SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)
-   -   Silent Victory - tactics discussion (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=192578)

Sailor Steve 03-23-12 12:17 PM
The actual number of u-boats built by year:

1935 (14)
1936 (21)
1937 (1)
1938 (9)
1939 (18)
1940 (50)
1941 (199)
1942 (237)
1943 (284)
1944 (229)
1945 (91)
http://uboat.net/technical/shipyards/

If the Germans had only had the Type XXI/Me262 in 1939, things would have been different! Possibly, but nothing happens in a vacuum. It has been pointed out that if the Germans this, then the Allies that, so there's no need to go over it again. It has also been argued that the Germans could not possibly have produced more u-boats, and that if they could and had it would have taken from other parts of the war effort, since resources are finite.

I agree with all of those, so I'm not adding anything new, just summing up.

[edit] As for "never had more than 30 boats at sea", in 1943 the average was indeed right around 100 boats at sea for some months. Here is a listing of number of boats at sea and number of merchants sunk.
http://www.mistari.com.au/u-boats/sh..._per_month.htm

Note that even with that many boats at sea, the number of merchants sunk per boat never exceeded 6, and during the time when the most boats were available the average only once reached one merchant per boat.

WernherVonTrapp 03-23-12 02:59 PM
1942 (taken out of context):

"During the first four months of the new German offensive, there was a daily average of 111 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic. Although their campaign was losing the savage force of the March slaughter, they were still doing reasonably well. By sinking forty-four Allied ships in April, they brought the year's score up to 218 ships of better than 1.3 million gross tons.
According to the Admiralty's conservative assessment, the Germans lost only fourty-four boats U-boats in those same four months. In actual fact, their losses totalled fifty-five boats--but even that higher number seemed to be bearable in the face of the results achieved and eighty-three new constructions."
-The Tenth Fleet pg.182

"Fateful Misconceptions":
"Doenitz's most serious trouble at this stage accrued from major deficiencies in his own basic planning and his management of the U-boat war. If he had a grand strategic concept at all, to match tangibly his ideas about the presumably decisive role of the U-boat in World War II, it revolved around his "integral tonnage theory". Firmly believing that ultimate victory depended on his ability to sink more ships per se than the Allies could build, he went for tonnage in sheer quantity, disregarding the crucial factor of quality in the effort. According to his theory, a westbound freighter in ballast was as valuable a target for his U-boats as an eastbound troopship, for example, chock full of soldiers, or a Liberty ship heavily laden with war material consigned to Britain or to North Africa.
Moreover, he had no acute appreciation of the relative importance of the various operational areas. Instead of emplying his U-boats when and where they could have inflicted the greatest damage, he assigned them to areas where he expected the best results in numbers at the lowest cost to himself. He thus built up his score without regard to the value of the sinkings to the overall German war effort."
-The Tenth Fleet pg.251

Armistead 03-23-12 08:49 PM
Info may vary, but my statement was during the beginning or "Happy Times" Germany never averaged more than 30 Uboats at sea and did mass damage.

At any one time during the so-called 'Happy Times' for U-boats, there were only ever a maximum of 30 at sea. For an area the size of the northern Atlantic, this was not many. Despite this, they managed to wreak havoc. Individual U-boat captains like Kretschmer were responsible for the sinking of 200,000

{above doesn't include uboats in the med, indian, etc..}

Complete link
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/u-boats.htm

The debate as I see it is a comparison to how resources could be best used. Most know high command still preferred the big guns on BB's over Uboats and mass resources were used and we all know the failure of the few BB's compared to Uboats. Imagine early if they would have allocated all those resources to U-boats. If more Uboats would'vbe been built early on, britian may have been brought to her knees.

Churchill also said it was only Uboat damage Britain would have to contemplate surrendering.

To those that argue resources could have been better used, then where would you have used those resources and got comaparable damage? In fact Uboats got lil resources overall and almost brought Britian to her knees..

Sailor Steve 03-23-12 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 1859890)
Info may vary, but my statement was during the beginning or "Happy Times" Germany never averaged more than 30 Uboats at sea and did mass damage.
But you extended the "Happy Times" to 1943, and we all pointed to 1942, which falls within the specified time frame. In fact, the Happy Times were over by mid-1941, and the "New Happy Times" started with the attacks on the American coast in 1942.

Quote:
The debate as I see it is a comparison to how resources could be best used. Most know high command still preferred the big guns on BB's over Uboats and mass resources were used and we all know the failure of the few BB's compared to Uboats. Imagine early if they would have allocated all those resources to U-boats. If more Uboats would'vbe been built early on, britian may have been brought to her knees.
The Naval High Command also wanted to delay the start of the war for several years. Would that have made a difference? As was pointed out, If the Germans had more u-boats it's entirely likely that the British would have taken a different tack as well. Conjecture is always fun, but there is no way of knowing exactly how any scenario would have played out.

Looking at the numbers involved, i.e. merchants sunk per u-boat at sea, merchants sunk vs merchants at sea etc., I don't think Britain was exactly "brought to her knees". Wartime propaganda is a wonderful tool. Positive propaganda can inspire people, and negative propaganda can drive them to strive harder. I've read several books on the Battle Of Britain from during and immediately following the war, and they insist that on one hand Britain was "on her knees" and on the other the Germans never had a chance, often in the same book and sometimes in the same chapter.

TorpX 03-23-12 10:50 PM
U-boats may not have won the war for Germany, but it is hard to see how they would have been better off without them. (Unless, you avoid war with UK entirely.) The problem for Germany, as I see it, is that their ambitions simply exceeded the resources they had available. But, if their objectives had been scaled back, different strategies would have been possible.

A more rational plan for Germany would have been to prosecute an air/sea war against UK. Use U-boats, but do not go into US waters. Do not declare war against US, even if Japan's feelings are hurt. Be friendly to the USSR, even if you want to kill them; one war at a time. FDR wanted to help UK, but that doesn't mean people in the US were eager to send troops to europe; a shadow war on the high seas was a real possibility here. At the very least war with US might have been delayed for months or years. Such a strategy would have, at least, given Germany a chance of success.

General points to think about:

In 1938, when Germany was putting the finishing touches on their plans (at least they should have been), nobody knew that Japan would bomb Pearl Harbor.

The effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the U-boat was a matter of speculation. This was also true of the asw elements. The RN thought their ASDIC was much better than it was shown to be. The KM could not be sure of the U-boats abilities in the forthcomming war, but there was reason to be optimistic. More U-boats could have been built at a fraction of the cost of the big capitol ships, and would likely contribute more in a war with UK. Trying to match battleships with the UK and US was a losing proposition. Donetz had no way of knowing the Allies would have RADAR in ships and even worse, planes in the near future.

It is all good and well to make light of the 1 or 2 % of allied ships sunk in the whole war, but in '40, '41 and '42, it was no laughing matter. Allied loses overall may have been low, but during the crisis period, the losses were alarming.

A few quotes from THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC:

Quote:
The charts demonstrated that before the war total imports of food and raw materials, excluding oil, were close to 60 million tons. By the end of 1940 they had fallen to 45.4 million tons and in the following year to just 30.5 million tons.
Quote:
The grim figures pouring into the Statistical Branch's spartan offices suggested that nearly 4 million tons of shipping had been lost to the enemy in 1940. British and Canadian shipyards were quite incapable of keeping pace with this rate of loss.....



Armistead 03-23-12 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1859904)
But you extended the "Happy Times" to 1943, and we all pointed to 1942, which falls within the specified time frame. In fact, the Happy Times were over by mid-1941, and the "New Happy Times" started with the attacks on the American coast in 1942.


The Naval High Command also wanted to delay the start of the war for several years. Would that have made a difference? As was pointed out, If the Germans had more u-boats it's entirely likely that the British would have taken a different tack as well. Conjecture is always fun, but there is no way of knowing exactly how any scenario would have played out.

Looking at the numbers involved, i.e. merchants sunk per u-boat at sea, merchants sunk vs merchants at sea etc., I don't think Britain was exactly "brought to her knees". Wartime propaganda is a wonderful tool. Positive propaganda can inspire people, and negative propaganda can drive them to strive harder. I've read several books on the Battle Of Britain from during and immediately following the war, and they insist that on one hand Britain was "on her knees" and on the other the Germans never had a chance, often in the same book and sometimes in the same chapter.
Propaganda certainly played it's role, but we're also judging based on hindsight.

The question still remains, what resources would you trade uboats for that would've had the same effect....., another BB? We know early German command still thought the big ships were more important than Uboats, what a mistake.

Think if Germany would've put those resources into uboats, not declared on America and continued it's campaign against Britian, instead of turning against Russia, the Uboats would've brought Britian to her knees. Who knows, but I see no other resource for the buck that did as much damage as Uboats did

magic452 03-24-12 12:31 AM
What would I trade U boats for? Me.262's

Two or three hundred U Boats may or may not have brought Britain to her knees but three or four hundred Me. 262's put into service before the Battle of Britain just might have. Had they pushed it's development this could have been done. At 652 miles range that is more than a 109 with drop tanks. (621)

Operation Sea Lion just might have succeeded if Germany had air superiority and all those merchant ships would have had nooo place to go.

Britain wasn't in all that good a position to fight a big invasion and the US, no doubt would have declared war but we weren't in a very good position to be much help right away. The British would have had to hold out for quite some time before we could do much.

Magic

Dread Knot 03-24-12 06:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 1859938)
Propaganda certainly played it's role, but we're also judging based on hindsight.

The question still remains, what resources would you trade uboats for that would've had the same effect....., another BB? We know early German command still thought the big ships were more important than Uboats, what a mistake.
I'd put the resources into the battle on the Eastern Front that eventually consumed the German Army and the Reich. On the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union the German Wehrmacht had about 5,200 tanks overall, of which 3,350 were committed to the invasion. This yields a balance of immediately available tanks of about 4:1 in the Red Army's favor. Although the Germans destroyed most of Russian's initial tank pool it took a toll and replacements were never produced at a high enhough rate to make good the losses. Plus, the lack of enhough panzer divisions severly impacted German planning and flexibility for Barbarossa.

Sailor Steve 03-24-12 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 1859938)
The question still remains, what resources would you trade uboats for that would've had the same effect.....,
That is a question I always avoid, primarily because I'm no good at it. I have a hard time believing anyone else is, because there is just no way to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magic452 (Post 1859951)
What would I trade U boats for? Me.262's

Two or three hundred U Boats may or may not have brought Britain to her knees but three or four hundred Me. 262's put into service before the Battle of Britain just might have. Had they pushed it's development this could have been done. At 652 miles range that is more than a 109 with drop tanks. (621)
No, it couldn't have been done. Your four hundred jets would have been sitting on the ground waiting for the Jumo 004 engines, which were not ready for a test flight until July 1942.

Of course you'll say that they could have poured more time, money and effort into engine development, but they made them as fast as they could, and nothing was going to change that.




Useless speculation is useless.

Rockin Robbins 03-31-12 01:06 PM
I'll land in Dread Knot's corner. Just as Germany had nothing to gain with a war against the US, it also shared much and had much to lose by going to war with Britain. So long as they kept the British and Americans out of the war, owning the entire continent and Russia too was well within their capabilities.

I believe that even as late as Dunkirk, a rational Germany could have played nicey-nice, saying that they allowed the British to escape for humanitarian reasons and that they had no quarrel with the British people. They could have offered and held to a non-aggression treaty with Britain, granting them most valued trade status. I don't believe Britain's obligation to Poland would have justified hundreds of thousands of casualties if they continued at war.

This would have left Germany with a secure continent, actually protected and secured by the British, leaving them full access to all of their military means to attack Russia. They wouldn't have needed their subs any longer. A 100% effort would be focused eastward.

That would have left Russia, a communist country with no real friends, to be roasted like a Thanksgiving turkey.

After the war, we would have learned that there were much worse things to deal with than Soviet Russia...

donna52522 03-31-12 02:47 PM
I believe, from all I have read, that Hitler made it well known that he did not want "this" war with the UK, even considering the Brits as Nordic cousins, and through diplomatic chains had sent many peace feelers to the UK after the fall of France.....Britain adamantly would have nothing to do with that. After all, Germany didn't declare war on Britain or France, they declared war on Germany.

Churchill knew FDR would eventually enter the war on the UK's side. After all the US aide was very open and had most in the world wonder just how neutral America actually was. The U-Boat crews seen for themselves the US escorts providing screen for the British convoys.

As for Hitler declaring war on the United States, I've read he had done it for two reasons, one was the knowledge of all the US aide crossing the Atlantic to the UK. The second is that he was hoping Japan would return the favor by surging it's huge Manchurian army forward into eastern Russia....

We now know that Stalin's spies in Tokyo informed him that Japans ambitions were elsewhere and that allowed Stalin, even before Pearl Harbor, to move about 40 highly trained and winter equipped divisions westwards to save Moscow in the winter of 41/42.

In the book 'Barbarossa, The Russian-German Conflict 1941-45' by Alan Clark, the author repeatedly states that Hitlers personal strategies were sound, but his Field Marshalls (all of whom were primadonnas) constantly sent him false information about their own armies abilities in order to do only what they pleased. After the war they all blamed Hitler for his meddling, because of course, dead men can't defend themselves.

Torplexed 03-31-12 03:14 PM
After Pearl Harbor, Hitler should have sent the USA condolences and sent the Japanese ambassador packing, in disappointment for not having joined the Russian campaign earlier. The Tripartite Pact is dissolved! This would have put Roosevelt over a barrel as he would have to then struggle to get Congress to declare war on a neutral Germany after being attacked by a hostile Japan. It also would have shown Hitler's confidence in eventual German victory after the winter setback, and possibly underscored any peace overtures to Great Britain if Hitler announced that he would not adopt unrestricted submarine warfare and further provoke the Americans who had tried to help their cousins. Rumors about making a separate-peace with Russia might have been unsettling for the British too, as Stalin had no guarantees that the German offensives in 1942 would fail. You want your enemies to scramble with each other to be the first one seated at the peace table.

In seeking to cement his entangling-alliances, Hitler unified his enemies instead.

Rockin Robbins 04-03-12 01:30 PM
But the central fact is that Hitler was not rational. His plans were NOT sound. He did not act in his own best interest at all, especially in his persecution of the Jews. The entire thing was a maniacal tirade, illogical, irrational, insane and without sense.

Hitler was operating solely as an emotional bomb, exploding continuously from 1939 through his death in 1945. There is not sense to be found anywhere in his actions. Therefore, analyzing them is just an exercise in frustration.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.