Different tactics

[mapuc]

Ohoy all you expert

What should the german uboat have done instead?

I'm not an expert on subwarfare from WWII, so how should they have done it?

Any suggestion?

Markus

[rob89]

What exactly do you mean by your questions?
How should they have won the war?
Or are you asking about specific U-Boat tactics?

[mapuc]

What exactly do you mean by your questions?
How should they have won the war?
Or are you asking about specific U-Boat tactics?

About specific U-Boat tactics. How should they have done it instead, to win the war.

I know it's tricky question

But if you was "drawing" the tactics how would you have done it?

Markus

[Mush Martin]

Build three less capital ships before 1939 and make submarines
out of them.
create a naval air arm.
Rotate their codes.

that would be about all necessary to change everything

[Madox58]

Don't fight on 3 fronts!!

[mapuc]

create a naval air arm.
That have made me wonder, WHY didn't they create such an airsupport?

Rotate their codes.
Same here, even the japanese did the same mistake

Markus

[Mush Martin]

Don't fight on 3 fronts!!

Fight in Cairo not Moscow

[Madox58]

Africa was nearly worthless.
Dominate Europe.
Take out Great Britian.
You would own all else by default after that.

[Mush Martin]

Africa was nearly worthless.
Dominate Europe.
Take out Great Britian.
You would own all else by default after that.
Own the suez and you have britains jugular in your hands
in 1940 if even a minor ten percent of the forces
dedicated to russia had been given to
afrika corp, italy would have eventually dominated
the med due to a lack of safe ports.

and all british supply lines from IO would come the long
way round. into the teeth of my extra uboats.

[kenijaru]

Africa was nearly worthless.
Dominate Europe.
Take out Great Britian.
You would own all else by default after that.
Germany wasn't ready for the atrition warfare that started when they tried to put england under the blitz. Also, they needed oil for their armies.
Germany should have remained allied to Russia, but that was out of question... an aliance with the untermensch? (is that how you spell it?)
The biggest tactical (and strategial) mistake that Germany commited was letting a certain individual become their Führer.

[baggygreen]

the others have posted it - less capital ships (tough though, they were the mark of a strong navy), taking cairo (not strictly naval obviously) and continuing the BoB (again not strictly naval).

by taking Cairo, you hold the canal, make ships go the long way round the Cape, by continuing the BoB you subdue Britain, almost completely, and THEN you attack russia with Africa and Britain contained.

[Madox58]

If you dominate Europe?
The Suez is yours.
You ignore Spains pleas and take them down.
You own the Straights now.
The Suez is worthless.
Now whack GB.

[Mush Martin]

If you dominate Europe?
The Suez is yours.
You ignore Spains pleas and take them down.
You own the Straights now.
The Suez is worthless.
Now whack GB.

historically fighting on the
peninsula isnt as easy as it
looks Napolean burned up a
few armies that way.

no britain was weak and the stakes
came with oil. egypt is a better bet.

Now to our host mapuc thank you !!
the historical what if can be the greatest
of intellectual reveries somedays. :up:

M

[kenijaru]

Germany helped Franco, so it makes perfect sense for Germany to DEMAND that Spain helps them either on Africa or against the UK.

[Madox58]

I look at it this way.
If I own one side of the Suez?
Your screwed.
As most of the oil was going through the Straights?
I can take Spain out and own those Straights.
Then I negotiate with Egypt cause they are in a bad way.
Gotta sell your oil?
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse!!

[Mush Martin]

Germany helped Franco, so it makes perfect sense for Germany to DEMAND that Spain helps them either on Africa or against the UK.

Hitler would have rather gotten a root canal with no anasthesia
im told.:rotfl:

[kenijaru]

Germany helped Franco, so it makes perfect sense for Germany to DEMAND that Spain helps them either on Africa or against the UK.
Hitler would have rather gotten a root canal with no anasthesia
im told.:rotfl:
that's probably true... many nations were filled with untermenschen... but if we start a "what if" we might as well take it to the extreme in a "Stauffenberg rocks" kind of way :)

[KeptinCranky]

LOL, Mush, yes and from only one meeting too, I don't think they had root canal back then, I think the words were "I'd rather have all my teeth pulled than have another meeting with that man" or some such :rotfl:

[Biggs[CV]]

Send enough U-boats to the Panama canal to shut it down. And send at least 20 U-Boats and a few milk cows to the American west coast, wreck havok on the American supply lines........

[predavolk]

I've always said that they should've taken Gibraltar. If they could've owned the Med, they could've pulled their subs out and left it to the "weak" Italians. Beyond that, use impacts from the start, rotate their enigma more frequently, have more subs, and have long-range aerial locators/escorts.

[Hitman]

What should the german uboat have done instead?

I'm not an expert on subwarfare from WWII, so how should they have done it?


Hi mapuc long not seen you around :up:

If you mean strategically, then all the above answers plus about a zillion possibilities more :lol:

If you mean tactically, i.e. exclusively U-Boat tactics at combat, I believe thye did the right ones i.e. wolfpacking as long as they could, smorkelling as soon as they got that device and so on.

Probably the difference is that in charge of the U-Boats was a real Admiral with U-Boat experience, and in charge of the high command for strategy was a mad ex-WW1 private and frustrated painter. Guess who did the job better :rotfl:

[STEED]

This is how Germany could have won the war:

Remove the top three morons for a start.

No war with Russia & America.

Result a different kind of cold war. :hmm:

[STEED]

Germany helped Franco, so it makes perfect sense for Germany to DEMAND that Spain helps them either on Africa or against the UK.

They would of have been about as much use as the Italians were, a bloody millstone around Germany. :yep:

[Hitman]

They would of have been about as much use as the Italians were, a bloody millstone around Germany. :yep:

No Sir you are bloody wrong. We would have ensured the quickest and most effective defeat of ... germany by being his ally. How could the german industry and army stop all the problems caused by the Italians AND us? :rotfl:

[STEED]

From our point view Hitman, cool. :cool: But from Germany, bug**r. :damn:

[nirwana]

I monkeyed a bit around with the game making history: the calm and the storm. Best results i got when i sent the existing armies in 1936 with all available navy to far east and conquered all of china before the japanese could get a hold on it. After taking out easteurope and french i began raiding the british navy around its homecountry with massiv airpower to prepare the invasion wearing down the RAF as a sideeffect. In the meantime i basicly took out the british colonies attached to the chinese territories like india, burma and later the arabic allies to cut the british supplies. Then Gibraltar and Kairo had no more strategic importance and Britain was in deep trouble to even maintenance its military output inspite of US supplies. A huge fleet of now high tech subs owned the channel to cover the move of superior german landforces across it. The large us-fleets with carriersupport were only an annoyance but caused no major prob, they were focussed on the mediterranien anyway to beat up the italiens.

[Sailor Steve]

Remove the top three morons for a start.
Do that and there is no war. Everybody wins.

Yay Steed!

[Mush Martin]

Remove the top three morons for a start. Do that and there is no war. Everybody wins.


Well maybe not so good for India

[mapuc]

What should the german uboat have done instead?

I'm not an expert on subwarfare from WWII, so how should they have done it?


Hi mapuc long not seen you around :up:

If you mean strategically, then all the above answers plus about a zillion possibilities more :lol:

If you mean tactically, i.e. exclusively U-Boat tactics at combat, I believe thye did the right ones i.e. wolfpacking as long as they could, smorkelling as soon as they got that device and so on.

Probably the difference is that in charge of the U-Boats was a real Admiral with U-Boat experience, and in charge of the high command for strategy was a mad ex-WW1 private and frustrated painter. Guess who did the job better :rotfl:

Hi Hitman
You're absolutly right, it's always easier to say, afterwards, what the german should have done and not.

I have to confess one thing, I'm not a nobi when it comes to subwarfare, it's my english gramma that put me on hold to write all my knowledge about it.

All program they show on Viasat History, NGC and so on and books(latest was (in swedish)"havets vargar*") this book contained many short stories.

* I can't find the english name for it.

Regards
Markus

[Schwuppes]

Another major reason Germany lost the war:

Hermann Göring

He totally screwed up the Luftwaffe, which basically cost the Germans the eastern front. There was no real armament plan for the Luftwaffe... instead of focusing on the basics there were only crazy promises and airshows with weird prototypes which never amounted to anything....
He also had the responsibility to ensure industrial resources from occupied territories were utilized for the German war machine, another task in which he completely failed.

[predavolk]

He totally screwed up the Luftwaffe, which basically cost the Germans the eastern front.

What??? At the risk of dragging this off topic, that makes no sense. Even IF (a HUGE IF) Germany had captured Moscow in their initial assault, the USSR would've still swallowed up their army. It was just too big, the logistics would've killed them. And once they failed to reach Moscow, the Soviet Union was never in serious danger again, despite Stalin's crazy squawking for urgent assistance.

About the ONLY way I could see Germany beating the USSR in WW2 would have been to take Moscow before the first winter (as it was the massive, central transportation and logistical hub) AND THEN rearm and reuse captured POWs under a new Russian general against Stalin. Then you might have been able to avoid the enormous costs of local guerillas, gain greater civilian cooperation and output, and aquire sufficient military manpower to take that enormous country. But that didn't quite fit with the Nazi view of Russians, despite urgent efforts by some Army officers to get the million-plus willing POWs on the field against Stalin.

As others have said, that's a good thing for the rest of us! Except the Russians. And the Eastern Block.

[Mush Martin]

What cost the eastern front in real terms was Hitler trying to micro
manage his armies against a prestige target instead of a strategic
one.

two thrusts one to moscow and one to the caucuses.
instead of marching entire armies across each others supply
routes paralyzing both in support of sixth army. and leave
in late spring not late summer.

[UnderseaLcpl]

In keeping with Predavolk's argument I posit that the U-boats couldn't have done anything to win the war. The war was won by Russia.

Now, if the Japanese had attacked Russia instead of America, then they might have won as the forty or so divisions used in the counteroffensives around Moscow would not have been available and Moscow, being the rail hub for the entire country, would have crippled Soviet war efforts if it fell.

[predavolk]

In keeping with Predavolk's argument I posit that the U-boats couldn't have done anything to win the war. The war was won by Russia.

Now, if the Japanese had attacked Russia instead of America, then they might have won as the forty or so divisions used in the counteroffensives around Moscow would not have been available and Moscow, being the rail hub for the entire country, would have crippled Soviet war efforts if it fell.

I often say that the great tragedy of World War 2 was that Germany and Japan didn't attack Russia, and end up beating each other down.

I agree that the U-Boats couldn't win the war, nor could the Germans beat the Russians without help (from defecting Russians or a major offensive from the Japanese). Russia was too big, her man power was too great, and her industrial might was too widely spread (and her T-34s, perhaps more than any other weapon except nukes, were a war winner).

[ijozic]

Now, if the Japanese had attacked Russia instead of America, then they might have won as the forty or so divisions used in the counteroffensives around Moscow would not have been available and Moscow, being the rail hub for the entire country, would have crippled Soviet war efforts if it fell.

They actually DID try to attack Russia but were beaten off by Soviet forces led by Zhukov.

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

This was a rather important conflict because it convinced the Japan that the Army plan to seize the Siberia for oil was rather unrealistic and that they should turn their marks to the South East Asia. When Sorge found out about it and reported it back to USSR in late 1941, it allowed the Soviets to move the Far East forces to relieve Moscow.

I often say that the great tragedy of World War 2 was that Germany and Japan didn't attack Russia, and end up beating each other down.

I wouldn't call this tragic, though. I think I understand what you mean but this didn't come out the right way :)

[Randomizer]

The Nomonhan incident that Ijozic links to above was only the largest and last of a series on Russo-Japanese combats in Manchuria and the Soviet Maritime province. The Japanese defeat there was so total that the Army absolutely rejected offensive war against the Soviet Union after 1939. Besides, the attack on Europe's Pacific possessions and America was strategically driven by the need for resources, particularly oil and there was none known to be in the eastern Siberia.

After the disaster at Nomonhan, Japan bent over backwards to accomodate the Soviets, there was never any realistic prospect of them attacking out of Manchuria or Korea. They had nothing to gain but much to lose.

As an aside, Khalkan Gol was the river near which the border war was fought for and that gave its name to the series of battles fought in the summer of 1939. The Japanese referred to it as the Nomonhan Incident for the name of the nearest town and the aim was to advance Manchurian territory into Mongolia, then a Soviet client state.

For some specific details of Japanese-Soviet relations at that time see Target Tokyo by Gordon W. Prang and Nomonhan by Alvin Coox.

Good Hunting