Why 66 + 66 attacks?

[Rosencrantz]

It's very well known fact that for a new U-boat it was compulsory to carry out 66 torpedo attacks during daylight, submerged, and another 66 torpedo attacks on the surface at night. What isn't widely known is the reason for the exact number of attacks. Why exactly 66 + 66 and not for example 60 + 60 or 70 + 70, or 50 + 50? That's what I have thinking for awhile. Why 66 attacks? I have three theories now, every single of them drawn from "far distance", as far I can see.

1. Basic idea was to practise approaches from different start points relative to target. If divide 180 degrees half circle (from dead ahead to targets stern) into six equal arcs, we can see each arc covering somewhat magic 30 degrees. Now we could think there was six different positions for a submarine to start it's approach: Sector 1, dead ahead, 000 - 030 (330-360); sector 2, abeam, 030 - 060 (300 - 330); sector 3, flank, 060 - 090 (270 - 300); sector 4, flank, 090 - 120 (240 - 270); sector 5, abaft 120 - 150 (210 - 240) and sector 6, astearn, 150 - 180 (180 - 210). Was the boat in the port or the starboard side of the target didn't matter.

Now we could assume the boat had to carry on 10 attacks from each 6 position for a practise. 6 x 10 = 60 separated attacks. In the assumed final exam (vitnessed by the inspectors) boat had to carry on one attack from each point, target vessel "choosing" the "sector" for the boat as an "surprise" when making first zig. Now we have total 66 attacks (60 + 6).

The trick for the crew of the boat would be (as always) determining the targets overall course and speed, and then move out from the optimal approach course or from the normal approach course to the shortest possible attack course as fast as they ever could. Sometwhat easy thing for the inspectors to measure, with other things affecting to the overall performance of the crew.

The problem of the theory is at least the attacks from the sector 6, astearn. If the target's speed wasn't slow, the boat was in the impossible situation if trying to catch the target. Of course that kind of situation could have been build up for a practise, to test commanders will for an approach and of course the captain of the target (who knew the boat's position in the start) could set his speed so that the boat could reach the attack position with determined actions.

Theory 2. There was six different levels for the target's overall behavior, starting from the target running on the straight course with a steady speed to the target zigging wild and unforeseeable, maybe also changing his speed. (Like a destroyer going back and forth while escorting the convoy.)
Again 10 attacks for a level + exam, 1 attack per each level.

Theory 3. Theory 1 merged with theory 2. My best quess.


Comments, ideas? I'm posting this because I haven't been able to find any official documents giving description about the details.


Greetings,
-RC-

[Jimbuna]

This is all new info to me :hmm:

[Sailor Steve]

First I've heard of it as well. Where does this "well known" information come from?

[Rosencrantz]

Hello Steve and jimbuna!


First source I found quicly is Clay Blair. In his "Hitler's U-boat War. The Hunters, 1939 - 1942" Blair writes:

Dönitz went to sea on one duck or the other. He was a demanding but fair forgiving instructor(...) Dönitz put the ducks through a variety of drills but the main emphasis was on torpedo shooting. Every duck in the flotilla was required to carry out sixty-six daylight submerged and sixty-six night surface attacks(...)

Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2000. Page 41.

I have seen the same thing mentioned at least in one or two other sources, but Blair was "in hand" just now.


Greetings,
-RC-

[Randomizer]

Not all U-Boat captains commanded Ducks however. Werner Henke and Englebert Endrass amongst others never commanded school ducks but no doubt trained on them at some point.

Good Hunting

[Bill Nichols]

Interesting info, and your theories are at least plausible. I can't say I've ever heard of this before, hopefully someone here will be able to add more background.

:ahoy:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, if Blair said it it's probably true. Sorry for doubting. I still have no clue as to why, though.

[Jimbuna]

Well, if Blair said it it's probably true. Sorry for doubting. I still have no clue as to why, though.

Ditto.....time for a little research :lol:

[Rosencrantz]

Yep.

I know my "theory" is just kind of a start, or a "raw version". For example I doubt the approaches starting from "sectors" 5 and 6, astern - at least in the basic torpedo attack training. It's hard to find any real practical use for that kind of drill.

However I think there must have been somekind of basic "system" in the backround, I believe exact 66 attacks can't be explained otherways.

And Steve, it's ok to doubt, sure. Besides, you don't have to read Blair's book so much before finding first mistakes. But who would not make minor errors, if writing a book like that? It has been a huge work, really, and the book is certainly not his only book.

To randomizer: Torpedo training wasn't only duck releated at all. Every single boat in the Kriegsmarine went through certain edjucational program.


-RC-

[Randomizer]

Neither Peter Cremer or Herbert Warner, both of whom go into some detail on their U-Boat command courses, fix a number of attacks. I wonder if the number 66 might have been related to the standards set by the training flotilla CO or command course officer equivalent.

I am in no way disputing the numbers but I would doubt that it the number was fixed thoughout the war or in any way mandatory, particularly the surface attacks after the introduction of the snorkel in the summer of 1944.

Werner Henke reported for his Commander's course in mid-November 1941 and was at Deutsche Werft shipyards on 12 January 1942 to oversee U-515's final construction. This hardly seems enought time to run 132 seperate torpedo attacks just for him along with all of the other subjects that must have been on the sylabus of the commanding officer's course. If every candidate got 132 attacks, how long would a course serial run? I'm sure a simulator had to be involved, the logistics and cost of shooting, recovering and refurbishing 132 torpedoes per student per course would be huge. Not including the time, cost and effort of providing target ships in what later became the high-risk Baltic training areas.

My comments re Ducks was just because I cannot see how a course candidate would have time to conduct 132 attacks (to which one should add the approach phase as well). However, one who actually commanded a school Duck (like Ali Cremer) might very well have participated in hundreds of attacks as his boat supported various courses and conducted assorted trials.

Edit:
Admittedly, the attack does not have to be live, a water-slug or no shot at all would fit the bill as far as drills are concerned but that still leaves the time and space issues with targets. Is it possible that pre-war courses had 66-submerged and 66-surface attacks on the schedule that all candidates participated in?

Good Hunting

[Rosencrantz]

Hello Randomizer!


Yep, I'm not telling the number of attacks remaind untouched through the war. The other thing is these attacks were not carried out in the commanding course but - as far as I have understood it right - for example during the new boat's training period.

Then, what becomes to the time requiered to carry out 132 torpedo attacks, one prewar U-boat commander had stated they made even 14 attacks a day: 8 attacks submerged and 6 surfaced during the night.

In one thing you really hit the mark: These attacks were all just shooting a water slug. Only later, when the boat has passed these drills, it could move on and start using the real torpedos with dummy heads.

However, the big question is still there: How these drills were organised, because I believe very strong that there must be some preordered variation in the drills. Otherways, why order exactly 66 attacks and not for example whole 70? That's why I think they had more complex system than just: "Hey You! Take that boat and sunk the ship out there! If you can repeat it 66 times you have passed your exam!"

Greetings,
-RC-

[Randomizer]

I actually suspect the number 66 was drawn from the optimum number of candidates on a Commanding Officer's Course divided by the number of practices required to meet the course standard. In most military training, one has to participate as a member of a team in the key positions to get the final qualification. For example, eleven candidates would see each commanding in six surface and submerged attacks for a total of 66 each with 22 candidates the number would be three each and so on. Non-shooters would likely fill the assorted duties in the attack team that would be covered off by crewmen in action. The role of the non-shooter should not be underestimated since an error may cause the student commander to fail in his attack assessment.

By way of fairly contemporary example, when I did my howitzer Detachment Commander's course (1983) there was only enough time and ammunition to conduct one live open-action (that's direct fire for the uninitiated) per gun detachment. With thirty candidates, only five actually got to command the gun in a live shoot, the rest participated and got the box checked in part due to all the 'dry' practices and serving the gun during the live shoot.

Did the narrator actually command all 14-submerged and 6-surface attacks or was that the number carried out by the training boat with each candidate changing duties after an attack serial?

These methods are fairly typical for military training establishments, particularly when under stress to produce quantities' of graduates. When one prepares a training sylabus, time, space and resources tend to conflict with the ideal standards and unfortunately for the candidates, standards usually lose.

I have to modify my statement about KL Henke's commanders training as well, his course was some 10-months long but torpedo training did not start until November 1941. The observation that cramming 132 attacks per student into an eight-week timeframe seems a bit unreasonable remains however. Apologies for the omission, one of the pitfalls of relying on a flawed memory.

Edit:
That this number may have been a requirement for Front-Boat training and certification creates its own issues. How does one find the time for 66-night attacks during the summer months where night is short at Baltic latitudes? What about the horrible 'ice-winter' of 1940-41 where a freezing Baltic Sea curtailed most high-seas training for the school flotillas?

Perhaps it was determined to be the pre-war ideal number of practice attacks before a commander went into combat. I would doubt that it was actually achieved too often in reality.

Good Hunting

[Platapus]

Speaking as a retired military person, don't try to find too much logic in such military matters.

The number 66 may have been chosen because it was chosen. There may be no rational reason.

It is a military thing... ya get used to it :)

[Rosencrantz]

Hello, both Randomizer and Platapus!


Yep, as Platapus wrote, there may be not rational reason for "66" and I know my "theory" can easily be just 100 % bull&#¤&. However, I think Randomizer gave interesting hypoteses in his last post and as an ex member of LRRP I think I know pretty well what Rando meant.

Also, I don't know more details about 14 attacks of the one particular duck. I also suspect that 132 attack pack was really pre-war stuff but again I wouldn't be so sure it was commander training or sub school releated at all. (And I'm too pretty sure every sub school student didn't got 132 torpedo attacks.)

A bit off topic, but I think Randomizer meant winter 1939-1940 when he was talking about the horrible "ice-winter", not 1940-41. I think winter 40-41 was pretty normal in the Baltic/North Sea areas, but 39-40 was really quite harsh. For example the Jade Bay off Wilhelmshaven was so icy the boats couldn't carry out any test dives on the bay and they had to move out and go to Helgoland for diving.

How does one find the time for 66-night attacks during the summer months where night is short at Baltic latitudes?

A good question, but maybe it wasn't that impossible really. For example here in Finland, where I live, there is no sunset at all in the Lappland area during mid summer as - I'm sure - you know. But if you move southwards, nights become darker and longer pretty fast. (You can really notice it if you travel just from Oulu to Helsinki. Helsinki is located in the most southern part of the country and Oulu is about in the middle on the way up to north.) Then, 66 night attacks divided by 6 per night... It's only 11 nights, in theory, or maybe about 2 weeks.

So... It's always nice to find something new to study. Just think how many books there is about the U-boats, most of them repeating each other. I think many interesting parts about the "U-boat life" are still very much uncharted areas. It would be really interesting to know more details about pre-war "operational" life of the boats, drills and so on. But maybe the archives will give aswers in the future, I hope.

Greetings,
-RC-