahead of Japanese production. This minimized the need for excessive radio chat. In fact American boats acting in wolfpacks still did not use the radio very much. They knew the results of radio direction finding. And this appropriate use of a weapon which fit its theater of operations perfectly resulted in victory for the Allies in the Pacific.

See even with good tactics, it wasn't American Subs that defeated Japan really. It was "fatman" and "littleboy" that defeated Japan... Certainly I'd say the US invasion was a huge factor as well, the bombs just sealed the deal.

Also having 24 torpedoes a piece is necessary, there was not as many fleet boats as there were U-Boats (and there was never enough U-Boats) having a large arsenal was mandatory. As for not copying U-Boat tactics, I think that not copying and adapting German strategy would have been foolhardy on the part of the US Navy.... American subs did other things besides blow up enemy shipping, but their main goal was to blockade and strangle the Japanese supply routes. So for that what they were doing was like the Germans.

I'd certainly say that while U-Boats were not able to defeat the UK, not enough of them to do it, they certainly made life a lot tougher for us than if they hadn't have been there.

American subs you are right were hugely effective, but to write off U-Boats in such a way. Wrong.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Great discussion here, lots of info :yep:


RDP

[STEED]

Why the U-Boats lost.


The basic design of the U-Boat had hardly changed from WW1
55 U-Boats at the start of the war
The Navy came third for supply's
The war came five years to early for the U-Boats
U-Boats were over stretched
Hitler calls an end to all long term scientific research in 1940
Britain got the Enigma machine in the 1930's
Why the U-Boats did well in the early war years.


Hitler rebuilt the Military forces
Germany was ahead in the 1930's on the scientific front
Europe did not or would not believe Hitler would start a war
The Allies were caught with there pants down
Britain was busy with the air war in 1940If Churchill was elected in the 1930's you can bet your ass Churchill would have done the same as Hitler the only differences would been, we were not the aggressor. And U-Boats would not had it so good.

Thank God we had Churchill who saw Hitler for what he was, a warmonger.

[Rockin Robbins]

Nice to hear from the U-Boat contingent. It's kind of a shame we're not having the discussion in their forum. I just don't know the people over there well enough to start something like this with confidence that everyone will remain constructive and have fun speculating about the what ifs.

Actually I'm surprised at how much we are in agreement, rather than the differences in detail. And I've learned a lot from all the great posts in here. This is a graduate course in What If!

Please don't get the idea that I say that U-Boats were lousy boats. They had lots of admirable qualities. In some ways they were superior to American boats. But diving deeper doesn't sink targets. Being harder to see when approaching convoys (I wonder how true that is if running decks awash) might help sink more ships. Having half the number of torpedoes would definitely hurt their chances to sink more ships. it is fascinating to run both kinds in SH3 and SH4. I love 'em both!

One thing is certain. The United States could have won the war in the Pacific with U-Boats. The Germans could not have won the war in the Atlantic with American submarines. It wasn't the character of the weapons that made the difference, it was the different circumstances in which they were used. Both boats were completely capable of delivering victory if used in an appropriate manner. The Atlantic just didn't quite fit.

And the German high command needed the resources that U-Boats were using up. They could update U-Boats or produce all the land stuff they needed to prosecute their war. They couldn't do both and they made the choice to let the U-Boats continue unsupported.

Probably the best choice would have been to not support the U-Boat war at all and declare peace with Britain after Dunkirk. But "best choice" and "World War II German leadership" do not belong in the same sentence, as so many of you have trotted out examples of so far in this thread. They certainly exceeded their normal allottment of one fatal mistake.:dead:

[Rockin Robbins]

Thank God we had Churchill who saw Hitler for what he was, a warmonger.
Winston Churchill, the one man who back in the middle 1930's, brokered the abdication of Edward VIII, not because he wanted to marry "the woman I love" but because he was a Nazi sympathizer who wanted to throw British might behind Hitler. Edward's attitude and plans were ably assisted by our wonderful Joseph Kennedy (who never met a Nazi he didn't like), American ambassador to Britain (thank you very much). With amazing tact and skill, without any power to require it, Churchill saved western civilization and very few know about it to this day.

During this time Churchill cultivated the friendship and trust of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, convincing him of the mortal danger in which Naziism put the world. He convinced Roosevelt to unconstitutionally and secretly establish a shadow British government, host the British secret service and move some of the Enigma decoding teams to the US. This was a time when the myopic, head in the sand, isolationist, stupid Republicans held the hearts and minds of the American public. Had any of this been discovered, Roosevelt would have been impeached, tried and probably imprisoned for espionage. His vision and courage were incredible. Roosevelt's leadership was incredible. He did all this against the wishes of his people for a greater cause. But make no mistake, it was Winston Churchill who was the indispensible mover in the events leading to WWII for all the Allies.

This American holds Winston Churchill as the greatest hero of the twentieth century.

[CaptainHaplo]

The idea that America could have won the war with Uboats- sorry - no way. Maybe if we used nothing but Type IX's and had a slew of em - but the Type VII didnt have the range needed to even make the round trip and be on station for as long as was needed.

Now if Germany had had 55 fleet boats instead.... hmm... an interesting what if. With the superior surface speed, armament and range provided.... there actually might have been more success in the early years - but no matter how you slice it - more boats were needed.

Ultimately, what lost the war for Germany was idiocy, not a single weapon and its usage. BTW RR - I had not considered the idea of supplies coming in if the uboats were blocking the channel, but I dont think they would have been needed but for a short period - so in my view the attempt would have been worth it. But then again - we all have the benefit of hindsight!

And yes - Winston Churchill is indeed one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century. We need leaders like him again to be sure even today!

[Storabrun]

Of course America would have won the war with U-boats. And with war canoes too if that was all they had. It's not like USA was up against some kind of superpower and had to cut their enemys supplies to stand a chance. The japanese were simply outproduced and in most cases outmatched by the US and would still have been by a large margin even with 0 ships sunk by submarines.

Doenitz and the germans weren't stupid and if fleet boats was what they needed they would have built such boats instead. But more torpedoes doesn't help much if you are sunk because you are easy to find, slow to dive, unable to dive deep and have short underwater range. And if they wanted range and torpedoes they already had the type IX, with range and surface speed similar to fleet subs, worse radar but better in everything else. After the war americans studied the u-boats to improve their own, not the other way around.

You really can't judge the subs or uboats by the end result because the conditions were so different. I read somewhere that japanese escorts never dropped their cans below 50 meters, as they didn't think submarines could go deeper. Sounds like happy times lasted the whole war for the submarines;)

[Torplexed]

You really can't judge the subs or uboats by the end result because the conditions were so different. I read somewhere that japanese escorts never dropped their cans below 50 meters, as they didn't think submarines could go deeper. Sounds like happy times lasted the whole war for the submarines;)
The was the case until a certain thoughtless blabbermouth Congressman named Andrew Jackson May spilled the beans after returning from a war zone junket in 1943. It then went out over the wires and was widely published. Admiral Lockwood stated that the remark probably cost the Navy ten submarines and 800 men.

[hyperion2206]

All the time I read about the superior fire power of the fleet boats compared to U-Boats. In theory having extra fire power is great but what about the hit rate. Although the type VII U-Boats had less torpedos I believe that their hit and or sink rate was much higher then the hit/sink rate of the fleet boats. You have to keep that factor in mind as well.:know:

[hyperion2206]

Of course America would have won the war with U-boats. And with war canoes too if that was all they had. It's not like USA was up against some kind of superpower and had to cut their enemys supplies to stand a chance. The japanese were simply outproduced and in most cases outmatched by the US and would still have been by a large margin even with 0 ships sunk by submarines.


You make it sound as if the Pacific war was a oiece of cake for the US. US cruisers were caught with their pants down more then once during the Solomons campaign for example.;)

[Penelope_Grey]

55 U-Boats at the start of the war

Sorry to be pedantic STEED, but it was 57. :up:

this American holds Winston Churchill as the greatest hero of the twentieth century.

LOL fair enough RR... just remember that "hero" was the one who failed to warn the USA what the Japanese were about to do to Pearl Harbour. Legend has it that Churchill knew the Japanese were headed em masse out towards Pearl Harbour, but decided to not warn the US of it. Unless the US government knew as well... and did nothing.... oh heck WW2 conspiracy theories abound!

[AVGWarhawk]

oh heck WW2 conspiracy theories abound!

That is a understatement!

[Rockin Robbins]

55 U-Boats at the start of the war
Sorry to be pedantic STEED, but it was 57. :up:

this American holds Winston Churchill as the greatest hero of the twentieth century.
LOL fair enough RR... just remember that "hero" was the one who failed to warn the USA what the Japanese were about to do to Pearl Harbour. Legend has it that Churchill knew the Japanese were headed em masse out towards Pearl Harbour, but decided to not warn the US of it. Unless the US government knew as well... and did nothing.... oh heck WW2 conspiracy theories abound!

Sometimes a statesman holds a secret because he has to. Churchill was not free to discuss everything he wished. He was still a British citizen owing his allegiance to British interests. This is in contrast to our congressman who had the blood of hundreds of dead American submariners on his hands because he bragged that the Japanese were setting their depth charges too shallow.

Also, I believe that if the Japanese had not successfully attacked Pearl Harbor, we would have pursued our "shootout at OK Corrall" capital ship showdown plan and the Japanese would have delivered us a humiliation that would have had us tallying up negatives and positives and electing to leave the Japanese alone. Our political situation, even though Roosevelt was president, was firmly isolationist. "Let the Europeans take each other to Hell. We have no obligation to jump in after them." The America first movement was so strong it took a Pearl Harbor to galvanize us into action. No offense was meant by Mr Churchill and none should be taken by us.

What would we have done with the information anyway, but blown the British secret service's advantage. Churchill also sacrificed his own city of Coventry so as not to reveal our ability to read Enigma messages. Pearl Harbor was a cheap loss which may have won the war for us. Churchill was right. It's called war for a good reason. Victory only follows sacrifice and he was willing to pay the price for victory. That's a hero.

[Storabrun]

You make it sound as if the Pacific war was a oiece of cake for the US. US cruisers were caught with their pants down more then once during the Solomons campaign for example.;)

As for the whole war in the pacific, no it was not a piece of cake. But it's not like the victory was in danger if the fleet boats would have been less successful. The success of the fleet boats certainly helped the war effort. My point is that you can't use this success to conclude that fleet boats were better than uboats. Yeah they were probably better at the task they had, to fight an enemy far away but with very limited and weak ASW capabilities. If the britts and americans had the ASW capabilities of the Japanese they would probaly have been beaten with uboats from WWI.

When you compare the two it's pretty clear that the fleet boats objectives were a piece of cake compared to the objective the uboats had.

[Jimbuna]

55 U-Boats at the start of the war
Sorry to be pedantic STEED, but it was 57. :up:

this American holds Winston Churchill as the greatest hero of the twentieth century.
LOL fair enough RR... just remember that "hero" was the one who failed to warn the USA what the Japanese were about to do to Pearl Harbour. Legend has it that Churchill knew the Japanese were headed em masse out towards Pearl Harbour, but decided to not warn the US of it. Unless the US government knew as well... and did nothing.... oh heck WW2 conspiracy theories abound!

Sometimes a statesman holds a secret because he has to. Churchill was not free to discuss everything he wished. He was still a British citizen owing his allegiance to British interests. This is in contrast to our congressman who had the blood of hundreds of dead American submariners on his hands because he bragged that the Japanese were setting their depth charges too shallow.

Also, I believe that if the Japanese had not successfully attacked Pearl Harbor, we would have pursued our "shootout at OK Corrall" capital ship showdown plan and the Japanese would have delivered us a humiliation that would have had us tallying up negatives and positives and electing to leave the Japanese alone. Our political situation, even though Roosevelt was president, was firmly isolationist. "Let the Europeans take each other to Hell. We have no obligation to jump in after them." The America first movement was so strong it took a Pearl Harbor to galvanize us into action. No offense was meant by Mr Churchill and none should be taken by us.

What would we have done with the information anyway, but blown the British secret service's advantage. Churchill also sacrificed his own city of Coventry so as not to reveal our ability to read Enigma messages. Pearl Harbor was a cheap loss which may have won the war for us. Churchill was right. It's called war for a good reason. Victory only follows sacrifice and he was willing to pay the price for victory. That's a hero.

Some excellent posts sir.....you have obviously researched your subject matter well http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Penelope_Grey]

Certainly some top notch posts RR, but I am not and never will be a Churchill fan. Yes he made sacrifices but he wasn't the one who paid for those sacrifices. The people in that city had no clue it was about to bombed to hell, how many people died... loads.

He is no hero. A good leader able to make tough choices yes... but that doesn't make him a hero, not even on the best day of his life.

[Rockin Robbins]

You make it sound as if the Pacific war was a oiece of cake for the US. US cruisers were caught with their pants down more then once during the Solomons campaign for example.;)
As for the whole war in the pacific, no it was not a piece of cake. But it's not like the victory was in danger if the fleet boats would have been less successful. The success of the fleet boats certainly helped the war effort. My point is that you can't use this success to conclude that fleet boats were better than uboats. Yeah they were probably better at the task they had, to fight an enemy far away but with very limited and weak ASW capabilities. If the britts and americans had the ASW capabilities of the Japanese they would probaly have been beaten with uboats from WWI.

When you compare the two it's pretty clear that the fleet boats objectives were a piece of cake compared to the objective the uboats had.

My point has nothing to do with what boat was better than what other boat. My point is that for one situation unrestricted submarine warfare was the key that fit the lock, but on the other unrestricted submarine warfare not only did not fit the lock, it put other locks on the prize. As I said before, America could have won the Pacific war with U-Boats but the Germans could not win the Battle of the Atlantic with American submarines.

We Americans were also very fortunate that our fleet was sunk in Pearl Harbor, forcing us to cast about for a strategy that could win the war in the Pacific. And we were fortunate that submarines designed for scouting worked even better as wolves.

[Jimbuna]

One thing that is IMO of interest to note, is the fact that the British people turned their back on him after the war when he was up for re-election :hmm:

The only man though IMO that was capable of leading the people in a coalition during the war :yep:

[Storabrun]

My point has nothing to do with what boat was better than what other boat. My point is that for one situation unrestricted submarine warfare was the key that fit the lock, but on the other unrestricted submarine warfare not only did not fit the lock, it put other locks on the prize. As I said before, America could have won the Pacific war with U-Boats but the Germans could not win the Battle of the Atlantic with American submarines.


Yes, but my reply was to the post by CaptainHaplo about uboats and fleet subs. Not that I mind discussing this with you though!

I understand your point about the locks, and you could be right too. But given the difference in industrial capacity I don't think there was any way Japan could have beaten the US once you were fully committed to fight this war. And pearl harbour took care of that part.

Let me give you another example, the winter war in Finland 39-40. The Soviets made a lot off misstakes in this war and Finland did alot right. The end result was still a loss for Finland because of the enourmous difference in military power. I am not suggesting that the differences between the major powers in WWII was that large. But still large enough to allow for many misstakes by the allies, and many sane and good decisions by the axis, without changing the end result in anything but time and lives spent.

In hindsight one could say that the large production of strategic bombers and the bombing raids they performed were allied misstakes. They did not achieve either of their objectives, to break the german will to fight (brittain should have known from personal experience that this wouldn't work) and destoy germanys industrial capacity (instead production steadily increased over the years because of higher degree of mobilisation). But the war was won anyway, so who cares?

[BH]

I kept waiting for someone to bring this up and nobody has.

Sure the Germans failed in logistics and stratagy but their biggest failure and it was fatal was in INTELLIGENCE and COUNTER -INTELLIGENCE. I don't have the time to dig through all my references many of Hitlers costlist decisions were based on faulty or inaccurate intellegence. Not to mention the failure of counter intelligence to uncover spies like Soviet spy Richard Sorge.

Japan had a great prewar espionage ring but had little effect once the war started.

[odjig292]

Penelope_ Gray said just remember that "hero" was the one who failed to warn the USA what the Japanese were about to do to Pearl Harbour.

Harry Hopkins (Roosevelt's closet advisor) in his book suggests that Churchill did tell Roosevelt about Pearl Harbor before it happened. There is no way that he couldn't. It would have destroyed all of his credibility if FDR found out later that WSC knew in advance. Churchill knew because Stalin had told him, based on Richard Sorge's penetration of the Imperial Japanese Cabinet. Sorge didn't give a date but said it would happen, thereby allowing the Russians to transfer 190 divisions from the Manchurian border to Stalingrad. Bletchley Park was also breaking the Japanese codes and British Naval Intelligence presumably could forecast that it would likely happen at dawn on Sunday. BNI told the PM.

Hopkins says that the phone call from Churchill came in while FDR was eating breakfast on Friday (5th). They talked for a couple of minutes, and then FDR asked HLH to leave the room; - a most unusual request. After the call finished, HLH went back into the room, but FDR said nothing and did not finish breakfast. It was only a couple of days later that HLH realized what must have been said. FWIW.

[Torplexed]

Going back to the original question I think what's interesting is that you could make an even stronger arguement for U-Boats costing Germany the previous conflict: World War One.

It was a combination of the resumption of unrestricted U-Boat warfare by the Germans and the Zimmerman Telegram which sought an German alliance with Mexico that finally brought about the US declaration of war on Imperial Germany in 1917. Fresh US troops then joined the Allied cause which had just seen Russia exit it when they signed a peace treaty with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk. Although the US Army wasn't the juggernaut in 1918 that it would be in 1944, it's timely intervention did help blunt Lundendorff's final offensive towards Paris on the Western Front and participated in the Allied counter-offensive that eventually led to the internal collpase of Germany.

So, did U-boats cost Germany two World Wars? :hmm:

[Rockin Robbins]

I kept waiting for someone to bring this up and nobody has.

Sure the Germans failed in logistics and stratagy but their biggest failure and it was fatal was in INTELLIGENCE and COUNTER -INTELLIGENCE. I don't have the time to dig through all my references many of Hitlers costlist decisions were based on faulty or inaccurate intellegence. Not to mention the failure of counter intelligence to uncover spies like Soviet spy Richard Sorge.

Japan had a great prewar espionage ring but had little effect once the war started.

You HAVE to look that one up and get back to us! And cite sources so we can read about it. That is a remarkable insight.:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Going back to the original question I think what's interesting is that you could make an even stronger arguement for U-Boats costing Germany the previous conflict: World War One.

It was a combination of the resumption of unrestricted U-Boat warfare by the Germans and the Zimmerman Telegram which sought an German alliance with Mexico that finally brought about the US declaration of war on Imperial Germany in 1917. Fresh US troops then joined the Allied cause which had just seen Russia exit it when they signed a peace treaty with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk. Although the US Army wasn't the juggernaut in 1918 that it would be in 1944, it's timely intervention did help blunt Lundendorff's final offensive towards Paris on the Western Front and participated in the Allied counter-offensive that eventually led to the internal collpase of Germany.

So, did U-boats cost Germany two World Wars? :hmm:
But the Lusitania was WAY before the Zimmerman Telegram. I think we have to give the U-Boats a pass on WWI. Good thought and it's taught that way in lots of schools. But my study of WWI newspapers convinces me that the Zimmerman Telegram stands alone as the reason we entered the war. Invasion was much more persuasive than a few merchants torpedoed here and there.

[scrag]

U-Boats lost the war - HA HA HA HA HA.
That is a good start for debate - there really is not one here however.
Hitler was an idiot. That is what lost the war for the Nazis. The country initially blinded by easy and quick successes lost in the long term to a mad man and his ideas of granduer.
U-Boats for being a poor design proved how crappy the Allies were in tactics and ship design (true arguement as the Brits feared the U-Boat menace so much they actually had ASDIC at war entry - the Germans knew it too. )
The German armed forces were ill equiped to wage a war (look at the TO&E of Russia and France then compare it with the Nazies) - Tactics won the early battles. Battle of Britian???? Lost because the Luftwaffe had a crappy bomber abd no drop tanks for the Messerschmidt 109.
Compare Japan with USA and a more even Naval Match Up, A more even Army match up - but tactical failure (based yes on good intelligence) won some crucial victories.
Cool Debate by the way - nice to chat about stuff like this!

[kiwi_2005]

Hitler as a puller of the crowd he was a genius. But very rarely did he take his generals advice. They could of taken Moscow but bad decisions by hitler started the downfall. Then he had his fatso right hand man Goring who with his lufwaffe (SP) could of helped the Uboats more than they did. Soon as Goring lost the Battle of Britain Hitler should of had him sent to the front line! Nothing but a thorn in his side who turned on him in the end. They were all a bunch of Nazi Rogues:yep:

[BH]

You HAVE to look that one up and get back to us! And cite sources so we can read about it. That is a remarkable insight.:up:

Very well I am going through my collection as we speak on the faulty german intelligence, so I will start with the japanese.

1) Japanese Espinage Network

The Japanese had a wide spread network of spies spread out with the help of an insider within spanish embassies throughout allied countries. Noted large spy ring on the west coast disrupted due to internment.
Source: Mathews, Tony (1994) "Shadow Dancing."

2) Japanese Actions on the West Coast
This book will make you think twice about Japanese Internment. This book using declassfied goverment documents debunks many myths.

Myths
1) There was never a case of Japanese American espionage proven.

False. There were never any charges. There was plenty of proof from coded messages that were decoded using MAGIC, The same code that was broken for midway, pearl harbor..ect.

source: (*** a must read) Lowman, David (2000) "Magic"

[Rockin Robbins]

You HAVE to look that one up and get back to us! And cite sources so we can read about it. That is a remarkable insight.:up:
Very well I am going through my collection as we speak on the faulty german intelligence, so I will start with the japanese.

1) Japanese Espinage Network

The Japanese had a wide spread network of spies spread out with the help of an insider within spanish embassies throughout allied countries. Noted large spy ring on the west coast disrupted due to internment.
Source: Mathews, Tony (1994) "Shadow Dancing."

2) Japanese Actions on the West Coast
This book will make you think twice about Japanese Internment. This book using declassfied goverment documents debunks many myths.

Myths
1) There was never a case of Japanese American espionage proven.

False. There were never any charges. There was plenty of proof from coded messages that were decoded using MAGIC, The same code that was broken for midway, pearl harbor..ect.

source: (*** a must read) Lowman, David (2000) "Magic"

The British/American/German angle is covered in large part by "A Man Called Intrepid", by Sir William Stephenson, who although engaging in self-mythology like Al Gore's "I invented the Internet" takes credit for the beginning of IBM, knocking Lothar von Richthoven out of WWI and other exaggerations of his own role, the background info is generally dependable. His relating of the early relationships between Churchill and Roosevelt are particularly crucial to understanding the motivation of the US in the war.

But I can't wait to dive into the sources you quote to fill a large hole in what I know about Japanese espionage. Wooooo Hooooo!

What surprises me is the legs this topic has showed. I expected that everybody would say "Rockin is full of bullschnitzel. He should quit drinking" and a couple of people would post drop dead messages. I sure didn't expect a great discussion where I would learn as much as I have. I guess I should have expected that caring enough about a tough game like Silent Hunter only comes from caring about the real events.:rock:

[AVGWarhawk]

"Rockin is full of bullschnitzel. He should quit drinking"

Well, we all do think this but we like you anyway. :D

[scrag]

The Germans could and would never have a Navy that would deal with the Royal Navy and squandered valuable resources on something to carry the swastika to the oceans bottom. Had they not built the BB's and invested the efforts in the U-Boat Arm it is feasible (along with a credible long range Naval Aviation threat) that the Nazies for a time could have isolated the UK. The Birts thiought this was feasible as they were already making plans for a Governmnt in Exile in Canada. The Surface component was not ever capable of catch the Brits as it was not feasible in the time it would take to:
1. Play catch up
2. Train the sailors

Japanese Sabotuers?
I glowing example of one was the Dentist in Honolulu that provided prestrike Intel for the IJN then suppossedly left for Japan.

[STEED]

One thing that is IMO of interest to note, is the fact that the British people turned their back on him after the war when he was up for re-election :hmm:

The only man though IMO that was capable of leading the people in a coalition during the war :yep:

He was re-elected in the elections of early 1950's

[Jimbuna]

One thing that is IMO of interest to note, is the fact that the British people turned their back on him after the war when he was up for re-election :hmm:

The only man though IMO that was capable of leading the people in a coalition during the war :yep:

He was re-elected in the elections of early 1950's

That's true, but he lost to Attlee in the 45 and 50 elections:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/1945.htm

[Penelope_Grey]

The 1942 Bevridge report probably had a LOT to do with Churchill losing. People wanted the Labour vision for the post war period not the Conservative vision, Labour promised to make a better Britain based on social welfare.

[STEED]

One thing that is IMO of interest to note, is the fact that the British people turned their back on him after the war when he was up for re-election :hmm:

The only man though IMO that was capable of leading the people in a coalition during the war :yep:

He was re-elected in the elections of early 1950's

That's true, but he lost to Attlee in the 45 and 50 elections:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/1945.htm

145
Majority - 146
PM Clement Attlee

1950
Majority - 5
PM Clement Attlee

What a beating he got, no wonder his government collapsed. Nice site you found jim :up: bookmarked that one.


Back on topic.................

[Jimbuna]

One thing that is IMO of interest to note, is the fact that the British people turned their back on him after the war when he was up for re-election :hmm:

The only man though IMO that was capable of leading the people in a coalition during the war :yep:

He was re-elected in the elections of early 1950's

That's true, but he lost to Attlee in the 45 and 50 elections:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/1945.htm

145
Majority - 146
PM Clement Attlee

1950
Majority - 5
PM Clement Attlee

What a beating he got, no wonder his government collapsed. Nice site you found jim :up: bookmarked that one.


Back on topic.................

There's a mine of information there for those interested in British politics. :yep:

[Rockin Robbins]

The 1942 Bevridge report probably had a LOT to do with Churchill losing. People wanted the Labour vision for the post war period not the Conservative vision, Labour promised to make a better Britain based on social welfare."Free" lunches always sell well.

[Tobus]

Now for the German side: I think this has been debated to death, both in a lot of books (mych of which I own), and in this thread and elsewhere on the internet. In the end, the Germans just bit off way more than they could chew. Piers Brendon

Yes the situation of Germany has been analyzed forever. I only started the thread because I had never read anyone (and I'm pretty well-read about the war) put forward the idea that the source of Britain's supplies made it apparent than sinking these supplies would bring a player into the war which could not be badly injured by any number of U-Boats. Also the wrinkle of resources wasted on U-Boats which could have been used to build tanks, trucks, trains, supply infastructure and weapons. Only because my viewpoint was so different from all I had read and heard did I bring it up.

Typical of Hitler's scatterbrain approach was the Battle of Britain. Again, he found himself without the right kind of equipment. He didn't have decent bombers and he could only overfly 1/3 of the British territory. In order to eliminate the RAF, Britain first would have to agree to move all its planes to the 1/3 of its territory that the Luftwaffe could hit! Even in that third, German planes could spend no more than 20 to 40 minutes over enemy territory. And as Steed (I think) brought up, German air bases were too far from the French coast.

No, it was a big mistake to attempt to strangle England in the first place. They did not have to fight the British. They could have declared victory after Dunkirk, wished the British well and waited for Stalin's attack. Then it would have been Nazi Germany, England and the US against Stalin.

In the US the isolationist Republicans of the time very well could have kept us out of the war, but Nazi fans like Charles Lindberg would have made a very persuasive case for our entry.

RR, I have to somewhat disagree. I think Germany could have well strangled the UK on their imports. But choices were made towards Europe and later the USSR. Hitler always wanted an opening towards the UK, however small that opening for a cease fire would be. He went half-ass towards Dunkirk, did nothing to the British besides air battles and shooting V-bombs in the general direction (West) of Britain. Horrible things that cost many lives, but nothing compared to military actions towards European continent and Russia.

What Hitler didn't realize, is that GB would never give in until absolutely nescessary, because of the humiliation of the Munich-treaty and the promise to back Poland if and when attacked by Germany.

In 1942, imports to GB had fallen to 30.5 million tons, compared to 60 million tons pre-war. If there had been 300 u-boots in september 1939, as Donitz had frequently advocated, the amount of imports could have been devastatingly low. Remember that after Dunkirk, GB had men enough, but virtually all equipment had been lost. Without imports to make them, importing that equipment itself, technological advances because of imports, and ofcourse food and fuel, GB could very well be strangled, with a population crying out for peace (and food!). This, afterall, is very reminiscent to Germany in 1918, with a population rising against leadership because of the hardship they encountered because of the war their leaders claimed they were winning for 4 years.

I do not believe that more or less tanks and landvehicles could be produced, but DO think that investing in a surfacefleet was a mistake for Germany. These ships radiated might and strength, but faired generally poorly compared to the handfull of u-boots available in 1939-1940. How many u-boots could be produced using the steel of 1 battleship? 10? 100?? 1000??? Donitz' plan to have at least 300 u-boots in 1939 could well be met if NO surfacefleet was ever laid down.

In that respect, u-boats really DID cost Germany WW2, but only because there were too few to start with, and technology caught up with them when there finally were enough to fight GB. Add the USA in the equation from end 1941, and it was a lost cause. If, in hindsight, GB would be forced to sue for peace before USA would officially become involved: no more resistance in Africa, no more bombings of Germany, no more fighting-forces in the West but all to the East, no more help to Russia, no D-Day. Naturally, Japan wouldn't have lasted a year with no "Europe first" policy in the US.

[Rockin Robbins]

It was established earlier that building that many more U-Boats would have been politically impossible because it would have provoked an Allied reaction well before the start of the war. In other words it would have been impossible to actually produce 300 U-Boats before the start of the war because the very production would have provoked an earlier war. The poster supported his view with historical sources. Makes sense to me!

Of course Donitz, unhindered by the political concerns, wanted more U-Boats, and it was his job to ask for them. Unfortunately for him, there was no way to honor that request.

I don't understand your statement that you don't believe that more or less tanks and land vehicles could have been built. Fewer can ALWAYS happen just by working less hard. And freeing up of the materiel and labor necessary to build one U-Boat would make it very easy to build many, many more tanks, planes, yada, yada, yada. Building a U-Boat took an extraordinary number of workers and and extraordinary amount of resources over an extraordinary amount of time just to produce one submarine. Even tanks could be built much quicker by far fewer people. I'm sure someone can trot out the numbers.

[Storabrun]

It was established earlier that building that many more U-Boats would have been politically impossible because it would have provoked an Allied reaction well before the start of the war. In other words it would have been impossible to actually produce 300 U-Boats before the start of the war because the very production would have provoked an earlier war. The poster supported his view with historical sources. Makes sense to me!



Provoked an earlier war? I find that very hard to believe. Numberless times Hitler ignored treaties without any kind of real action taken by the other side. Conscription in 1935, troops moved into rheinland 1936, Austria was joined to Germany 1938, Czechoslovakia occupied in full 1939 (a treaty first gave Germany parts of it in 1938) to name a few. Germany produced 1337 uboats during the war so I don't think high numbers would need to be built as early as 1935 to have enough of them in 39-40.

Besides, the source qouted earlier in this threat wasn't talking about war, but political difficulty and the reactions by the brittish admiralty (they can't declare war as far as I know). But they were already taking the threat seriously (asdic).

Personally I think the reason for not building more uboats is quite simple. Erich Raeder, as most admirals at that time, thought that building surface raiders was the best way to threaten convoys. Submarines were looked down upon as the poor mans choice. Once it stood clear that Donitz was right and everyone else wrong it was already too late to get enough uboats built in time.

[Rockin Robbins]

I happen to be reading Hitler's U-Boat War Vol. 1 by Clay Blair at the moment, and here is an interesting passage regarding the desired 300 U-Boats (pg. 100):


Donitz later suggested--and others have echoed him--that if Hitler and Raeder had listened to him and had built 300 U-Boats in the prewar years, the U-boat arm alone could have won the naval battle promptly. This is nonsense. A peacetime U-Boat construction program of that size would have been exceptionally provocative. It would have forced Hitler to abrogate his prized 1935 naval treaty with Britain almost as soon as it was signed, introducing a complex new geopolitical climate. In that era of intensely competing naval powers and renewed naval construction, it is unlikely that the British Admiralty would have sat on its hands and not proceeded to build U-Boat counterforces, such as large fleets of destroyers and modern ASW aircraft. Moreover, a massive U-Boat construction program would almost certainly have triggered the construction of a counterforce by the United States Navy, which, as one contingency, had to plan against a German defeat of the Royal Navy and the possibility of German naval aggression in the western hemisphere.

I'm not an authority worshiping kind of guy, but Clay Blair is no fool. It's quite easy to wish after the fact, but as Robert E Lee discovered after losing the Battle of Gettysburg, that doesn't make it possible. The 300 U-Boats didn't get build because the high command decided rightly or wrongly that it couldn't be done. They saw the consequences of building as worse than the consequences of not building.

Now if a cloaked Klingon Battlecruiser were to warp in and beam down those 300 boats with trained crew aboard on September 1, 1939 then ahhhhh......ummm.......sprechen sie Deutch?

[Storabrun]

I'm not an authority worshiping kind of guy, but Clay Blair is no fool. It's quite easy to wish after the fact, but as Robert E Lee discovered after losing the Battle of Gettysburg, that doesn't make it possible.

I don't think he is a fool either. His reasoning makes perfect sense. But in this case it seems like he forgot about Hitlers nature and how he acted in other matters. The years 1935-1939 are filled with provocations by him, to which the allies reacted slowly or not at all. One could also argue that building more uboats and less surface raiders would have been LESS provocative (unless we give hindsight to the allies). Everyone knew that the purpose of building battleships, battlecruisers and the like was to use them as raiders against commerse shipping. On the other hand, very few knew or thought that uboats would be as effective as they were in the beginning.

My point is that to build 300 uboats just before or early in the war, Hitler and the high command would have needed the benefit of hindsight (or Donitz instead of Raeder). If we give this hindsight to the allies too, they would have seen it as very provocative which might make it impossible. I say "might" because Hitler pulled off a lot of stunts before the war without much reaction.


The 300 U-Boats didn't get build because the high command decided rightly or wrongly that it couldn't be done. They saw the consequences of building as worse than the consequences of not building.


Agreed. But I think the consequences they were afraid of were less surface raiders built if uboats got priority.

[scrag]

Quite correct with the difference in opinion in the Kreigsmarine leadership. Raeder wanted a balance but definnetly wanted a capable modern surface navy with some U-Boats while Doentiz favoured a Uboat centric force. Hitler repeatedly assured Raeder that there was to be no conflict with England, so it seemed more logical to conform to the norm. Showing the flag is really only something CV's and BB's very well so it made political sense in the peace of pre WWII Europe. I think another argument could also be made that The AXIS as military alliance was crap. The Italians had a very capable surface navy and that joined with the Nazies would have been a credible threat to the Royal Navy. It was squnadered away by them. The Japanese also would have been a very credible threat - more so than any other nation and likely to have been able to take on the Royal Navy and win (they were after all built after them). Hitler fixated on many a stupid idea (must have Bomber production of the ME-262 vice fighter) and if he had any inclination of just how effective the UBoat Navy would enf up being in the first half of the war coupled with smarter statesmanship the war may have been different (thankfully not.) Imagine a 2 front war with Russia Germany on one side and Japan on the other.
Stupid leadership and statesmanship were significant problems in WWII Germany.

[Tobus]

It was established earlier that building that many more U-Boats would have been politically impossible because it would have provoked an Allied reaction well before the start of the war. In other words it would have been impossible to actually produce 300 U-Boats before the start of the war because the very production would have provoked an earlier war. The poster supported his view with historical sources. Makes sense to me!

Of course Donitz, unhindered by the political concerns, wanted more U-Boats, and it was his job to ask for them. Unfortunately for him, there was no way to honor that request.

I don't understand your statement that you don't believe that more or less tanks and land vehicles could have been built. Fewer can ALWAYS happen just by working less hard. And freeing up of the materiel and labor necessary to build one U-Boat would make it very easy to build many, many more tanks, planes, yada, yada, yada. Building a U-Boat took an extraordinary number of workers and and extraordinary amount of resources over an extraordinary amount of time just to produce one submarine. Even tanks could be built much quicker by far fewer people. I'm sure someone can trot out the numbers.

The Germans were already developing and making uboots for other countries via their frontcompany in The Hague. Almost immediately after Hitler named himself Fuhrer did he rescind the Versailles treaty, starting a building program for surfacevessels that were just under the maximum tonnage and gunsize. That's not a provocation, but it IS a very clear sign to everyone that Hitler was giving the finger to the Treaty and Prize Rules.

And since THAT was possible, giving Donitz his uboots could also have been. It's just a matter of choice from the highest authorities. Hitler liked a show of power, which could be done perfectly by a resurrection of the Imperial Fleet, not by 1000 ton boats that can't be seen because they were submerged. Cruisers and battleships radiated power and commanded respect, while uboots were generally seen as a means to fight dirty, sleazy and underhanded. It's not for nothing that the UK wanted them completely forbidden after WW1.

I do agree with you about the people-resources needed to build a uboot were far greater than for building tanks or other landvehicles. I was only focussing on the amount of steel required for building a battleship versus building a uboot, not for building a uboot versus a tank.

[Rockin Robbins]

I was only focussing on the amount of steel required for building a battleship versus building a uboot, not for building a uboot versus a tank.But the clincher is that you can put a bigger swastika on a battleship than you can on a submarine. Have you noticed that the Bismark was full of swastikas and Donitz' U-Boats were almost entirely free of them?

In the US when trying to figure out weird resource allocations we say "follow the money." For World War II German war production "follow the swastikas.":lol:

[Tobus]

But the clincher is that you can put a bigger swastika on a battleship than you can on a submarine. Have you noticed that the Bismark was full of swastikas and Donitz' U-Boats were almost entirely free of them?

In the US when trying to figure out weird resource allocations we say "follow the money." For World War II German war production "follow the swastikas.":lol:


Very true. As I said: they radiate power and demand respect. Wasn't (and isn't?) it common practice in Communist Russia and North Korea to have a military parade, where the military on display do 3-4 "laps", this way showing 4 times the actual might when passing the dictator-with-ridiculously-large-cap? Basically the same thing.

[odjig292]

For what it's worth, I thought I would pass along a few thoughts on this interesting thread:

1. Raeder's naval strategy wasn't that bad. He build large ships that were fast and powerful, that could usually outrun anything they couldn't outshoot. The Graf Spee should not have lost, and the Bismarck was caught by one lucky torpedo after sinking the Hood. His problem was that he didn't have captains with 400 years of naval heritage behind them. He also built surface raiders that kept huge portions of the RN looking for them across several oceans. They were the most effective use of resources in his fleet. His biggest mistake was not listening to Donitz, and failing to build more U-Boats before the war started. It wasn't entirely his fault because Hitler told him war would not start before 1943.

2. The U-Boats could have been built in secrecy. Even if word had leaked out, Chamberlain was such a wuss that he wouldn't have done anything. Those extra U-Boats could have won the war against Britain in 1942 before the US ever came in. As pointed out, the British fleet was preparing to move to Canada, because they could see how tight the Battle of the Atlantic was going to be.

3. Clay Blair has done an excellent job in putting together a very thorough analysis of the U-Boat war and virtually every patrol, but I can't say that I think his opinions are right. He says Britain was never in jeopardy, but that is based on 20-20 hindsight. He also thinks Admiral King was right not to form convoys off the US coast. I think the loss of 600 ships and 2.0 million tons of shipping qualifies as a major disaster. The Brits proved that convoys without escorts were safer than unescorted ships but King wouldn't listen.

4. It was the US coming into the war that tipped the scales in the Battle of the Atlantic. Diverting all those U-Boats to the US coast took pressure off the Atlantic convoys and allowed the British to train their escort crews. The extra US and Canadian escort forces also helped the situation because it allowed the British to put their best U-boat killers into the Atlantic convoys and back them up with support groups. It paid off in May 1943.

5. "What-ifs" are fun, especially when done so intelligently as this thread has demonstrated.

[Sailor Steve]

Good points, odjig292. I would take very minor exception to part of point #1, and that is that in my opinion Graf Spee didn't lose. That's always a touchy point in naval wargaming, in that to win the fight the British don't actually have to win. Even if they lose all their ships, they only have to damage Spee badly enough that she has to put in for repairs. Technically speaking Graf Spee beat Exeter, Ajax and Achilles very thoroughly. On the other hand, I suppose it could be argued that if she had actually sunk them, or damaged them enough that they couldn't shadow her, they might have gotten away with it, so in that respect she did lose.

I'm so confused.

[scrag]

Here are some points for condiseration:
1. The German Navy had a history - it was lost at Jutland
2. The German Navy looked good but functionally it was a gadget (like most of Germanies High Hope Arms) that lacked substance. - to this my point is that it would have been humilated in a direct confrontation with the Royal Navy - they were outclassed and could NEVER win a decisive Naval Battle against the Brits. They simply did not have the ships for it and were not as dependent on the Sea as the Brits. The surface forces operated like a bunch of pirates with a hit and run capability - that is not a navy it was a distraction and a waste of resources. Look at the cost of building the 2 Bismark class BB's and compare it to what they did. They sank a Battle Cruiser - whoopie doo. In turn the Bismark was hunted down and destroyed and the Tirpitz would stay cobbled it up in a Fjord next to Tromso Norway until it too was sunk. A total waste of time in construction, manning, cost, design. Pretty yes - effective no.
3. U-Boats (like Diesel subs today) bring a lot of bang for small bucks - look at the mayhem they caused with so small a number against a very capable blue water navy (again the Royal Navy).
4. Germany demonstrated a history of gadget warfare with - look at the costly Tiger I/II, Panther tanks, the Jet Bomber and Fighter force, the V Weapons, the Hydrogen Peroxide Boats.
They needed effective weapons that could be used in conjunction with there tactics and instead they got technological monstrosities that were easily overcome after briefly studied.

[Powerthighs]

The Germans were already developing and making uboots for other countries via their frontcompany in The Hague. Almost immediately after Hitler named himself Fuhrer did he rescind the Versailles treaty, starting a building program for surfacevessels that were just under the maximum tonnage and gunsize. That's not a provocation, but it IS a very clear sign to everyone that Hitler was giving the finger to the Treaty and Prize Rules.

And since THAT was possible, giving Donitz his uboots could also have been.

I have to disagree here. Yes the Germans were able to manufacture some U-Boats in secret for training and technological development. Also, its true that various nations started bumping up closer and even exceeding the naval treaty limits in the latter half of the thirties.

However, building 300 U-Boats would have created a force roughly the size of the rest of the world combined. That's a provocation of a different magnitude. There's no way you could hide it, and there is no way other countries could take it as anything other than preparing to deny the entire Atlantic to commerce. Britain was very wary of submarines and had pushed to completely ban them after WWI, so they would have been very disturbed by this development had it happened.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we are discussing this all in hindsight. Many people thought submarines could no longer be effective due to the development of Asdic. Hitler kept reassuring the Kriegsmarine that war with Britain would certainly not happen right up to the start of the war. There are a lot of things that seem obvious now that weren't so obvious then.

That's one of the things I find fascinating about WWII. All this technology had been developed that would change the face of warfare forever, yet no one knew exactly how to incorporate it into their doctrine since it hadn't yet been utilized.

[tater]

A principal difference between the US Fleet Boats anbd the U-boats was that the Fleet Boats, even operating in a similar way to the U-boats, were none the less part of a FLEET. A real, first rate navy. The KM was simply not a first rate navy. Not even second rate. They were at best a 3d rate force. They had no depth on the bench.

I'm not talking about individual unit quality or crew quality. I'm talking about total capability.

The USN and RN were "first rate," the IJN was "second rate," and everyone else on earth was 3d rate and below. A significant CV force is required to be in the 1st or 2d tiers.

So they were fighting a naval war with most of a navy missing, as a result, the USN and RN in the Atlantic could concentrate on their one real type of enemy, and small escorts were easy for us to build, we made almost 800 DDs and DEs (combined). 140 CVEs. The US probably "lost" more DDs due to work stoppages than the KM ever had, lol.

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

(and the USN was 1st rate in quality, too)

tater

[scrag]

The KM surface fleet was simply "See we can do this". It was not effective (unless you would like calling providing a fox for the hunt).
US Fleet boats were called this in name only - there original envisionment was to "Scout out ahead of advancing surface forces and provide timely information on the where abouts and dispostions of enemy forces and material" History of US Submarines.
In practice they did very little fleet work or scouting (some was accomplished - true) but in fact there major claim to fame was independent operations in the conduct of unrestricted submarine warfare. Operations with other fleet assets could prove fatal to the boat involved due to a shoot first and ask questions later attitude on the part of the rest of the Navy.
US Boats - and U Boats where employed similarly with regards to Unrestricted Submarine warfare, but the US Boats also where used for other than plan uses (recovery of downed airman, etc).
Was there ever an account of the U Boats rescuing downed Luftwaffe aircrews and Pilots?

[tater]

I wasn't suggesting that the US boats worked with the fleet, merely that we HAD a fleet. That the subs were part of a greater whole of naval force projection. The KM was really a one-trick pony.

The IJN had to deal with subs, surface combatants, as well as naval airpower. They couldn't counter the subs without harming their defense against the other threats (it also wasn't in their nature to do so).

The USN and RN could chose to employ the most usful of their huge forces to counter the u-boat threat, and send the other units where needed (the PTO, med, whatever).

I think that their "depth" of capabilty was a force multiplier on an already large force. A winning combination to be sure.

[Rockin Robbins]

I wasn't suggesting that the US boats worked with the fleet, merely that we HAD a fleet. That the subs were part of a greater whole of naval force projection. The KM was really a one-trick pony.

The IJN had to deal with subs, surface combatants, as well as naval airpower. They couldn't counter the subs without harming their defense against the other threats (it also wasn't in their nature to do so).

The USN and RN could chose to employ the most usful of their huge forces to counter the u-boat threat, and send the other units where needed (the PTO, med, whatever).

I think that their "depth" of capabilty was a force multiplier on an already large force. A winning combination to be sure.
Have you ever noticed in SH4 that there are wide areas of ocean where you are about as safe as sitting in your living room? That is because the American fleet is out there keeping Japanese units out of that area. A damaged sub wasn't under attack everywhere. It only had to make it a short way under fire and then was covered by the rest of the fleet.

In contrast, just as soon as a U-Boat left the kinda safety of the Lorient pens it was subject to continuous and unhindered attack every second until it regained the safety of the pen. No navy and no air force protected them at all, for the most part.

[scrag]

Probably symantics - Navy size wise and capability wise agreed. PACFLT was OOC for a couple of years Offensive wise and our sub force was quite capable of haranging the IJN. The IJN sucked at ASW where as the Brits having suffered at the hands of the UBoats in WW I knew what was coming. No one in US was planning or envisioned independent operations by our submarines - Pearl forced that as well as canning crappy CO's who played by the rules vice made there own up. The Germans never planned on large fleet ops - that would have been stupid. So again it is symantics.
I also love the comparisons between U Boat and Fleet Boat design - look at the theater and what was expected of them operationally - the boats were designed and operated well in there respective environment. A lot may not realize thaT WWII Fleet boats are damn near as big as modern nukes BTW.

[Rockin Robbins]

REMEMBER THIS USS CREVALLE?
In the early morning of May 23, 1943, the Crevalle (Walker) was stalking a convoy in the shallow waters off the north coast of Borneo. Attaining firing position 1400 yards off the track, Crevalle fired a spread of four torpedoes at the largest ship in the convoy, the Tonan Maru. As the 4th fish was fired, heavy explosions were heard in the vicinity of the target. A periscope look revealed that aircraft were dive-bombing the torpedo wakes; that one escort was headed directly toward Crevalle.
Quickly shifting the periscope toward the target, the captain noted one torpedo hit amidships, followed closely by another hit on the bow. The charging destroyer forced Crevalle to go deep - to 140 feet. After a series of close depth charges, the skipper dropped Crevalle to the bottom, in 174 feet of water, to wait out the depth charge attack. Apparently the attacking escorts lost their target and depth charging ceased. The escorts continued to crisscross the area of last contact for more than an hour. Finally, a new kind of sound was heard; a dull scrapping as if a heavy weight was being dragged along the bottom.
Suddenly a loud clanging was heard and the entire boat vibrated. It was now painfully clear that the escorts had been dragging grapnel hooks and finally one was firmly hooked into Crevalle's superstructure. Slowly the boat started to rock and apparently the Jap skipper on the other end of the grapnel line ordered full power as Crevalle was slowly being dragged along the ocean floor.
Suppressing an almost frantic urge to resist as soon as the grapnel caught, the skipper waited until the depth gauge reading increased to 184 feet, then ordered "All ahead full. Bring her up to 120 feet."; The sudden surge tore the grapnel loose and Crevalle was free and escaped. In the confusion that followed, the escorts dashed madly about, undecided as to what action to take next.
Yeah, they were lousy.
STILL REMEMBER THIS USS FLYING FISH?
On August 28, 1942, Flying Fish (Donaho) hit a battleship of the Kongo class. While setting up to fire at one of the escorts, a plane dropped a bomb close to Flying fish, forcing her deep, while the escorts delivered a devastating depth charge attack. Two hours later Flying Fish returned to periscope depth. While Donaho was scanning the horizon a nervous torpedoman in the after torpedo room accidentally fired a fish from No.7 tube with the outer door closed. For the following two days the crew worked to release the torpedo, finally being able to pull it back inside the ATR. Donaho then proceeded to the Truk area where he was attacked and seriously damaged by a patrol boat. On Sept. 4 he closed another patrol boat on the surface. It opened fire with a three-inch gun. Donaho cleared the bridge, then closed to 600 yards and fired a torpedo, which missed. As Flying Fish dove, she took a terrific down angle. Two Destroyers joined in the attack, dropping a total of 54 depth charges. Flying Fish, severely damaged, went to 350 feet. In order to maintain depth, Donaho had to hold the boat at an 18-degree up angle. The ordeal was over in four and a half-hours as the Flying Fish survived one of the worst depth charging of the war.
Terrible ASW. They sucked.
REMEMBER THIS USS HARDER?
The Harder's (Dealey) last patrol was conducted in July-August 1944 with Haddo and Ray in a wolfpack. After decimating a convoy on August 19th on the west coast of Mindoro and sustaining one of the worst depth charge attacks thus far in the war, they moved to the entrance of Manila Bay. On the night of Aug. 21 they picked up three targets on radar. Nimitz, in Haddo, suggested that the targets were too small to bother with, but Dealy insisted on attacking. The targets were ASW "Kaibokans" - the Harder sinking the Hiburi and Matsumwa, while the Haddo sank the Sado. Moving along the west coast of Luzon, on Aug. 22, Harder found a tanker, escorted by the destroyer Asakaze. Firing 4 fish, Dealey hit Asakaze, blowing her bow off. Two trawlers and another destroyer came out to tow the Asakaze to safety but she sank on the way in. Two days later another contact was made with another Kaibokan and the former 4-stack destroyer USS Stewart that was captured by the Japanese when abandoned in a marine railway in Surabaya in February 1942. The patrol boat 102 (Stewart) located Harder and commenced dropping a staggered pattern of depth charges, 6 charges in each run, the first at 150 feet, the second 180 feet, then 270, 360, and finally 450 feet. After the 5th run, oil and other debris began to surface. The water in this area was 900 feet deep.
Damn! Sucked so bad they bagged Cmdr Dealey.
STILL REMEMBER THIS USS PERMIT?
Early in the war the Permit (Chapple) was ordered to Corregidor to evacuate General MacArthur. While enroute, Permit got the word that MacArthur had gotten nervous waiting and decided to leave Corregidor by PT-boat. The Permit was ordered to proceed to a small island where the PT boat was to take MacArthur. MacArthur had already left when Permit arrived at the island near Panay, and only a disabled PT boat was found. Chapple took the 11-man PT boat crew aboard and proceeded back to Corregidor with new orders to evacuate certain key personnel deemed too valuable to be left behind. A senior naval officer among the evacuee was overcome by a sense of duty as Permit was leaving Manila and ordered Chapple, again'st his will, to continue a war patrol despite the fact that Permit had on board a total of 111 men. An unsuccessful attack on three destroyers proved nearly disastrous as the DD's attacked with depth charges and kept Permit down nearly twenty-four hours. Nearly all of Permit's oxygen supply was used up in this interval, and after surfacing she headed directly for Fremamntle, Australia. Upon arrival, Commander Chapple was severely reprimanded by Captain Wilks for unduly risking the lives of valuable personnel. (It was not recorded what was said to the senior naval officer who forced the issue)
Only attacked for 24 hours and then quit. THEY SUCKED!!!!!:damn:
REMEMBER THIS USS PUFFER?
At 1100 on the morning of Oct. 9, 1943, Puffer (Jensen) hit a merchantman with two torpedoes while patrolling the northern end of Makassar Strait. The merchantman's escort was not detected, and Puffer fired a second time. Shortly thereafter distant depth charges were heard, and at 1145 six depth charges exploded close by. The concussion caused the conning tower hatch to unseat, admitting a shower of water. A sea valve plug in the ATR was loosened, admitting a thin, high-pressure stream of water. Gaskets were blown out of the main induction valve and the ventilation supply. Ten minutes later another depth charge exploded nearby, followed by four more, staggered in depth, fifteen minutes later. Depth control became difficult. The boat slowly settled to an alarming depth level, with a twelve degree down angle. The temperature reached 125 degrees in parts of the boat. Safety tank, negative, auxiliary, and after trim were all blown dry.
The ASW attack continued for a total of thirty-one hours. Many of the men were in a state of physical collapse. Stations had to be manned by volunteers.
Finally, Puffer surfaced directly from deep submergence at 1910 on October 10, 1943.
Finally a half decent attack. Must be the exception. They sucked, you know.
REMEMBER THIS USS REDFISH?
At mid-afternoon on Dec. 19, 1944, Redfish (McGregor) was patrolling submerged near the island of Danjo Gunto when she contacted a Jap taskforce consisting of the new carrier Uryu and her escorts. Closing to 1470 yards McGregor fired four fish. One hit resulted in stopping Uryu, starting a large fire aft. As Uryu started firing at Redfish's periscope, McGregor fired four more, all of which failed to explode. Remaining at periscope depth until the after torpedo room crew could reload, McGregor closed to 1100 yards and fired again, hitting Uryu amidships, touching off a tremendous explosion in a magazine or gasoline storage area. The escorts now came after Redfish in a fury, forcing her deep. As she was passing 150 feet all hell broke loose when 7 well placed depth charges exploded alongside the starboard bow, causing the following casualties: steering gear jammed hard left, hydraulic leak in after room manifold, bow planes jammed on 20 deg. rise, hydraulic oil leak in pump room, pressure hull cracked in FTR with water leaking through #1 MBT riser, #1 sanitary tank discharge valve leaking, a torpedo making a hot run in #8 tube, plus numerous less damaging casualties.
Not only that but the Japs were very inaccurate with their depth charges.
REMEMBER THIS USS SARGO?
While patrolling in the South China Sea on Sept. 22, 1942, the Sargo surfaced at 1930 after a fourteen-hour dive. Starting an approach on a target that was showing lights, Sargo was forced to dive at 1945 by two escorts, which were rapidly closing from either side. Later in the night a third ASW Vessel joined these two escorts and between them they harassed Sargo throughout the night and into the following day. With a battery rapidly going flat, all electrical equipment not essential to the operation was secured to both save the battery and eliminate as much noise as possible. At one stretch during the night, for a period of four hours and fifty-five minutes Sargo did not turn over the screws nor were the panes or rudder touched. Carried by the currents, Sargo slowly went around and around, and from 195 feet to 265 feet during this period. It was unprecedented at the time, but when the ASW team finally withdrew shortly after noon on the 23rd, Sargo surfaced almost in sight of the Indo-China coast.
Another example of impatience on the part of the sucky Japanese ASW
STILL REMEMBER THIS USS THRESHER?
On July 9, 1942, the Thresher (Millican) sank a Japanese torpedo boat tender off Kwajalein. She was immediately attacked by planes that could clearly see Thresher's silhouette in the clear Marshall Island waters. The planes called up surface help who apparently were equipped with a crane and grapnel hooks. Thresher shortly found herself on the end of a cable, being hauled in like a fish. The situation was serious enough to cause Millican to order secret documents destroyed and to prepare to fight it out. He finally ordered full speed and began struggling to break the grapnel's hold. After turning sharply to the right, she took a steep dive, which took her well beyond her test depth but finally broke loose from the grapnel and she escaped without further incident.
And the Japanese had no imagination or techniques of their own.

This is fun and I'm only halfway through the list but I've got to go to work. Good thing the Japanese sucked at ASW!:rotfl:

[LukeFF]

It's one of those myths, RR, that people love to cling to and refuse to let go of when talking about Pacific submarine ops. That, and the belief that American submariners were on one giant pleasure cruise with their air-conditioned boats and individual crew bunks... :roll:

[Tobus]

This is fun and I'm only halfway through the list but I've got to go to work. Good thing the Japanese sucked at ASW!:rotfl:
No, they didn't suck at ASW. They only sucked in comparison to GB and later USA, more and more as the war advanced.

[ReallyDedPoet]

I am finally catching onto RR's ploy here. The method to his madness so to speak. He wants to boost his post count :yep::lol::lol:


RDP

[Rockin Robbins]

Ya want more proof? I'll give you more proof!
REMEMBER THIS USS TROUT?
Early in the war many submarines were assigned various "auxiliary" jobs. One of these fell to the Trout (Fenno), taking ammo. to Corregidor. After most of her torpedoes and ballast were removed, Trout took on over 3500 3" AA shells and delivered them to Corregidor. After unloading the ammunition and taking in ten additional torpedoes and 27000 gallons of fuel oil, it was discovered that Trout needed additional ballast to replace that left at Pearl. The CO requested twenty-five tons of sand bags, but this was denied since there was an urgent need for sand bags at Corregidor. Instead of sand, Trout took on twenty tons of gold and silver, which had been removed from Manila for safekeeping. Upon arrival at Pearl, when the bullion was unloaded, it was discovered that a gold bar, worth $14,500 was missing. A thorough search of the boat finally turned up the missing bar; it was found in the galley where one of the cooks was using it as a paperweight.
Oops, guess that one was irrelevent.:88) OK, now I'm serious....
REMEMBER THIS USS TAMBOR?
On the morning of June 5, 1942, at 0215 Tambor (Murphy) was patrolling about 89 miles off Midway when she sighted four large warships. Forewarned that US warships may be in the area, Tambor trailed the formation on a parallel course as she tried to positively identify them. A contact report was sent out at 0300 and as visibility increased slightly, the four were definitely identified as the Japanese heavy cruisers, Sozuyat, Kumanot, Mikuma, and Mogami. With the approach of dawn Tambor was forced to dive. On her next look through the periscope, only two cruisers were in sight, one with a badly damaged bow, and rapidly retreating. At about the time Tambor saw them, they also sighted Tambor. In an emergency turn to the left to avoid Tambor the Mogami rammed Mikuma on the port quarter while making full speed.
Missed again!:o Ready stern torpedo tubes. Select tube 7. Open torpedo tube 7. Fire 7!

REMEMBER THIS USS SCAMP?
On April 7, 1944, Scamp (Hollingsworth) was patrolling south of Davio Gulf when she sighted a task force of 6 cruisers, screened by DD's and aircraft. While attempting to send out a contact report Scamp was detected and bombed by a floatplane, which came directly out of the sun. The force of the blast caused Scamp to lose all power; she assumed a large up-angle and began to settle fast. When power was restored, the main vents were closed and all tanks blown dry, but the boat continued to settle, going down to 320 feet. Hanging there momentarily, she then started to rise rapidly. Meanwhile, the following reports were being made to control: Fire in maneuvering room! All power lost! Thick toxic smoke in maneuvering and after torpedo room. All hands aft sick. Forward engine room hull dished in. Rudder jammed hard port. Motor room taking water fast. Main induction drains showing full stream. All men not needed elsewhere were ordered to the forward torpedo room to help take the angle off the boat. By venting and blowing everything, the boat was caught at 52 feet, and then she started down again. This happened three times and as they started down the fourth time, propulsion was regained despite the large angle and the fact that everyone in the maneuvering room was violently sick at the time. The 7000 gallons of diesel fuel blown from #5 FBT, plus venting of the main ballast tanks evidently convinced the Japanese of a kill because Scamp was not attacked again.
Missed it by THAT MUCH.:arrgh!:

You know what the shame is? (I'll tell you what the shame is! I've been watching too many Jackie Gleason reruns) More people will see these recollections of the real heroes of WWII here at SUBSIM than have seen them in the years they have been posted at US Subvets of WWII (http://www.ussubvetsofworldwarii.org/RememberIndex.html)

Edit: Speaking of what I missed, this is the most amazing thing I've ever read and not comprehended! Read carefully (at least more carefully than I did):
REMEMBER THIS USS HARDER?
...Two days later another contact was made with another Kaibokan and the former 4-stack destroyer USS Stewart that was captured by the Japanese when abandoned in a marine railway in Surabaya in February 1942. The patrol boat 102 (Stewart) located Harder and commenced dropping a staggered pattern of depth charges, 6 charges in each run, the first at 150 feet, the second 180 feet, then 270, 360, and finally 450 feet. After the 5th run, oil and other debris began to surface. The water in this area was 900 feet deep. Harder was sunk by the USS Stewart!!!! That has to be the strangest submarine factlet from WWII.

I promise to stick to the subject
I promise to stick to the subject
I promise to stick to the subject
I promise to stick to the subject
Whew! only 96 to go...

[Tobus]

With the risk of being judged as "bitchy", the site you quote from has 31 or so proofs of why jap ASW didn't suck. The 700-odd German boats that actually were lost to enemy action (and no-one to tell the tale) kinda puts this list of almosts to shame. Not berating the actions themselves though, pretty good reading and hair raising stuff!

[Storabrun]

This will be a bit out of this subject, so stop reading if you only care for the naval part of WW2.

4. Germany demonstrated a history of gadget warfare with - look at the costly Tiger I/II, Panther tanks, the Jet Bomber and Fighter force, the V Weapons, the Hydrogen Peroxide Boats.
They needed effective weapons that could be used in conjunction with there tactics and instead they got technological monstrosities that were easily overcome after briefly studied.

I do agree with your point here. But the Panther and Tiger tanks are absolutely not good examples of german gadgets. The Panther is regarded as the best tank design of WW2 and was produced in high numbers, by german standards, with 6000 units produced (Panzer IV was the most common with 8500 units). Certainly nothing when compared to the tens of thousands of Shermans produced by the allies. But it makes perfect sense to aim for quality before quantity (within reasonable limits) when you are short of raw materials and oil and face an enemy who will always be numerically superiour anyway.

The Tiger was a heavy tank and not designed to be the backbone of the panzer divisions. Expensive to build and operate and in constant need for maintenance it could not fulfill that task anyway. Only some 1500 units were produced. But that didn't stop it from beeing extremely useful when used in the right circumstances. They also had a morale effect for both german and allied troops. The latter versions of the Panzer IV was similar in appearance to the Tiger, especially from a distance.

Neither of these tanks were easy to overcome after a brief study. Unless you regard using 5 tanks of your own and lose 4 in the process to be a good counter.

[joea]

Neither of these tanks were easy to overcome after a brief study. Unless you regard using 5 tanks of your own and lose 4 in the process to be a good counter.

Oh no, not that myth again.

[tater]

RR, I'm always put in the odd position of defending IJN ASW capability at the same time I say it was overall ineffective. As I've said before, the principal japanese ASW failure was at a larger scale. Late to the party with convoys (to maximize ASW assets near shipping), and small convoys when they did. Failure to even recognize there was a problem, etc.

Also, and I think this cannot be stressed enough: CODE BREAKING and sigint.

Allied ASW capability was massively multiplied by codebreaking (and axis hubris regarding their codemaking skills). We put out ships where the u-boats were NOT, and we put ASW assets where they WERE. Sinking or delaying (so they cannot achieve attack position) submarines in ww2 is actually not that hard if you know where they are roughly. You just stay around saturating the circle of their possible position submerged. At some point they MUST come up. If you have no idea where they are, this is difficult. If you know the grid position where they are supposed to be by orders from back home... you send some planes and DEs.

So while allied equipment and doctrine was better, I think the results shown—the slaughter of the u-boat forces—is very heavily weighted by intelligence information. So u-boats lost 80%+ and the USN lost 20% of their boats. If intelligence was even a 2X force multiplier, the IJN was half as good 1 on 1 overall. I'd wager the value of intelligence was a greater multiplier than 2X, frankly.

tater

[Rockin Robbins]

.......If intelligence was even a 2X force multiplier, the IJN was half as good 1 on 1 overall. I'd wager the value of intelligence was a greater multiplier than 2X, frankly.

tater

Hear! Hear! That is a marvelous point! I was wondering when you'd chime in here!

[odjig292]

This discussion suggests that some people do not realize how much training and skill goes into finding a submarine in the Atlantic or Pacific and then sinking it. It took decades for the Allies to get good at it. The British started in WWI and lost 6600 ships worth 12.8 million tons without learning. The German WWI crews managed to sink some 32 ships for every U-boat lost. That was why the mythical Anti-Submarine Detection Investigation Committee developed sonar between the wars. The RN came into WWII with a weapon that could detect submarines underwater up to 1500 yards away. Dönitz quickly neutralized this weapon by attacking on the surface, and with several U-boats at a time overwhelming the few escorts available. The Germans started off sinking 10 merchant ships for every U-boat lost in 1939 but as their Kapitans learned, the kill ratio increased to 30 ships per U-boat by March 1941. Then Dönitz lost four of his top Kapitans in one month. The kill ratio declined steadily after that.

From 1939 to 1941, while British and Canadians were building corvettes by the dozens, they had serious crew problems. They did not know how to train civilians. By contrast, the US Navy took a new ship, got some 15% of their old salts who knew what they are doing as “plank holders” and then brought in a crew of raw recruits and allocated 20 to 90 training specialists to the ship. The training crew stayed with the ship until it was ready (usually 90 days) and the trained sailors stayed with the ship as part of a team from then on. The USN wound up with trained ships quickly.

The Brits and the Canadians would allocate a few trained people to a ship, and then pull many of them off after several weeks to man the next new ship, and replace them with raw recruits. The crews never had time to learn how to work as a team before they were transferred. It drove the captains wild. They would spend a voyage training people only to have half on them transferred to a new ship when they hit port. The RN expanded 7 times from its peace time size while the Canadian Navy expanded 50 times. In the RCN, the 2% who knew how to run a ship were stretched very thin. On top of that the escort destroyers and corvettes did not work all the time with the same groups so the convoys were often guarded by ships that had never worked together and had different tactics and signals.

It was July 1940 before the British established HMS Western Isles under the legendary V-Adm. “Monkey” Stephenson who started to teach effective tactics to the ASW groups. It was November 1941 before 10 cm radar allowed the escorts to pick up the conning towers of the U-boats attacking their convoys and almost a year before all of the British ships were equipped. After Pearl Harbor, the RN transferred much of their ASW technology to the USN and helped with setting up the convoys to reduce the carnage along the US Atlantic coast. When Paukenschlag was over, and the U-boats returned to the Atlantic, they found a much better trained and equipped RN waiting for them. The poor country cousins were the RCN who had no training, no 10 cm radar and were usually allocated the “slow” convoys that took serious losses.

In November 1942, Sir Max Horton took over Western Approaches, and restructured the escort groups. He also set up Hunter-Killer support groups to aid the convoy escort groups that came under attack. These include experienced captains like Johnny Walker as well as groups with CVE’s to provide air cover. In May 1943, Horton pulled all the Canadian ships off the Atlantic and replaced them with the top RN escort crews including those from the Gibraltar, Murmansk and Sierra Leone runs. The expanded numbers of German U-boats ran up against the best trained ASW crews on the planet and lost 23 U-boats out of 70 at sea in one month. Many more limped home badly damaged. If the escorts didn’t get them, the hunter-killer groups probably did. The Canadian ships were sent to the Western Isles training grounds and had their radar upgraded. After that, they were able to hold their own with RN escorts. The US Navy build many CVE’s and formed their own H-K groups. From then on the U-boats really didn’t have a chance.

Comparing the difference between the U-boats and the US submarines based on the results does not make any sense. They were two entirely different wars and the tactics used were miles apart. All U-boat sighting reports were Huff-duffed and a hunter-killer group often sent to sit on them until they were sunk. There was air cover all the time over a convoy with airplanes that had 10 cm radar that could spot a U-boat on the surface 20 miles away. Their radio reports were broken and they often found Allied hunter-killer groups waiting at their rendezvous points. The convoy escorts had Hedgehog or Squid projectiles that rarely missed. Even on the way to or from their bases in France, they were subject to attack at night by bombers that could approach almost silently and drop bombs or homing torpedoes using searchlights. The Germans lost most of their experienced captains by 1943 and since they lost six out of seven U-boats that sortied at the end of the war, they never were able to build up a cadre of professionals like they had at the start of the war.

The US submarines had none of these problems. By 1943, they had trained crews and experienced captains that grew better as the war progressed. According to Roscoe, US subs sank 1152 ships worth 4.96 million tons for 52 subs lost. That’s a kill ratio of 22 ships per sub lost. The Axis were up against an enemy that was eventually better equipped, had better technology and had more resources. That doesn't mean they fought less gallantly. Everyone put their life on the line. The Allied approach gave them better odds by the end of the war, but it wasn't easy.

[Rockin Robbins]

That was an amazing post!:up:

[Jimbuna]

That was an amazing post!:up:

Agreed :rock: :up:

[scrag]

Yes I will stand by my earlier statement that in comparison the Japanese sucked at ASW particularly at the beginning of the war. US Boats were also victums of there very successful tactics - the more risk they took the more easier it was for an enemy to locate them. A number of your "facts" re-enforce my point that yes we suffered in losses but since you like listings here is an easier comparison:
Look how effective Radar was in ASW (used by the US) in sinkings against the IJN Sub force (one comparable in size, and MSN to the US) then look again at the US losses. Ours were bad but theirs where almost the entire force. Then for comparison look at the Brits/US in ASW vs the Germans - again tremendous losses on part of the Germans. Both Axis powers suffred in Tactics and Sophisticated Equipment the the Allies QUICKLY embraced and used (Radar is an outstanding example). So the Japanese sucked at ASW, Sucked at Submarine warfare, Sucked at adopting new technology. They had a general lack of respect for submarine warfare and would not yield on changing the tactics on employing there submarine force and hence failed in ASW. Had the been nearly as good as you try to prove we would have har to switch our tactics. Fact is our technology overcame damn near anything they tried to do (including mining the entrances to the Sea of Japan. The excelled at having an excellent PreWar realization of the importance of Aircraft and Aircraft Carrier. There ground forces excelled at living off the field and they were extremely tenacious where ever encountered.

Tank wise the Germans recognized that the T-34 was a superior tank in just about every way to every other tank of the era (Allied or Axis). Sure the Tigers and armour and firepower as dod the Panther, but they were not easily produced, suffered from poor mechanical reliability, not capable of operating in all the conditons or at least had significant issues in doing so. The T-34 had mobility, adequate firepower (foreverything except dealing head to head enganements with Tigers and Panthers - in which the Germans would be over run and over come by the Russian tanks speed and mobility), sloped armour, simplified controls and shared common munitions with other Russian field pieces. A testiment to the T-34 brillance in design can be seen in the fact the Tanls were still in use in the early 90's.
When Hitler asked a General what he needed to win in the Eastern Front the General responded by asking for T-34's.

This thread began with the premise that the U-Boats cost germany the war - :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Total BS but fun to debate. The premise that the design is flawed is also crap as they were in fact very well designed - in fact the Germans were so crappy at submarine design that no one used them after the war - oops that is BS too.
Wow every Cold War power had something incorporated from the Germans in post WW II design and construction.
What the Germans (and Japanese) lacked was a healthy respect for ASW capable Nations as the US and UK in the advent and use of RADAR in ASW.
BTW anytime you care to come to Pearl Harbor and visit - might be fun to show you the memorials, the places where those you talk about lived and worked, the Bowfin and maybe if I can arrange it a tour on one of our SSN's.

[odjig292]

Scragg said "This thread began with the premise that the U-Boats cost Germany the war - Total BS but fun to debate."

I don't think we disagree on that point. My point was that the Allies poured years of research and experience into their ASW efforts before they were able to defeat the U-Boats in 1943. I'm a believer that the war could have gone against Britain if Donitz had had the 300 U-boats that he wanted at the start of the war. I'm not too sure they couldn't have reversed the situation in 1943 if they had built the Type XXI in 1943 instead of waiting two years. The Germans had excellent technology but they were too late with it. If they had had the V1, V2 and V3 ready a year earlier, it would have made the invasion a very dicey affair. I can't speak to the tanks. My interest is in the Navy.

One point that I didn't emphasize enough was the calibre of the leaders. Germany was winning early in the war, because they had exceptional Kapitans like Prien, Schepke, Kretchsmer and others, but they were beaten by captains like Macintyre , Walker and Gallery who eventually had better equipment and tactics. Lockwood had exceptional captains once he cleaned house and sent O'Kane, Morton and others on patrol. The Allies got stronger as they got better equipment and their leaders became more experienced, while the Germans got weaker as their best warriors failed to return. Neither the Germans nor the Japanese lacked for courage in the field but the Allies just kept getting stronger and better.

As for Pearl Harbor, I've been there and enjoyed every minute to be at such a historic site. I've also been to Guadacanal, Lei, Port Moresby, Dieppe, Hiroshima, Nanking, Gettysburg, Little Big Horn, etc, etc. Enjoyed every one. I still haven't made it to Normandy, but maybe this spring.

[candy2500]

[quote=odjig292]Scragg said "This thread began with the premise that the U-Boats cost Germany the war - Total BS but fun to debate."

yes total BS

its a mathematical number as easy as 1+1. two nuts thought they could take over the world with the population of two nations + a few folks added here and there from there pick up games and it isn't going to work.

[Rockin Robbins]

Tigers, Panthers and ASW Oh My!: hands down the finest title of any post in the thread so far! Yeah, my hypothesis presupposes false premises:

:down: that the leaders of Germany were or could be rational
:down: that the Germans had good enough intelligence to form persuasive arguments to keep Britain to withdraw from the war. This would have included some reason to trust German truthfulness.
:down: that the Germans would actually have been smart enough to realize that logistics wins wars and used the resources saved by not building subs to beef up those logistics.
:down: that Hitler could actually have been satisfied with the continent of Europe
:down: that having achieved his war aims Hitler would revert to benevolent uncle mode and been warm and fuzzy to all his neighbors. Maybe he would bake them cookies!
:down: that in any way Hitler could have been a productive and cooperative member of the human race, contributing to the good of his fellow man.

I'm amazed that I didn't come under attack for some of those weaknesses of my argument that U-Boats alone lost the war. Even if they did ensure it, many, many, boneheaded moves after that continued to hand victory to the Allies. All of you have established that beyond doubt.

I'll also grant Scrag's argument that U-Boats' design was good. It just wasn't good for winning the German side of WWII. Germany bit off more than they could chew and died of indigestion. Had Britain not contributed to this the Russians wrote the ending to that tale anyway.

What's going on here? I've returned to the subject after nearly hijacking my own thread. Cool! Who could have thought such a great thread would happen from one half-baked post. I'm going to shut up again and read some more incredible posts! Is SUBSIM a great place or what!:up:

[Storabrun]

Even if they did ensure it, many, many, boneheaded moves after that continued to hand victory to the Allies. All of you have established that beyond doubt.



I don't know if you mean it, but I get the impression that you think that Germany would have won the war if no misstakes were ever made. Or that the war was shortened alot by German misstakes. But the thing is the war wasn't short at all.
The combined might of the Soviet Union, USA and Brittain was simply overpowering Germany. If the Germans were boneheads I think we would have seen a very short war;)

In my opinion the entry of USA into the war pretty much made a German victory impossible. But I find it hard to place pearl harbour into the category of German misstakes. The declaration of war and paukenschlag probably was though. Without that it could have been pretty hard for Roosevelt to get americans to accept the idea of "germany first". The war with Brittain was a waste of time and resources. I agree completely with you on that one. But it can only be called a misstake if it really was possible to avoid. With Churchill it wasn't possible IMO.

[Joe S]

The initial post in this thread caught my eye, but I do not have the time to read all of the intevening posts. Here is my response off the top of my head:
1) There was nothing wrong with the design of the U-boats. They were simple and effective weapons. maybe not as sophisticated as the Gato but still a dangerous weapon in the hands of a skilled and determined crew.
2) When the u-boats had the technical advantage, before radar and long range air patrols, they did not have enough boats to deliver a decisive blow.
3) the Germans refused to believe that Enigma could be broken dispite considerable evidence to the contrary. A major mistake in the u-boat war.
4) The germans refused to believe that radar could be sucessfully deployed on a ship or airplane and in fact halted thier own development of ship and airborne radar and refused to believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary that the allied had it until the allies had a considerable lead on them.
5) The rivalry between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe impaired the German use of aircraft as scouts for u-boats and as cover for u-boats. Germany never developed an aircraft carrier which resulting in the allies having uncontesed control of the air over the atlantic and the coast of occupied Europe.
6) The Kriegsmarine was never able to challenge the allies on the sea thereby conceding to the allies control of the air and the surface of the ocean. the U-boat was the Germans only effective naval weapon of the war.

There you have it, the main reasons why the U-boat wasnt more effective, many of which are tied to major mistakes made by the Germans themselver:
1) not having enough boats in the days before air cover and radar,
2) not having the technology to match allied radar
3 not realizing their enigma code had been broken
4 Not being able to contest allied air patrols.

Take away radar or neutralize it, eliminate the codebreaking problem, and reduce the allied air cover and the u-boats could have been a lot more effective in the later days of the war. Just my opinion, fwiw. Joe S

[scrag]

Who thought the world would be made merrier
first victumize the defenseless
then see things that others couldn't
speaking like a king and acting like thief
by taking most of Europe in a week
Oops comes Stalin - pretty much the same cept uglier
the 2 bullies end up in a fight leaving the Brits up all night
to figure a way to get the US to fight
then enter the Japanese who think they are no ones fool
deciding to pummel a sleeping giant with their naval might
Wow Adolf thinks these Asian guys might be alright
'Cept now Uncle Joe is pissed as he has to kiss butt on a different political front
Give us your crap so I can fight - or at least survive till you guys decide it is alright
Land in Europe already, I am holding an idiot by the nose,
So you Anglos can kick him in the butt - we might just think you don't suck
Suddenly a guy named Benito is swinging from a pole - the Italians don't like all this Axis footware so decide to switch sides overnight
Now Hitler thinks his party is still fun
Cept there are loaded guns coming from both sides this time
Now Tojo thinks - this is really no fun
particularly when the land of the rising sun gets 2 new bright suns of their own...
Okay not a good rhyme but what ever.

[LukeFF]

5) The rivalry between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe impaired the German use of aircraft as scouts for u-boats and as cover for u-boats. Germany never developed an aircraft carrier which resulting in the allies having uncontesed control of the air over the atlantic and the coast of occupied Europe.

Moot point, since the Germans didn't really have capable aircraft for carrier operations, outside of the Ju 87. Think the 109 could be tricky to land on the rough, improvised airstrips of the Eastern Front? Would have been far worse trying to land it on a carrier.

[Rockin Robbins]

I don't think the Germans could have kept one or five aircraft carriers alive anyway. They would have only been further wastes of resources, sending giant swastikas to the bottom of the sea! They would have made the Bismark play second fiddle in the swastika contest.

[Torplexed]

A Kriegsmarine carrier fleet would have been quite the white elephant indeed. The Germans also had plans to convert a cruiser (Sedlyitz) and some liners (Potsdam, Europa, and Gneisenau) into carriers. All came to naught and that was probably for the best given the drain on shipbuilding in Germany anyway. Thanks to the Great War, the Kreigsmarine had some officers with experience in surface warfare and that war went badly in the end. When it came to newfangled carrier tactics they probably would have been out of their depth.

An aircraft carrier is only as good as it's aircraft. Part of what made the USN and Japan the premier naval aviation powerhouses they were, was the fact that their aircraft had been designed from the wheels up to operate from a carrier. As mentioned the Bf-109 and Ju-87 were just hurried substitutes.

The weapons for delivery were also very important. The Japanese had the best aerial torpedo of the war, while oddly, the US aerial torpedo was a failure for most of the war. Luckily, for the US the magnificent Dauntless dive bombers made up for this. Training of the aircrews was also critical. Göring with his single minded-determination to control everything that flew would have created a command disaster for the Germans. The Japanese and USN created separate air arms within their respective services and the training was entirely different.

[scrag]

The real issue that limited the Kreigsmarine is no Blue water ports till it was too late. Look at how hard of a run it could have been for a CV battle groups to survive heading to the N. Atlantic. The Germans should have leased the Italian Navy instead - lol. Also consider that the Germans had even less experience than the Allies regarding carriers - tough time to learn - after you go to war.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

What?! You guys still talking about this? Ok, ok let's all wrap it up,

Once there was this Austrian nutcase named Hitler.
He was peeved because he thought the Jews prevented him from becoming an artist.
He was also peeved Germany lost WW1 and had to pay heavily for it.
Then for some dumb reason, or mass hypnosis, or both the greater German population supported him and his brand of thugs.
So, again he brought war onto the world.
His navy was no match for the British Empire.
In fact the allies outnumbered the nazis to a point if they collectively acted would've stomped the life out of them.
But fruitcake Hitler had an ace up his sleeve- called Blitzkrieg which no u-boat had a part to play- only armor and aircraft.
That coupled with some feeble-minded let's not act hastily allied commanders caused the nazis to steam roll their way over Europe.
But like I said before, numbers were on the Allied side and no way in hell no matter how many unterseebooten he had or any other secret weapons could not hide the fact that Germany didn't have a snowball in hell chance of winning.
And with that I Thank God and hope that no other nutcase came again.

And u-boats didn't cost Germany the war. It was just a small part of the whole. It was a fruity-flavored Austrian named Hitler and his loony henchmen.

Everybody say AMEN!

:yep::lol:

[Jimbuna]

AMEN!! http://www.satellites.co.uk/satellite/images/smilies/palmas2maosfn8.gif

[Rockin Robbins]

But like I said before, numbers were on the Allied side and no way in hell no matter how many unterseebooten he had or any other secret weapons could not hide the fact that Germany didn't have a snowball in hell chance of winning.
A fine restatement of my case! It's oversimplified, but it will do. Unterseebooten had no function to serve that would advance Germany's chance to win the very limited (if you call taking the continent of Europe only limited) objects which were actually within reach of such an outgunned country as Germany. The nutcase was never rationally weighing possibilities and taking calculated risks. He never stooped to acting in Germany's self-interest at all.