Type IX/D2 [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Torplexed

03-17-09, 07:59 PM

Hello! I'm THE U-boat freak and I need help. :know:

My favourite submarine is the german type IX/D2. Much because of the U-boat addon to Silent Hunter IV. I can't find much information about it though. Would really like if anyone could post some pictures and stuff about it. :yeah:

I know it had a schnorkel and it's kinda anoying that Ubisoft didn't give it to the IX/D2 and XXVII in the U-boat missions addon.

I think it's because none of the boats sent to operate in the Far East had snorkels fitted.

One more thing. I saw a film on Youtube and one guy commented; "Imagine if the germans had the state of the art american submarines in WWII". That made me pissed. We all know that german submarines were much more advanced and deep diving than the american "scrap". Agree? :damn:German subs were more deep diving, but the advanced subs arrived a bit too late for the party. But I imagine the Germans would have loved the air and sea search radar and ten torpedo tubes that came standard on most US boats. American subs probably wouldn't have fared any better than the U-Boats fighting the British, but then that's not the theater or opponent they were designed to fight against.

gimpy117

03-18-09, 09:57 PM

German subs were more deep diving,

actually...American subs (depending on the sub) could dive just as deep or deeper....

Ie. the USS Chopper incident.

she got to 1,000+ feet more than 295 meters...

Morpheus

03-19-09, 07:02 AM

incident

that says it all i guess

tater

03-21-09, 10:05 AM

How'd that deep diving work out for them? Most boats lived out the war, did they?

pythos

03-21-09, 10:18 AM

Type IX/D2s were not fitted with a snorkel, only a few type IX and type VII along with the XXI and XXIII were fitted with such as far as operational boats were concerned. Why a snorkel was not fit to the D2 is beyond me, but that was the case. The same went for the Type XIV resupply boats.

The American fleet boat was several times better than the Type IX and VII, and inferior in only a few respects to the XXI. The fleet boats were longer legged, both under and above water. Later boats were quieter. And from early on were much better equipped than the German boats. Something they lacked was the snorkel, which is surprising really. That being said, the type VII for a long time was the ideal boat for fighting in the atlantic, whereas the American boats would not have done so well. The VII could VERY fast, compared to the slow to dive Fleet boat. The Type IX was just an elongated VII with more fuel and torpedo stowage for extra long jaunts into the south Atlantic, or eastern United States. Slower diving, and not as maneuverable as the VII.

Now the Type XXI. Now that was a scary boat for the allies, it would have wreaked some major havoc, and dissapeared without a trace. The Me262 of the sea one could say. Is it any wonder that many Russian and American post war boats had many design features of this type.

Rockin Robbins

03-21-09, 03:26 PM

They took American "scrap" and fitted them with some underwater streamlining after the war, no mods to the working gear itself and outperformed the Type XXI on the surface and submerged.And this with an actual battle tested fightable submarine, not some wet behind the ears wishful thought that never saw combat. After all the Type XXI was just copying the World War I shape of the American S-Boat. We abandoned better underwater performance for good reason and the results showed the Americans were right.

American scrap was better than an untested and not ready for prime-time Type XXI, much less any other German U-Boat. They could have streamlined the fleet boat for increased underwater performance any time, but it would have made it a much less effective fighting machine by encouraging the ostrich strategy of fighting a submarine. Diesel submarines are surface craft that can submerge for the shortest possible amount of time when it's absolutely necessary. When fought that way they are maximally effective. The best submarine for that purpose by far is the American fleet boat.

By the way, I am surprised that your name passes the smell test here at SUBSIM. It sure doesn't pass mine.

Onkel Neal

03-21-09, 09:59 PM

Yeah, Soni, I'm afraid we'll have to shorten your name. While all Subsim members respect the accomplishments of the Kriegsmarine in war, we do not want to give off the appearance of glorifying the Nazis.

Besides, it will be quicker for you to log in with Kapitan Soniboy :yep:

Rockin Robbins

03-22-09, 08:23 AM

Economy is good! Welcome to Subsim Kapitan Soniboy. Your name is now green, saving millions of scarce electrons every year!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/DoubleThumbs.gif
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/DoubleThumbs.gif)

Rockin Robbins

03-22-09, 08:34 AM

The American fleet boat was several times better than the Type IX and VII...

Now THAT's going too far. The American boats were an incremental, not a revolutionary improvement over the U-Boats. We're not comparing atomic submarines to the USS Holland here. They were in no way several times better. They were a little bit better in several dozen categories, just as the U-Boats were a little bit better in several categories.

They both sank targets and were quite good at it. Germans were less successful primarily because of strategy, tactics, planning, operational procedures and the nature of their enemy. It's too easy to overstate the differences between submarines and U-Boats based on the results of the war.

Were the fleet boats better than the U-Boats? Unquestionably yes! Could the US Navy have achieved the same result with a fleet of Type IX boats? Yes, no problem.

Could the Kriegsmarine have achieved the same result with a fleet of US Submarines? YES. The defects of their operational strategy and the difference in the nature of their enemy dictated defeat, even with a fleet of Type XXIs or Guppies. The Germans could never conceive that the very use of submarines in WWII was counterproductive and was enough all by itself to guarantee the loss of the war. Fortunately, that was not the only fatal mistake the Wehrmacht made. They had a talent for serial blunders of fatal catastophe. Many of these blunders, all by themselves, would have guaranteed German defeat. The regime was rotten to the core and incompetent in matters of war. Although tactically superior, they were strategically destitute.

Sledgehammer427

03-22-09, 02:54 PM

excellent point, RR

Carotio

03-23-09, 12:53 PM

Were the fleet boats better than the U-Boats? Unquestionably yes! Could the US Navy have achieved the same result with a fleet of Type IX boats? Yes, no problem.

Just an idea of an experimental mod: how about doing a vice versa mod and add/remove fleet boats/uboats to/from America/Germany.

Head out of Pearl in an IXd2, or head out of Wilhelmshaven with a Tambor, just for the fun of it... :hmmm:

Kapitan Soniboy

03-23-09, 03:05 PM

Then why did they copy German technology after the war? Without the V-2 rocket you would not have reached the moon in 1969! Tell me, why are the American SABER and Russian MIG which fought against each other in the Korean War so similar to each other? Because both the Russians and Americans copied german technology. I have a friend who served on a submarine and he told me that the VII were so much better in all ways than the American subs. That a VII in the Pacific would be a dream come true for any American submariner. Well, I guess nobody can tell.

The IX-D2 HAD a snorkel. There is one IX-D2 just of the coast here in Norway and it has a snorkel (The only submarine to be sunk by another submarine when both were submerged). Another IX-D2 which was sunk near South-Africa did only run on the surface 15 minutes every day because it had a snorkel. Guys, have you ever seen Das Boot????:rock:

Okay, you changed my name. I can understand that but you must know it was just a silly joke. Sorry.

Torplexed

03-23-09, 07:35 PM

I have a friend who served on a submarine and he told me that the VII were so much better in all ways than the American subs. That a VII in the Pacific would be a dream come true for any American submariner. Well, I guess nobody can tell.

With all due respect to your friend a Type VII wouldn't have had the operational range to reach Japan from Pearl Harbor. They could barely reach the Eastern United States seaboard without refueling. Plus, I wouldn't want to spend the month it would take to get there in a cramped sub without air conditioning, limited and unrefrigerated food storage and only five torpedo tubes. The Type IX would be a better bet, but I'd want a US sub's radar fit. It's a big ocean.
Guys, have you ever seen Das Boot????:rock:Yes I did. Rather depressing and if I remember correctly just about half the crew dies at the end. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the U-Boat war.

Rockin Robbins

03-24-09, 05:35 AM

I've always thought that Das Boot was an interesting movie with lots of pretty authentic shots of U-Boats, but with actors poorly mocking the procedures and character of real U-Boat sailors.

The captain is lollygagging around with the periscope trying to be spotted by leaving it wagging in the air too long and suddenly the destroyer (who'da thought????) comes out of nowhere and they do the ALAAAAAAAAARM bit. This is plain silliness! Here's the procedure, the captain has the periscope down. He asks the sonar operator, where's the targets? The sonar opeator tells him a destroyer is approaching on bearing xx. Captain sets the periscope on the bearing, pops the scope up (he crouches over the periscope well, catches the handles on the way up, spins the scope to the correct bearing, peeks, says "Mark", and lowers the scope. It literally just bounces off the top stop, staying up for maybe two seconds.) and calmly takes pre-planned evasion or attack actions. The movie? S_T_U_P_I_D!!!

The main character is some everyman whose function is to whimper in the corner, suffering nobly but incapable of any constructive function on the boat. Give me a break! On a real U-Boat he would have been properly tossed overboard without a life jacket. There weren't enough men on a U-Boat to have a designated corner whimperer. Send him back to his mommy!

When the sub is under attack there is no evasion at all! They just sit down there and hope the enemy misses. Stupid! U-Boats were not helpless victims of war, they actually fought it!

When I watched the movie in ignorance when it first came out I was awed. As I learned more and more about how submarines and U-Boats were run, I looked at Das Boot for what it is: a poor melodrama, whose purpose is propoganda. A lousy anti-war film with great props. An insult to the real U-Boat crews who fought with courage and ability.

Morpheus

03-24-09, 11:36 AM

what a crappy discussion ...

LukeFF

03-24-09, 03:13 PM

what a crappy discussion ...

And you didn't exactly add anything to the conversation, now did you? :hmmm:

Morpheus

03-24-09, 03:39 PM

it comes to a fragile point when ppl start talking about nacional socialism propaganda.

which is absolutely not true about the movie das boot. but if you didnt get it it would be worth another try watching it. also movies about war aren't ment to be funny or entertaining, other than you to show what a misery it was for all that had to go through it.

kr morph

Rockin Robbins

03-24-09, 04:48 PM

Morpheus you are making no sense whatever. There are no ideas in your post at all. Try making a point and defending it. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an idea in there somewhere...:hmmm: It is just impossible to find it in what you wrote.

Explanation: it is a pronoun referring to nothing. What is it? What is a fragile point? Who was talking about "nacional socialism proganda?" What isn't true about the movie Das Boot? If one didn't get what? There's that undefined "it" again. Who maintained Das Boot was meant to be funny or entertaining? What could a phrase like "other than you to show what a misery it was for all that had to go through it" possibly mean? Another undefined "it." There's no there there.

Agree or disagree with me, I posited a definite point, explained and illustrated it with idiocies from the movie. Your post not only did not respond, it was irrelevant to the English language itself. Put one foot in front of the other and walk!

Morpheus

03-24-09, 06:04 PM

... The main character is some everyman whose function is to whimper in the corner, suffering nobly but incapable of any constructive function on the boat. Give me a break! On a real U-Boat he would have been properly tossed overboard without a life jacket. There weren't enough men on a U-Boat to have a designated corner whimperer. Send him back to his mommy!

When the sub is under attack there is no evasion at all! They just sit down there and hope the enemy misses. Stupid! U-Boats were not helpless victims of war, they actually fought it!

When I watched the movie in ignorance when it first came out I was awed. As I learned more and more about how submarines and U-Boats were run, I looked at Das Boot for what it is: a poor melodrama, whose purpose is propoganda. A lousy anti-war film with great props. An insult to the real U-Boat crews who fought with courage and ability.

i am sure you can understand my text if you want to, there are some typos ... normal condition on internet forums. i would like to see you type some german text anyway.

when i re-read your posting from earlier today, i would say that you have a problem with making a point.

i marked out the interessting lines in bold. first, this man was not a everyman whimp, he was what we call a "kriegsberichterstatter", in english, a war correspondent. second, this story is no fiction, it really happend. The man's name you called a everyman whimp was Lothar-Günther Buchheim, and he joint U96 in 1941 as a war correspondent. i read his book, which the movie was made after. Propaganda? For what? Hitler? You must be jokin. It points out so much as a antipropagande for Hitler. Poor Melodrama? What do you think the saving of private ryan or any reasonable movie is? everything else i would call a propagande for making war, no?

As i said earlier, this is coming to a "sensitive" point.

//EDIT: i excanged the word fragile with sensitive, that should help

Morpheus

03-24-09, 06:15 PM

finally, to add some comment to the actual thema.

i think it is senseless to compare german vs. us subarines here, since we will never get a chance to find out. i like both, played sid meyers silent service on the c64 wayback in the 80ies and enjoyed the gato and balao class submarines very much. i like german subs the same, just for what they are. this game doesn't represent "the real" submarines at all, but gives our imagination some great help in having an idea of how it could of been.

so, if you want to have a measure on your dick with eachother you will have to find another kind of measurement than this one. just because it is ridiculous ...

Rockin Robbins

03-24-09, 07:53 PM

I stand by my statements and leave it to others to judge whether I have made my points well. I am satisfied that aside from misspelling propaganda, I did a pretty good job.

By the way, the book is excellent. It is the movie that is pitiful. And it is pitiful from a dramatic point of view, not photographic. It is the men who are unbelievable, not the machines. Many U-Boat veterans have made my exact point that the movie denigrates the men it is supposed to lionize. They don't consider themselves to be heroes anyway. While I respect them, I agree completely with their self-image. A hero must fight for a just cause. Theirs was evil to an extreme seldom seen in human enterprise.

Why do you find it necessary to make anatomical references (I'm surprised the illustrious auto-censor let that one fly:D. Two points for sneaking that one through.) or bring up the U-Boat vs. fleet boat angle, which was not even treated in my opinion of Das Boot? Misdirection is a tool of someone who has conceded the discussion and needs to change the subject. I'll let your conduct speak for itself.

Morpheus

03-24-09, 08:13 PM

Did you have your coffee this morning, Admiral?

martes86

03-25-09, 05:38 AM

This is fun...

Morpheus, do you realise that your "sort-of-points" are making us serious u-boot fans look like a bunch of stupid blind-faith kriegsmarine worshippers?

Shut up if you're not able to make a valid point. Thanks.

Now, a serious point here.

Yeah, I know what's Das Boot about, and still, I can't help loving it. It's terribly unrealistic speaking from an operations protocol point of view, and there's probably too much of a screaming act when under attack, etc.
Still, it's a movie (made for Hollywood, mind I add), it's about U-Boote, and regardless of poor depiction, it's damn cool. Das Boot was made to try to realisticly reflect some points of U-Boot warfare and its people, but not all of them... and while we might base our statements about U-Boote in this movie for a large part, it's for a great desire of making the environment in which we "play" the "game" a spectacular and fun show, which we can enjoy with a mixture of realism and spectacular fun show. Das Boot is seen like a bible for "U-Booting", but even though we base our acts on it, it's an accesory, and of course, those of us with a responsible and rational approach, try to make it a complement of even more realistic materials.

Now, for realistic protocols, you might want to watch "Morgenrot", a WW1 based german film made in the late 20's.

I'll post more if something comes up to mind. :DL

Morpheus

03-25-09, 07:27 AM

martes86

03-25-09, 07:54 AM

Invalid points? Well, for starters...

so, if you want to have a measure on your dick with eachother you will have to find another kind of measurement than this one. just because it is ridiculous ...

This is not like a very constructive comment, so you can take it back in, we don't want to see it. :rotfl:

Now,

i marked out the interessting lines in bold. first, this man was not a everyman whimp, he was what we call a "kriegsberichterstatter", in english, a war correspondent. second, this story is no fiction, it really happend. The man's name you called a everyman whimp was Lothar-Günther Buchheim, and he joint U96 in 1941 as a war correspondent. i read his book, which the movie was made after. Propaganda? For what? Hitler? You must be jokin. It points out so much as a antipropagande for Hitler. Poor Melodrama? What do you think the saving of private ryan or any reasonable movie is? everything else i would call a propagande for making war, no?

RR didn't actually say that the man was a everyman whimp, but that he looked like that. He knows that he's supposed to be a correspondent, but, my guess is that he doesn't think he's very well portrayed... he might be right.

Second, the story IS FICTION. Das Boot is a fictional version of one of the patrols of U96, and so, all characters in the book have fictional names. Buchheim published another book, which name I can't remember right now, but that was the one based on real facts, and included real photos made on patrol. Das Boot is a fiction novel. Of course, having been a correspondent a board the U96, he gathered that experience to make the book look convincing, but it was fiction nevertheless, and the U-Boot veterans didn't like that fiction as they thought it didn't represent the reality of U-Boot men, so they wrote the book entitled "We U-Boot men say: no, it was not like that". I guess you didn't know that.

Of course, I wouldn't go as far as calling it poor melodrama, as I love the movie, but still, RR has a point, which you seemingly don't... at least, even if I don't agree with him, I try to make a solid point of my opinions, instead of talking about dicks' sizes.

And don't worry, nothing ruined here... in fact I'm having fun reading some of the ignorant posts being made by some people that call themselves u-boot fans.

Morpheus

03-25-09, 11:32 AM

who is the ignorant one here. you interpret the writen of someone else as it fits for you and distract with moving away from the thema ... must bee some weird stuff you're comsuming.

as it seems you both didnt get the line i made with answering within two sepperate posts. one was a direct answer to RR, and the other a answer to this thread. maby you go back and look what it was about on the start anyway. but i can image that lines start to blur when consuming heavy stuff.

my intend is in no way to talk bad about u-boat fans, but it seems to me that you are cought in some kind of fog. talking about invalid points, i think it was a very good point, and i think you enjoyed reading it, which would explain your smiley towards that one.

we can continue with this hairsplitting typing anyways until the moon drops down ... thats why i called this a crappy thread in the beginning.

martes86

03-25-09, 11:44 AM

I'll admit, the "lower member" thing was a little drift... anyways, seemed funny to mock the comment, and so I did, thus, the smiley present in my post...

But the rest of the post is perfectly valid and in line with your previous post.

Morpheus

03-25-09, 12:22 PM

But the rest of the post is perfectly valid and in line with your previous post.

you mean this?

The main character is some everyman whose function is to whimper in the corner, suffering nobly but incapable of any constructive function on the boat.

and

RR didn't actually say that the man was a everyman whimp, but that he looked like that. He knows that he's supposed to be a correspondent, but, my guess is that he doesn't think he's very well portrayed... he might be right.

your abilities are amazing, you should go to nasa testlabs ...

martes86

03-25-09, 12:47 PM

Now it is me who doesn't know what stuff are you smoking. I thought RR and me were answering you for the post he made about Das Boot and your later replies.

Oh, BTW, I also think he's a little wrong when saying that the movie is propaganda. But I reafirm myself on the rest of the stuff I wrote.

Morpheus

03-25-09, 05:48 PM

Oh, BTW, I also think he's a little wrong when saying that the movie is propaganda.

this was the reason for me to reply on his post in the first place. so at least we both agree in that point :03:

Rockin Robbins

03-26-09, 01:25 PM

Martes, the movie is typical German anti-war propaganda, similar, but much more poorly done than Im Westen nichts Neues. But, seeing that our other participant here is in other threads being incendiary, it's best to just
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/dontfeedthetrolls.gif

martes86

03-26-09, 02:02 PM

Martes, the movie is typical German anti-war propaganda

Oh, now I understand what you meant... ok... I don't like the word propaganda anyways... makes one feel as if beeing adoctrinated in some way...

And, it's not like it'd be good if it was pro-war propaganda, is it? :DL

Morpheus

03-26-09, 05:55 PM

after all i think this was a funny but weird discussion

muchos salutos and hasta luego spaniard

morph

martes86

03-27-09, 03:58 AM

That's what we're all after. Fun.
In a way, I'm glad we all had fun writing these lines. :yep:

Rockin Robbins

03-28-09, 01:10 PM

Here is how superior U-Boats were. This is absolutely devastating and shows how pitiful the entire U-Boat gambit really was:

From Jak Mallmann Showell's U-boat Commanders and Crew 1935-1945:

Horst Bredow of the German U-boat Archive has records of 1,171 U-boats having been commissioned between 1935 and 1945. If one combines this figure with the famous Churchill comment the the only thing that frightened him throughout the war was the U-boat threat, then it is easy to conjure up visions of hundreds of bloodthirsty U-boat commanders prowling the waters around the British Isles and along the eastern seaboard of the United States. However, the figure of 1,171 boats is grossly misleading, and does not reflect the reality of the war at sea. The number of Allied ships which were attacked and at least damaged can be calculated from Axis Submarine Successes by Dr. Jürgen Rohwer. The details for the Atlantic and North Sea are as follows:

25 U-boats attacked, sunk, or at least damaged 20 or more ships
36 U-boats attacked between 11 and 19 ships
70 U-boats attacked between 6 adn 10 ships
190 U-boats attacked between 1 and 5 ships

This adds up to a total of 321 U-boats. Ships sunk in the Black Sea, Mediterranean, Baltic, and Indian Ocean will make the total rather higher, and one could allow a few more for calculation errors. However the probable total still leaves a staggering gap of about 850 U-boats which appear not to have sunk or damaged anything throughout the entire war. In fact almost all of these, representing three-quarters of the whole U-boat Arm, never came within shooting distance of the enemy. School boats, supply boats, experimental craft, and boats commissioned towards the end of the war which were never in a position to sink ships, could be discounted; but there still appears to be a huge discrepancy between the number of U-boats commissioned and the number which actually attacked the enemy. This makes one wonder why Germany put so much effort and so many resources into building submarines, if the majority never achieved anything other than tying down the vast enemy forces which hunted and destroyed them.

It might be worth adding that these figures were not calculated with hindsight: they were available to U-boat Command at the time, and the only difference between then and now is that we now know that U-boat commanders generally overestimated their tonnage sunk by about one third.

Looking at the same figures from a different angle, one might consider that these ships were sunk by men rather than by machines. Out of a total of about 2450 Allied ships sunk in the Atlantic one finds that 30 U-boat commanders were responsible for sinking just under 800 of these. This means that 2% of the U-boat commanders were responsible for sinking almost 30% of the Allied shipping losses in the central area of the submarine war.
In what way was such a dismally performing military arm with so many machines and so little actual achievement going to possibly succeed? Most U-Boats were just hiding and trying to survive, using the "ostrich theory" that I make fun of so much in the fleet boat strategy bull sessions. Yikes! I had no idea it was so bad. It just totally flies in the face of all U-Boat fanboy mentality. Heck, it flies in the face of what I thought was my considered opinion of their effectiveness. Only 321 of about 1,200 U-Boats offensively engaged the enemy at all. Disgraceful.

Rockin Robbins

03-28-09, 01:25 PM

Oh, now I understand what you meant... ok... I don't like the word propaganda anyways... makes one feel as if beeing adoctrinated in some way...

And, it's not like it'd be good if it was pro-war propaganda, is it? :DL

That's not it at all. All Quiet on the Western Front is excellent anti-war propaganda. There are many, many great anti-war films and books, Walt Whitman's Specimen Days being a fabulous one. "Propaganda" is not a disparaging word, but only a descriptive word signifying the intent of the work. Good propaganda is that which uses the truth to convince. Bad propaganda is that which cannot defend the position with the truth (because the position is defective or the author is) and resorts to using distortion. The distortion in Das Boot doesn't even support the anti-war stance of the movie, just discredits it! It's not distortion with the intent to deceive, it's distortion born of laziness and sloppiness.

That is made even less excusable by the fact that the book the movie draws from is much better. Hey! American movie makers do even worse, ala Titanic. Das Boot has LOTS of company.

Dread Knot

03-28-09, 01:53 PM

Rockin Robbins

03-28-09, 02:26 PM

None of this surprises me. Clair Blair states in the preface to his book, Hitler's U-Boat War that perhaps no weapon in WW2 is as mythologized as the U-Boat. Churchill inflated the U-Boat threat to help draw a neutral America's sympathy and support for the Britain The Germans exploited the threat for their own propoganda purposes.

Perhaps the greatest contribution they actually made was forcing the Allies to convoy, thereby slowing the movement of men and material.

I think he also made his statement with the aim of encouraging Germany to plow even more men, money, resources and time into a dead end that had no power to help Germany's war effort and could not avoid pulling the United States into the war. Recruiting the US was one of Mr Churchill's most cherished goals. The U-Boats helped him immensely.

There you go making my mistake of misspelling propaganda as "propoganda." How is anybody going to believe us if we can't spell?:rotfl:And I patented that goof. You are expressly forbidden to copy it. Come up with your own misspelling!:har:

mookiemookie

03-28-09, 02:35 PM

Here is how superior U-Boats were. This is absolutely devastating and shows how pitiful the entire U-Boat gambit really was:

In what way was such a dismally performing military arm with so many machines and so little actual achievement going to possibly succeed? Most U-Boats were just hiding and trying to survive, using the "ostrich theory" that I make fun of so much in the fleet boat strategy bull sessions. Yikes! I had no idea it was so bad. It just totally flies in the face of all U-Boat fanboy mentality. Heck, it flies in the face of what I thought was my considered opinion of their effectiveness. Only 321 of about 1,200 U-Boats offensively engaged the enemy at all. Disgraceful.

Well, you obviously have a fleet boat bias, but to say that a technology, in this case the u-boat, is inferior because of the odds stacked against it and the tactical deployment of it is not correct. You need to judge it on it's own merits. Was the boat suited for the task in which it was asked to do? Could it effectively remain deployed for a substantial length of time once on station? Was the armament it carried adequate for the task? You need to drill down to the micro unit level, not the macro strategy level.

Rockin Robbins

03-28-09, 08:16 PM

Hold it! That's German source material, written by a German who couldn't give a rat's patootie about fleet boats. Personally I like U-Boats a lot and play the German side of SH4 about as much as the American side. I went four months after the release of UBM without touching my fleet boat. One of the tutorials in the Sub Skippers' Bag of Tricks, the Fast-90 Technique, is applicable ONLY to U-Boats. How's that for fleet boat bias? Any U-Boat fans around here writing targeting tutorials for fleet boats? I thought not.

Have I not said that the Germans would have obtained the same results with a fleet of American boats? Or a fleet of Type XXI's also? Have I not been the only one to object when a fleet boat fanboy said that the fleet boats were several times better than the U-Boats?

I think you need to re-read the things I've written. My contention is that the American fleet boats were a little better in most respects than U-Boats, although there were aspects of U-Boats that were better than fleet boats. I have said that the Americans could have won the Pacific with a fleet of Type IXs. I've said the Germans could have lost the Atlantic with a fleet of fleet boats, even though they were demonstrably incrementally better boats.

The Battle of the Atlantic was not winnable with submarines. They were not an appropriate tool to use for the job of winning World War II for the Germans. A great crescent wrench (adjustable spanner for those across the pond) will not help me work on my computer. It doesn't matter if it is made of titanium, is computer controlled and costs a million dollars, a crescent wrench of any quality is useless for the job. Saying that is not the same as attacking crescent wrenches. It doesn't make me biased in favor of screw drivers either. I own and enjoy both crescent wrenches and screwdrivers and use them when they are appropriate.

Kapitan Soniboy

04-03-09, 01:11 PM

Torplexed

04-03-09, 08:19 PM

I don't think anyone is implying that fleet boats would have done any better than U-Boats in the Battle of the Atlantic. However, as Rockin Robbins has stated the battle was probably not winnable with submarines...certainly not with conventional submarines. Even if the vaunted Type XXI had it become operational sooner it would have found itself hounded by Allied weapons in the development pipeline like MAD (magnetic anomaly detection gear) sonabouys, dipping sonar from helicopters, better homing torpedoes, etc.

I concede the Germans were ahead in rockets, missiles and jets. However, had they somehow by some miracle won the war they doubtless would have raided and copied Allied technology in areas like ASW, electronic warfare, amphibious techniques, strategic bombers, aircraft carrier technology and the atomic program where the western allies were miles ahead of them. To the victor go the spoils.

The allies were stunned by the german superior technollogy. When the americans captured U-505, they knew they were far behind. You know I'm right!If it was so stunningly superior how the hell did U-505 get blasted to the surface and captured intact by these backwards Americans? Shouldn't it have been the other way around?

Rockin Robbins

04-03-09, 09:16 PM

I can't really understand why you keep saying that the fleet boats were so much better than the german boats. You're wrong. Perhaps the radar is something the germans would have liked though.

Then why did both the americans and the russians copy german technollogy in every way after the war? Here, let me show you something:

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Fighters/AmericanJets/F86Banking20DegreesLeft.jpg

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-19-farmr_p4.jpg

These pictures show the russian MIG and the american Sabre Jet which were used in the korean war. Do you think they look similar to each other? They were copies of german technollogy. Without german rocket technollogy, the americans wouldn't have been able to reach the moon in 1969! The type XXI submarine was copied by the americans and russians after the war. The allies were stunned by the german superior technollogy. When the americans captured U-505, they knew they were far behind. You know I'm right!

But the germans had never heard the word "mass produce" before. They always had to come up with something new. :)

The Americans did not copy the Type XXI. They did not need to. The fleet boat was already superior. All they did was reskin the fleet boat and it was over a knot faster both on the surface and submerged. How about posting a picture of an American copy of the Type XXI. There aren't any!

What German plane did the Sabre and MIG 15 copy? You show a Russian and American plane, but no German plane. The Russian could have copied tha American or the American could have copied the Russian, but you have not established that either was a copy of a German design. I'm not saying that ideas weren't derived from German swept wing experimental planes, but jet engines were more advanced in Britain and the US than in Germany.

When the Americans captured U-505 they knew that the Germans were no supermen and our subs were better. I'm sure they studied the optics in the periscope and the German sonar to see if they could pick up any pointers, and they were interested in German homing torpedo designs, but the German homing torpedoes were much less effective than the American cutie. The German design looked good on paper but never sank a target in real life.

By the way, there were no similarities in design, fuel, controls, construction techniques or anything other than the fact that it was a rocket between the V2 and Saturn V rockets. It isn't like they strapped two dozen V2s together and went to the moon. Also, the rocket was only one element of thousands of individual elements that had to work together to get to the moon (the lunar excursion module, for instance had nothing to do with German technology), computers, space suits, fuel, navigational systems, communications, food, water, life support, all the things the Germans never even dreamed of in their rocket program. Von Braun's contribution was a tiny part of the whole. And he had competition with equally good ideas that were not adopted. They will be used next.

Kapitan, aside from taunting, you don't have any ammunition in your popgun. Time to fold the tent and look for a discussion in which you can be an actual participant. If photos of a couple of planes, where you can't even compare the planes meaningfully by the too dissimilar angles, and without establishing that they copied a German design, is the best you got, you're way over your head here.

The Fishlord

04-04-09, 10:51 AM

What German plane did the Sabre and MIG 15 copy? You show a Russian and American plane, but no German plane. The Russian could have copied tha American or the American could have copied the Russian, but you have not established that either was a copy of a German design. I'm not saying that ideas weren't derived from German swept wing experimental planes, but jet engines were more advanced in Britain and the US than in Germany.

http://hsfeatures.com/images/ta183fs_title.jpg

Sorry, just had to say it. The Soviets captured the wind tunnel prototypes and schematics for it, progressed up to the MiG15, then the Americans copied that for the Sabre.

Rockin Robbins

04-04-09, 05:12 PM

So it is as I said. There WAS NO GERMAN PLANE to copy, just a bunch of wind tunnel tests on models and some drawings.

That is a pretty snazzy drawing But other than that it has swept wings, that short, fat pig of a plane with no apparent operational purpose bears no resemblance to the MIG 15 or Sabre. If you're correct he Russians built the MIG 15 and we copied the general layout of the planform from the RUSSIAN, not a German plane.

At no time were either the Russians or Americans playing catch-up to some infinitely better German plane and having to copy it. In fact there was no plane to copy other than the ME 163 explode on landing "superplane" and the ME 262, accelerate so slowly that conventional planes have to fly CAP over airfields so the sitting ducks don't get shot down, superplane. With superior planes like that the Germans didn't need help losing the war from a counterproductive fleet of submarines. At least the U-Boats worked.

The Germans could have done much better by shutting down wasteful U-Boats and "superplanes" and just building a gazillion FW 190s. And what's the deal with building escorts and not building long range bombers with payload capacities that at least beat our P-47 Thunderbolt. They launched the Battle of Britain and could only overfly a third of Britain! How stupid was that? You know, everybody is entitled to one fatal mistake. The Germans in WWII made dozens of fatal mistakes. Any ONE of them would have spelled defeat. Guess they just wanted to make sure.

Important edit: Guess it was mostly He wanted to make sure. The average German wasn't consulted or there might not have been a war to begin with.

Torplexed

04-04-09, 05:30 PM

Well...when it comes to the issue of copying technology where did the Germans get the idea for the submarine snorkel?

From the Dutch navy, after overrunning their country and picking through their shipyards. So much for originality. When it comes to warfare, expediency rules over national pride.

LukeFF

04-05-09, 04:38 AM

Sorry, just had to say it. The Soviets captured the wind tunnel prototypes and schematics for it, progressed up to the MiG15, then the Americans copied that for the Sabre.

Yes, and I'm sure you know the tests revealed the Ta 183, in the design state in which it was captured, was in no aerodynamic shape to be put into production.

What's next, are you going to tell us the Americans got their flying wing technology from the Ho 229? :har:

martes86

04-05-09, 04:34 PM

About this plane discussion, both the US and USSR first jets were influenced by german designs. I can't say to what extent or if they were just copies, but it is clear that the designs and research materials the germans possesed were clearly a source of inspiration for the allied forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86_Sabre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

I speak after having a look at those two links... and both models have a resemblance bewtween themselves, and with the 262. You might also notice that these allied models were first implemented/tested after the war ended, giving a hint of how was their respective research speeded up. Shapes might not resemble the german model in a drastic way, but one can clearly conclude that there was a great influence, even if later changes were introduced.

As for the fleet boats and german boats worse or better, well, each side had its advantages. US people shouldn't go into hard patriotism so quickly as their tin cans weren't able to do deep dives for instance, and torpedoes were duds for a large part until the problem was detected (and not too soon). But kaleun fan boys shouldn't go as far as claiming U-Boote to be invincible, as their sensor technology was crap, based only on passive sonars until very late war, and radars were not precisely top notch.

And replying Soniboy, the only things of interest to the US when capturing that U-Boot were:

- The attack periscope optics and mechanics.
- The enigma machine and code books.

Hitman

04-06-09, 07:27 AM

Any U-Boat fans around here writing targeting tutorials for fleet boats? I thought not.

LOL I did one ... 3.341 downloads so far :haha: http://files.filefront.com/Simplified+Manual+Targeti0rar/;7452782;/fileinfo.html

But I'm admittingly both a U-Boat and a Fleet boat fan :DL

Nevertheless, I don't 100% agree with what you said, RR, with most yes but not with everything.

First of all, anybody who has studied the matter in depth knows that US and german submarines were simply not always comparable. Different machines for diferent purposes AND different enemies and enemy technology. IMHO the only fair comparison can be done between a 1943 Type IX/D2 and a 1943 Balao. And pound by pound of metal, the Balao wins hands down, the only advantage of the U-Boat (And that more theoretical than practical) being a claimed superior maximum dive depth.

Second, it must be recognized that germany suffered the limitations of the Versailles Treaty and hence their U-Boat fleet was built basically upon a reworked WW1 design (The UB-III) with some improvements, so I don't think that WW2 U-Boats represented in any way the pinnacle of submarine technology, nor were it pretended to be that. The US had no limitations and could improve and refine their fleet boat concept as much as they did, the only problem getting in their way being the incredible incompetency of the Bureau of Ordnance to deliver a reliable and good pistol for their main weapon. HOR engines were also a fiasco of monumental proportions.

Where I don't agree completely with you is in that germany should have never started a U-Boat campaign and should have concentrated instead in their Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. In your views you tend to forget the political situation before WW2, when Britain was the main enemy for Germany (Aside from the Soviet Union, but they planned to take that one on later) and all plans and political considerations called for a only-european war. Britain is an Island nation, and as the experience with Japan shows, a naval blockade is the only effective means of waging war against it, specially if you have a much inferior navy -as was the german case-. Had Dönitz had at the outbreak of the war 300 front ready U-Boats with well trained crews (Instead of the KM having expended huge amounts of resources in building pocket battleships and manning them), a naval blitzkrieg operation of blockaed would have been possible against Britain. In September 1939 Britain clearly had not enough escort ships to protect his convoys, nor had extended radar equipment for all of them, or enough patrol airplanes. A sudden strong blockade by wolfpacks with 100 U-Boats any time in the theater of operations would have effectively strangled Britain in a few months, making it impossible to react on time. It also could have probably caused Britain's surrender before the US public opinion was ready to accept entering another war, and long before Japan decided his Pearl Harbor attack. When the US entered the war, germany was finished. Sooner or later they would be. Period. So any strategy that had defeated Britain before that, would have been a winner.

Rockin Robbins

04-06-09, 08:17 AM

LOL I did one ... 3.341 downloads so far :haha: http://files.filefront.com/Simplified+Manual+Targeti0rar/;7452782;/fileinfo.html

Cool! I should have known that if anyone would, you'd be the one. Glad to have some company in the "likes U-Boats and Fleet Boats and supports both" club!

A sudden strong blockade by wolfpacks with 100 U-Boats any time in the theater of operations would have effectively strangled Britain in a few months, making it impossible to react on time.

Change "would have" to "could have" (never underestimate the Nazi regime's ability to shoot itself in the foot!) and I'll give you agreement there. Good thing Hitler was loony tunes. I'm not 100% sure his generals could have won anyway. I think more likely they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

The funny thing is that if you read Mein Kampf and some other Nazi pre-war propaganda, their main target was Russia, not England. The main plan was to be Britain's ally, this stifled in 1936 with the abdication of King Edward because he was willing to throw in with the Nazis and remake Britain in Germany's image. Churchill and compatriots even set up a secret government in exile in the US to prepare for that eventuality. Had it been discovered it would have resulted in the impeachment and conviction of President Roosevelt, who was quite willing to sacrifice his reputation and presidency to save the free world.

That the Germans chose to attack a nation that they were not prepared to defeat, which they had sympathy for and had no need to antagonize is just one of the more bizzare features of WWII.

martes86

04-06-09, 08:42 AM

That the Germans chose to attack a nation that they were not prepared to defeat, which they had sympathy for and had no need to antagonize is just one of the more bizzare features of WWII.

What's new about that? The human race has credit for doing dumb unpredictable things, so...:haha:

Hitman

04-06-09, 08:53 AM

The funny thing is that if you read Mein Kampf and some other Nazi pre-war propaganda, their main target was Russia, not England. The main plan was to be Britain's ally, this stifled in 1936 with the abdication of King Edward because he was willing to throw in with the Nazis and remake Britain in Germany's image. Churchill and compatriots even set up a secret government in exile in the US to prepare for that eventuality. Had it been discovered it would have resulted in the impeachment and conviction of President Roosevelt, who was quite willing to sacrifice his reputation and presidency to save the free world.

That the Germans chose to attack a nation that they were not prepared to defeat, which they had sympathy for and had no need to antagonize is just one of the more bizzare features of WWII.

Hitler expressed his admiration and sympathy for Britain on many occasions, his target was Russia and the "Drang nach Osten" (Push to the East) his main policy to ensure the "Lebensraum" for his 1000 years Reich. Had Britain not moved a finger for Poland, Hitler would have never engaged Britain or France, but only Russia. And Hitler was until the last moment convinced that Britain would not enter the war, then that it would accept a peace once Germany gave guarantees that Britain was not a target. That partially explains his naval strategy -mainly regarding the U-Boats- because if Britain was not to be the potential enemy, but a land nation like Russia, then of course U-Boats were not a priority.

But Hitler made here his greatest miscalculation, (This one politically, not military) in that he failed to recognize that Britain would never tolerate -as they hadn't in the past 3 centuries- another power as strong as theirs in the continent. Historically Britain engaged in many wars where they had no apparent direct interest, but that were done with just the purpose of preventing any european nation to be powerful enough to challenge them. A 300 years long policy was not going to change just because that little bastard nazi wanted it, and so it all happened again as in WW1. King Edward was just, well, a british King, and that means the most ancient and refined parlamentary monarchy in Europe, or if you prefer it, a monarchy where the King had less to say than the parliament and the government. To further worsen things, Hitler left the job unfinished against Britain after the failed Battle of Britain, and engaged the USSR before being able to call "Britain is finished!" and of course the Empire stroke back.

I have readed recently a very interesting essay about the british empire by Niall Ferguson, but despite his efforts to present Britain as willing to risk their empire for preserving democracy and stability in Europe by engaging germany in WW2, the fact is that the true reasons were less prosaic. Britain knew well that allowing germany to grow too much and become powerful would sooner or later mean a direct confrontation with them, so better to act before they are too strong. The apeacement policy by Chamberlain was just a mirrage, a result of the horrors of WW1 in the public opinion of Britain. But their heartly policy of standing alone in the supremacy of Europe, leaving others disupte while Britain's position remained untouched, was at the heart of what happened after Poland was invaded.

So in fact Hitler did not engage or attack the british, it's them who reacted and said "Enough!" and Hitler was forced to wage war against them.

Oh, and BTW the tutorial for the fleet boats was created using pure german WW2 U-boat tactics for AOB and speed :haha: not coincidentally -and as the ONI report of captured U-570 suggests- german UBoats were highly mechanized and had lots of devices to allow rather unexperienced crews man them, so you generally have more gadgets and simplified things aboard an U-boat.

Kapitan Soniboy

04-08-09, 05:14 PM

You can't say that the allies had much better jet designs than the germans. Altough the need for raw materials during the last days of the war made it hard to make a me262. In speed and design, the germans were far ahead.

"What if" Germany had all its troops on the western front instead of 2/3 on the eastern front, don't you think the germans would have won the war? I'm just saying.

Rockin Robbins

04-08-09, 07:48 PM

The Russians would have attacked them and they would have lost. If Stalin was willing to take over eastern Europe at such great cost as he had to pay, don't you think he would have picked it up for free if he could?

It doesn't matter anyway because Hitler's primary goal was the defeat of Russia and his secondary aim was revenge on the French and if necessary the British for the humility they suffered in World War I and under the Treaty of Versailles. No matter what, his battle plan ended up to lash out in all directions until his lines were thin and weak, at which point they would be consumed and die. He had no concept of strategy, only of tactics. Limited, attainable victory was not on his menu. Had it been, there were many opportunities to present a fait accompli, stop the fighting and declare peace.

Of couse, he would have defined peace as a short period of preparation for the next stage. But such measured use of force was beyond his ability or comprehension. Force which cannot be restrained is useless. The power of force comes from its disciplined and restrained use.

Hitman

04-09-09, 03:27 AM

The Russians would have attacked them and they would have lost. If Stalin was willing to take over eastern Europe at such great cost as he had to pay, don't you think he would have picked it up for free if he could?

Actually if Hitler had simply built up his Army and waited until Stalin decided to invade Poland or eastern Europe himself, it is highly possible that Britain would have supported Hitler against Stalin. Such ironies are in life...

But despite the usual thought that Russia itself was preparing to make his own expansion in Europe, and that Stalin was going to invade it, from many books I have readed I would say that this was actually a very remote possibility. Russia was still recovering from their internal revolution, and the recent small war against japan had proved many wrong concepts in their army. No, I don't think that they would have done anything else except may be trying to recover Finland and other territories that had historically been under the power of the tsarist Russia. But taking on Germany (Specially such an armed and aggressive one as Hitler's was), certainly not IMO because Stalin was a far better strategist than Hitler and he knew that Britain would probably support Germany and use it as a efficient tool to indirectly confront Russia and stop their expansion. Historically, Russia and Britain had already been about to go to war recently (And they had been at war in the past, think f.e. about the Crimea war) because of the will of the Tsars to continue expanding his empire towards the Middle East and India.

Oh, but we were talking about the IX U-Boat did we?? :har:

Rockin Robbins

04-09-09, 05:23 AM

When we start inventing moral equivalency between Britain and Germany we're on shaky ground indeed. Where Germany was looking for war, Britain certainly was not. Britain was in no mind to attack anybody or to join in anyone else's attack. Britain was not only full of Nazi sympathizers, but full of Communist "idealists" too in the 1930's. No, Britain was not spoiling for a fight. To them communism was a grand and glorious experiment.

Stalin, for all his bloodthirstiness, and for the Communist ideology's central focus on world domination, was certainly a cautious and prudent expansionist. He was simultaneously much more dangerous than Hitler because he was cruel but not insane, and less dangerous because his moves could be anticipated as they were based in logic.

Aside: we're responding directly to a question from the OP, who has the ability to hijack his own thread here.:har: I think.... Maybe.

No Hitler, no war. Once the war started, Russia's aim, if they were not attacked, would be to pick up cheap gains, as they did in the Pacific. I'm sure in the spirit of cooperation with Germany and helping to "guard their back" Stalin would have gobbled up what he could and pushed the limit, carefully gaging how much gobbling would distract Mr Hitler enough to shove some panzer divisions east. Then he would backpedal enough to keep that from happening. Each crisis in the West would be a new opportunity to play Pacman again.

But this is pointless speculation because Hitler WAS going to attack Russia. What, including Africa, didn't he attack if he could reach it? He merely attacked everything on all sides until the point of exhaustion and defeat. Just another great German strategy from World War II: self-defeat. It must have been terrible to be a professional military man in Germany, watching all your might and ability be squandered by that fool in an unnecessary war with no good end possible.

Morpheus

04-09-09, 06:21 AM

It must have been terrible to be a professional military man in Germany, watching all your might and ability be squandered by that fool in an unnecessary war with no good end possible.

At least one true point in this thread. Just think of operation Valkyrie. Many people had in mind to stop him ...

kr morph

ichso

04-15-09, 03:49 AM

Stalin, for all his bloodthirstiness, and for the Communist ideology's central focus on world domination, was certainly a cautious and prudent expansionist.

Ouch.
There never was any communism in this world as it was intended, was it ? I mean, all there was were some cruel dictatorships that tried to establish themselves a relationship to Marx' theories without acting in any way in the sense of the idea of communism (which was neither world domination nor supressing the own people).

I think you need to re-read the things I've written. My contention is that the American fleet boats were a little better in most respects than U-Boats, although there were aspects of U-Boats that were better than fleet boats. I have said that the Americans could have won the Pacific with a fleet of Type IXs. I've said the Germans could have lost the Atlantic with a fleet of fleet boats, even though they were demonstrably incrementally better boats.

True. What often gets lost in such discussions is whether to focus on pure technical issues or whether to take the situation into account to.
The fleet boats were better in most regards. Radar technology was an overall allied advantage and their greater size also allowed for things like more fuel, tubes and torpedo reserves. I don't know about the engines though, whether they were also just bigger or also better in terms of engineering.
If taking the war situation into account, one should consider that in the atlantic the fleet boats might not have been able to play out all of their strengths. Imagine a Gato submarine travelling only a few hundred kilometers to attack a convoy, getting damaged by heavy ASW protection and having to return to port soon in order for repairs. They probably would have carried half their fuel reserves around the sea all the time without ever using it. And their harbour approachings would have been just as frequent as the ones of the U-boats, no matter how much more fuel and torpedoes they could carry.
The U-Boats doctrine was more one of being undetected as much as possible, and smaller size maked them harder to spot, harder to ping by sonar and harder to detect by radar (although that wasn't an issue when the VII's desing was first layed out). And you could save resources by putting as much firepower as possible into as small vessels as possible.

And besides all the tech and war geek talking, I'm just glad that the war turned against germany. I don't want to say that the _good_ guys won, but surely the _right_ side had ended it. A prolonged nazi regime would be the worst thing the world would have faced in it's entire history until today.

Marinesko

04-20-09, 04:01 AM

Ok first off, the main influence that the ME-262 had on post war jets was simply the swept wing design. This was a crucial thing; British and Ameican straight-wing jets got owned by Migs in the Korean war. To give the Germans credit, you have to remember that the ME-262 technology was available in 1939- it could have easily been put in production and in the air around 1942, maybe earlier.

That being said- if you want to understand the main reasons they lost, they are twofold:

1. They decided to start a world war with an army that was largely, as much as 90%, horse-driven. They would remain mostly horse-driven for the entire war. One of the reasons why Sea Lion was called off was due to the fact that their navy had no fleet of landing craft, and an invasion would mean finding a way to ship thousands of horses across the channel.

2. Hitler, having that then popular right-wing attitude that "will conquers all", had a nasty habit of attacking countries that had much higher production than Germany, as in the USSR(which was producing more planes and tanks as early as 1939), and declaring war on the USA when Rooseveldt would have been hard pressed to get the American people behind a war on Germany and Italy.

The Germans were only so victorious because of their manipulating skill, widespread fear of Communism(which created a lot of discreet, if not sometimes open sympathy toward the Third Reich and Fascist regimes), and once the war began, boneheaded mistakes of their opponents. As early as 1938-39, there were a dozen differnet ways the entire German military could have been dealt a death blow in relatively little time.

Hitman

04-20-09, 06:32 AM

The Germans were only so victorious because of their manipulating skill, widespread fear of Communism

Basically the germans were so victorious are the start of the war because they had actually been preparing their country for a war while the surrounding nations only reluctantly increased moderately their defense budget. In September 1939 Germany had the most numerous and efficient Army when compared to Britain and France, and was at near full production for the next years. France and specially Britain had only recently started increasing war material production (Britian focused in airplanes, which luckily saved them later in the summer of 1940), hence Hitler started the war earlier than he had first planned, and than he had told his generals (1946 was the original plan IIRC), because he knew that in September 1939 he had a slight advantage, but with the attitude change in Britain and France by 1946 that advantage would have been eliminated.

A good proof of this is the comparison with WW1: In 1914 all nations in Europe were more or less equally prepared for the war, and what happened? They got all more or less stuck in the middle of the way between them, Belgium. Yes WW1 was different in many aspects, but ultimately it was a more balanced clash than WW2 ever was. WW2 saw a dominant germany at the beginning and a dominant allies at the end. There was almost never a balance, unlike in WW1, and hence the forth-and-back nature of WW2, as opposed toe the static nature of WW1.