What if...

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

This question has been bugging me for such a long time that I have to ask it.

If you were to cause a possibly war-changing event, could it affect the outcome. I'm talking along the lines of saving the Bismarck, putting a huge hole into D-day operations with a Type XXI, or critically damaging an invasion force to the point where it would not work.

Just something so radical that it might change the war. I know it is highly unlikely for any of this to happen, but...

[raymond6751]

I think it unlikely, in game or real life, that one lone U-Boat could do anything that could seriously change the war outcome.

Just consider the number of ships involved in D-Day. You have a limited supply of torps and are outnumbered by the destroyers alone!

If the Bismarck has survived, it would have caused some damage, but it too could not face the British fleet alone. It was sent out alone! It is fitting that its end was by airpower, a portent of the future.

If it had sunk 1-4 British battleships or cruisers, there were lots left. Even a sub might have caught it somewhere. When damaged, it would have to find a hole, like Graf Spee did. A long way from home and no friends.

[Bosje]

i agree, something like WW2 is way too huge to affect with a single uboat

but... Churchill sometimes went to the US for a chat with Roosevelt.
what if you would happen across the King George V and torpedo it and Churchill was on board and he didnt make it to the lifeboats...

lets not think about it though, I'm glad I grew up in freedom :)

[Dread Knot]

This question has been bugging me for such a long time that I have to ask it.

If you were to cause a possibly war-changing event, could it affect the outcome. I'm talking along the lines of saving the Bismarck, putting a huge hole into D-day operations with a Type XXI, or critically damaging an invasion force to the point where it would not work.

Just something so radical that it might change the war. I know it is highly unlikely for any of this to happen, but...

It's the opinion of almost all military historians that Germany lost the Second World War on the Eastern Front. That's where according to postwar studies, 80% of Wehrmacht losses took place. The U-Boat effort as a whole had a negligible effect on the war in the Soviet Union. So, no matter how well they do, Germany still likely loses. Frankly, it can be argued that the overall effect of the U-Boat war, was that by tying up Allied shipping and resources it set back the date of D-Day and ensured that more of Europe fell under Stalin's influence.

[Jaystew]

The most effective times were in 41/42. If the anti shipping campaign in the American waters had been more potent, that might have delayed D-Day but it probably still would have been in 1944 with fewer initial units deployed. The whole 2nd front on the western side was to also relieve pressure on the Italian front and more minor due to the distance the eastern front. By 1944 Soviet Union had turned the tide and was already pushing back Germany.
Allied air power in 1944 was able to carry escorted bombing operations into Germany and strike almost any target in the theatre effectively. German war forces were defeated on the Eastern front by the end of the winter in 1942. It was all give and take but mostly defensive actions after winter from then on and they could not attack along the whole front.

Germany needed to deliver the crushing blow to the Soviets by 1942 or they risked the war of attrition on 2 fronts they got into, really 3 fronts, and then lost. Against the Soviets without the winter equipment to keep that assualt going through the winter was foolhardy and even a low ranking soldier would know not to make attacks that cant be supported or reinforced. Even with proper equipment the fall and winter rains slowed them down to the point where progress wasn't possible. The Soviets also put some amazing defenses together and expended millions of lives against the blitz and German assaults. Soviet counterattacks are probably what really ended all German ability to win the war.

If the Soviets had just rolled over the allies might have come to the table with Hitler or fought a few more years against a battle hardened force which would have been much stronger on the western front after eliminating The Soviet Union.

Very little the navy could do in that 2 front war to win it.

[UKönig]

Germany had several problems in the way of victory, none the least of which was that hitler had no idea how to run an effective campaign. He surrounded himself with "yes men" and refused to listen to anyone who said discouraging news (could get you fired from your post or shot, in fact).
He turned his attention to Russia because he was getting nowhere with England and everyone knew it.
But the biggest problem was the supply situation. At no time were the allies less than 2:1 against, and at their high point were close to 4:1 against. By 1943 Germany was forced to run faster and faster, just to stay in the same place.
Maybe if the nazis had exploited the economies of the conquered territories more efficiently would they have had a better chance.
They were the first to develop and deploy jet turbine engines for the Me-262 and the Ar-234, but after their early victories, in Poland and France, these technologies got pushed back. Mostly because they assumed the war would be over shortly so there would be no need to develop jet aircraft. By the time they realized their shortcomings, it was too little, too late. The advance U-boat program suffered exactly the same thing as the jet fighter program, namely, quality of materials and workmanship was at an all time low.
Also, hitler had this attitude of competition rather that co-operation amongst his underlings, so instead of working together in getting things done, they all fought against and undermined each other with petty power politics.
No, what happened, happened for a reason and I am grateful for the allies and their efforts. I learned German today not because I had to, but because I *wanted* to.

[P_Funk]

The entire U-boat campaign, while exciting and romantic, was nowhere near as great a threat as it ever seemed to be. In its best month the U-boats never even got close to sinking as much tonnage as was estimated to be required to severely cripple Britain's home economy.

The what ifs are economic and political. Build more U-boats for the start of the war? Give them more support to increase their effectiveness? Get the XXI out earlier than expected? That all could have made life much harder on the Brits.

I don't think it would have changed the outcome, especially not with a guy like Hitler making strategic choices, but it could easily have extended the war and changed the complexion of the history we know so well, delaying things like D-Day.

[Ifernat]

I would agree that the U-boats couldn't by themselves have won the war, they never managed to get to the point where the US Navy did in the Pacific where the loss of Japanese shipping capacity began a death spiral where a lack of resources crippled the ship building industry. As has been stated the U-boat campaign was really a minor side issue as it relates to the Eastern Front which is where the war was ultimately decided.

There are a few interesting what if scenarios however in the Mediterranean. For example consider what if an Italian submarine had broken up (even by damaging rather than sinking) Operation Judgement? If the Italians still had those battleships do the British commit as heavily in Greece? If they don't, how many days are shaved off the delay on the start of Barbarossa?

The same could probably be said if more assets had been used to Siege Malta in 1940-1941. The what if there is whether an unimpeded supply line for the Italians and later Germans vs a weakened British position changes the timeline especially again in regards to Greece.

Probably still doesn't make that huge a difference, but its an interesting idea. Does kind of highlight just how badly Mussolini managed to sandbag his 'ally'.

[Jaystew]

The entire U-boat campaign, while exciting and romantic, was nowhere near as great a threat as it ever seemed to be. In its best month the U-boats never even got close to sinking as much tonnage as was estimated to be required to severely cripple Britain's home economy.

The what ifs are economic and political. Build more U-boats for the start of the war? Give them more support to increase their effectiveness? Get the XXI out earlier than expected? That all could have made life much harder on the Brits.

I don't think it would have changed the outcome, especially not with a guy like Hitler making strategic choices, but it could easily have extended the war and changed the complexion of the history we know so well, delaying things like D-Day.

All depends on timing. One supposition that I think could have changed the war is an very early XXI

The XXI would have been much more effective, allow more daring attacks, increase survivability of the attacker by more than double. They would have been almost impervious to air threat in the open Atlantic until 1943 when centrimetric radar came into use and even then 1944 would have been very costly for the allies.

The campaign against America would have been much more deadly in home waters. If they built the XXI in the bulk that they built the VII proporationally to resources of course, they would have been able to field 350 of those boats during the war years starting in 39/40.

If the Germans had sunk a few hundred more ships that were on the way to Russia through lend lease. The Russians front may have collasped. They had the strategy and tactics down and wolf packs were superior to convoy actions in many ways with the type XXI against ASDIC armed ships in deep water repeated attacks could have been possible. Either elminating convoys wholesale or sending 30 out of 40 ships to the bottom and maybe damaging four or five more. With loss rates like that they would have stopped shipping in convoys. Without those supplies the Russians would have collapsed in 1942.

An early XXI could have changed the war to be certain.

[sublynx]

Lend lease was a big help, no doubt, but the Russians stopped the German attack already in the winter of 1941/1942 with the material they made in their own factories. They could've won the war on their own, even if it would have taken more time. Reading Heinz Guderian's memoirs especially about the late 1941 campaign really makes it clear that there was no hope for the Germans.

The only thing I guess would've changed the flow of history, would have been a scenario where atomic weapons would have been developed earlier.

[desirableroasted]

The only thing I guess would've changed the flow of history, would have been a scenario where atomic weapons would have been developed earlier.

Reminded of a National Lampoon "spoof" high school yearbook. This history final had been photocopied... the essay question was:

"If you were Custer at Little Big Horn and had the atom bomb, would you use it? Why?"

[desirableroasted]

I would agree that the U-boats couldn't by themselves have won the war,

Militarily, no. But politically, they could have tipped things in the first months of the war.

When we recall that Churchill's appointment to PM, eight months after the war started, was by no means guaranteed, you could argue that if Uboats had been even more effective in Sep 39 - May 40, British morale and political vacillation might have tipped the PM post to Lord Halifax.

Another sinking of a capital ship, a la HMS Royal Oak, for example, might have been enough in those uncertain days.

[P_Funk]

I don't think that the British resolve ever would have been tipped by a simple symbolic event. Fact is that Hitler was loath to invade Britain no matter what. The only thing that would have put Churchill on a Battleship headed for Nova Scotia was the wholesale loss of the British Isles and simply put to change the preparations of Sealion to the point that they were a credible threat to Britain would involve changing a great deal of what went on in the mind of Hitler.

This then becomes a spculation based on the notion of "what if Hitler wasn't such a strategic imbecile?" or better yet "what if Hitler was a slightly different kind of moron?".

The whole point of the U-boats was to force Britain to capitulate politically to Germany, and that was never going to happen. I think that if Britain was on the verge of Starvation FDR would've found some excuse to save them. Run American ASW and merchants by the dozen through the whole of the Western Approaches, make them impossible to not sink and as a result either the U-boats let a lot of tonnage through to Britain because of overzealous caution or they sink a lot of Americans and FDR gets the political currency to get into the war earlier.

Imagine entire convoys of nothing but American ships and escorts. That'd be a helluva gambit. :rotfl2:

[bybyx]

Here are my 2 cents::o
1.I think that a war could only be won by having air supremacy over sea and land.
2. Maybe if the Me262 would have been in service earlier, it would have cleared the skies over nazi occupied Europe and in Russia, allowing the bombers to hammer into oblivion any resistance.
3.The u-boats could have roamed with more freedom and if the type xxi was introduced earlier maybe they would have blocked the Atlantic.
However those said above would also force a massive involvement from USA, and i think the first nuke would have been dropped on Berlin

[desirableroasted]

The only thing that would have put Churchill on a Battleship headed for Nova Scotia was the wholesale loss of the British Isles

And, yet, in mid-August 1941, that is exactly where he was, in HMS Prince of Wales.

A lucky shot by a U-Boat? It probably would not have shifted the will of the British people to try to win the war, not by 1941 with so much committed, but:


the special relationship between FDR and WSC would be lost, along with its "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" way of getting things done.
an untested, less popular and less populist Anthony Eden would become PM (or would he? Probably yes, though he would have far less political capital).
at any rate, the British government would have to adjust itself at a time where every hour wasted counted.

Probably would not have changed the outcome, but it would have been a vastly different war for the UK.

[Tupolev]

Didn't someone literally bounce a torpedo off the battleship he was on?

I remember reading something like that. It was early war with all the pistol failures and the crew heard the clang of the dud.

T.

[Jaystew]

I dont think Germany winning the war was never out of the question until 1944/1945.

If they had had more U-boats or XXIs in 1939/1940 they could have caused some very serious havok during the "Miracle at Dunkirk" when 300,000 BEF and French forces lived to fight another day escaping to the UK over the sea.

This was more a failure of the air force because Germany was at a substantial naval dis advantage against the British but Germany had the air advantage against the UK.

1940/1941 was also the timeframe Germany could have easily taken the UK out of the war with a land invasion of the UK. Operation Sea Lion exist for just that purpose. In 1939 there was still half a continent opposing them and they did not have the number of divisions to support a land invasion but in 1940 though they did not have air supremacy they did have plenty of French Air bases, they did have the whole European coast under defensive construction and they had a very determined anti-sea campaign underway forcing the British to spread their naval defenses out.

According to "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L Shrier the British in 1940 and early 1941 had essentially no homeland defense that could have fought off 10-20 divisions of German troops.

Suppose Germany had launched Sealion in late 1940 or early 1941 and it had succeeded. The UK would have been out of the war. Do you think the USA would have entered the war against Germany before December 7th 1941? I think it is highly unlikely. I think just like in WWI the USA of the 1930s and 1940s would have let European issues be solved by European players. This is not to say that covert or unofficial actions subverting the Germans and supporting the British would have been sanctioned or performed, but if the UK collapsed the Americans would have had very little in the way of motivation to go to war with Germany.

Sealion needed a few things to succeed. They needed to mine the entrance to the English Channel on both ends this to effectively keep the British Navy out of the channel or make it very difficult for them to get in without taking losses. They needed air superiority to protect the troop transports.

Hitler was the one who wouldn't take the gamble and the generals and admirals were smartly not for the invasion on the grounds that it would very likely not succeed. But if they had gambled and won, the war could have turned out a lot different.

By early 1941 the UK would have been out of the war, USA not very likely to come into the war, until Japan attacked in Dec 41 by which time the USSR probably would have been all but defeated by Germany could have waited another year or gone ahead with Operation Barbarossa and if they had waited another year they may have succeeded because they wouldn't have had to devote resources to fighting against the British.

The African campaigns would have been very much diminished in importance compared to the UK homeland. Without support from UK itself troops in Africa would not have been able to sustain a fight against Germany or deliver the defeat they did.

[desirableroasted]

Well, yeah, but the original poster was asking "if you could do one thing with only a U boat"

About a gazillion things could have changed the war, but we are scratching our heads about the one guy in a U-boat question.

[UKönig]

Yes, its true, the original poster said "what if...you could change the war". But, change it into what?
What if you had a type 21 available in 1940/1? Something with underwater dash capability? What if you had a reserve of speed that allowed you to get into the crisis point and affect the outcome?
You may buy the Bismarck and Tirpitz more time by keeping the ocean units away from visual range, but the allies would just change tactics. Probably focus on aircraft and/or carrier based attacks. Unless you could build, with 1940s technology, a U-boat that was a true submarine and did not need to come up for amperes or air, then any time you tried to get within range, the HK units would be all over you.
Convoy tactics would change dramatically.
If the politicians of any belligerent country died while the state of war was in effect, yes, it may be hard to speculate about possible outcomes. One thing is for sure, the war dragged on far longer than it had to, even when it was clearly lost. Germany was on the ropes and hitler was out of options. He was determined that if he (Germany) can't have it, then nobody will. We must be grateful that he did not have (and was years away from) atomic weapons, for since the situation was so dire, he would have laid waste to the world without hesitation. I think that he was that crazy and that desperate. So I ask, "change the war, but into what?"

[desirableroasted]

Yes, its true, the original poster said "what if...you could change the war". But, change it into what?

I think that is why we are seeming to agree that no U-boat captain, on his own hook, could have significantly changed the war, accidentally or intentionally, given the technology of the day.

Unlike the sniper who had George Washington in his sights, but did not fire. Or the guy who moved Stauffenberg's briefcase. Or the guy who accidentally shot Stonewall Jackson.

I know I am out of ideas other than sinking the Prince of Wales, and even there the captain would not have known WSC was aboard.

[desirableroasted]

The only thing that would have put Churchill on a Battleship headed for Nova Scotia was the wholesale loss of the British Isles

I've been puzzling over this... but I realize now you thought I meant Halifax, Nova Scotia. I meant Lord Halifax, who was WSC's chief rival for the PM post when Chamberlain resigned in May 40.

[Admiral Halsey]

Imagine entire convoys of nothing but American ships and escorts. That'd be a helluva gambit. :rotfl2:

That would've been a hell of a sight to see. One could only imagine how Hitler would've reacted to that news.

[Admiral Halsey]

Didn't someone literally bounce a torpedo off the battleship he was on?

I remember reading something like that. It was early war with all the pistol failures and the crew heard the clang of the dud.

T.

I think that was Roosevelt you're thinking of.

[Andrewsdad]

Wilhelm Zahn commanded U-56 and almost changed the war. The episode is documented in the dissertation called "Wolves Without Teeth, The German Torpedo Crisis in World War Two" by David Habersham Wright (Georgia Southern University, 2010)
http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd

It's a fascinating read. The U-56 story is on p. 63

Salute,
AD

[Jaystew]

Well, yeah, but the original poster was asking "if you could do one thing with only a U boat"

About a gazillion things could have changed the war, but we are scratching our heads about the one guy in a U-boat question.

There are very few things which realistically would have changed the total outcome of the war and history.

Well one Captain and one boat, no they would not have changed the war. We were also discussing things that could have changed the war. Operation Sea Lion successfully undertaken would have required a half dozen subs among other surface units mostly destroyers and the barges they were going to use for troop transports. Had the UK been invaded and knocked out of the war, that would have been a huge game changer. Not only changing the war but probably the outcome of war as well.

I don't think Germany would have declared war on the USA and I dont think the USA would have declared war on Germany. It is pretty likely that the memorandum of understanding between Germany and Japan would not have brought Germany in on their side.

Earlier nuclear weapons maybe another one, but would the United States have nuked Germany? Probably not as they were already beaten by the Soviets. If Germany had developed the bomb I can think they would only be able to deploy it against the British or the Russians, clearly they would have used it on the Soviets and or both the Soviets and English. They were fighting a defensive action after 1943 on the whole of the Eastern front and nukes would have made that even messier.

Without a doubt the Soviets would have nuked Germany though and I also think if Japan had developed a nuclear weapon they probably would have used it against the Americans if only to stop their advances on the mainland.

[Tupolev]

@Andrewsdad: That was exactly the document I remember reading.
It's certainly an interesting situation to consider if the Nelson sinks and takes Churchill with it.

Without the FDR/Churchill relationship there may have never been any Cash and Carry or Lend/Lease legislation to help out the British. And if all the Brass died on the Nelson, it may have given Hitler the ego to attempt Sea Lion.

I'd definitely say in this instance, one U-boat could have changed the war.

T

[maillemaker]

If only Barnard had not farted in August of 1943 those escorts never would have found me! :)

Steve

[P_Funk]

I've been puzzling over this... but I realize now you thought I meant Halifax, Nova Scotia. I meant Lord Halifax, who was WSC's chief rival for the PM post when Chamberlain resigned in May 40.

Me being a Canadian clearly caused my initial reaction to miss your inference. :yep:


I don't think Germany would have declared war on the USA and I dont think the USA would have declared war on Germany.

I don't think its conceivable for the USA to not become involved in a war with Germany. As much as public opinion was pig headed against involvement in another foreign war at the end of the day Europe and the US were far too close to one another economically to avoid Hitler's control of everything being a concern. The entire Cold War was an exercise in bootstrapping an irrational political fearmongering on top of what was basically a purely geopolitical concern over the Soviets having far too much influence over global economies and the political institutions that regulated them. Facing a united Fascist Europe would not have been terribly welcome I think to the United States, particularly after becoming more open to the notion of direct action against such perceived threats after being forced into such a mindset from the Japanese in the Pacific.

At the end of the day all of American history is replete with extensive effort to stabilize and control markets and their associated political institutions which are important to domestic prosperity and this predates even the turn of the century. There is a famous book written by the most decorated American Marine in history (at the time) who describes this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Beyond that there was considerable effort being made on the American domestic front to propagandize the most important elements of American society towards entry in the war. If the Germans needed to kill anyone to slow American involvement it should have been FDR, and even then... would America have suffered Hitler's Germany being a natural opponent? I doubt it. America was sufficiently comfortable and effective at manipulating European powers in the aftermath of WW2. No such comfort would have existed with Germany.

How could America have told its people to fight for freedom in the Pacific while saying "but don't fight for Europe, where all your relatives are from"? The loss of Europe to Hitler would have meant an endless parade of refugees coming into the States and so more and more the effects would have been a pressure on the political establishment of the United States.

[Jaystew]

I don't think War is a Racket as summarized by wiki is realistic at all. War always escalates beyond "the rules" and there are countless examples from history to cite.

9/11 WTC

Syria

Atom bombing of Japan

Fire bombing between the European nations in WW2

Dec 7th 41

Maginot line debacle

If Germany had defeated the UK along with France and Poland and all the other in between nations I have serious doubts about the USA getting involved. WW1 was little different and really the USA got into it only because Germany became belligerent towards American interests, unrestricted warfare on shipping and the Zimmerman telegram where they tried to sell Mexico on the idea of re-taking Texas LOL

-Dont mess with Texas

Anyway in WW2 if Hitler had taken all of Europe but had not yet attacked the Soviet Union, a defeat of the UK which could have possibly happened in 1940-early 41, the USA would have had little interest into wading into Germany. Sure they were interested in selling war material and ships to Britain in exchange for islands and bases. But actual direct combat not until after December 7th.

The whole attitude of the country changed towards the war, a lot of civilians supported a war with Japan so much so civil right of Japanese Americans were compromised but not German Americans. If the UK was out of the war and Germany had worked on a neutrality pact with the USA very likely the USA would have taken such a deal with the devil.

They've done it after with Iran and Iraq when it met their national interest. Though FDR was no fan of Hitler and Hitler thought that the USA was all about capitalism and that they could strike a deal which would be "economically good" and that would keep the USA out of the war, he was probably right about that until December 7th. Sure the USA may have come in overtime if Germany had sunk a few more American merchants but what if Germany had abided strongly by international law and not attacked American merchants?

What legitimate reason would the USA have had for counter-attacking Germany until they were officially in the war?

[Tupolev]

I think you're forgetting some key aspects:

FDR's changes to the Neutraliy Act (which he tried severescorting were neutral in name only. The arms in those cash and carry sales only went to France and Britain. And that was 1939.

Lend/Lease ended any real facade of neutrality in March '41 followed by increasingly active roles in escorting convoys (and attacking UBoats) by the US Navy.

While I think Hitler wanted to keep the US out, FDR was pretty adamant about getting in. An invaded Britain would have been his ticket even without Pearl Harbor.

[P_Funk]

What legitimate reason would the USA have had for counter-attacking Germany until they were officially in the war?

Maintaining a stable but divided European economy rather than facing a Europe united under the control of an unstable regime.

Empires fight for nothing if not stability. Hitler's Reich would never be stable. Soon as it collapsed it would create more global economic chaos and all the pieces would be picked up by the Soviets. So make a deal with one devil expecting fully to be facing another in short order, all with the guarantee of ongoing political and economic strife in the world's largest economy.

Thats not stable. Thats not predictable.

The US has always had a split personality relationship with Europe. On the one hand its America's primary competitor, on the other she's an important trade partner and friend owing to a shared lineage and mostly compatible values. It would always be better to trade with a dozen mostly healthy democracies than trade with 1 crazy fascist one that's likely to fall apart at any moment and be invaded by the Soviets who'll make for worse trading partners.

Beyond all that there are some mostly insignificant moral and ethical factors that largely have no bearing on world politics except in the messy aftermath when trying to decide which lies to commit to history in order to make things look good for your side.