Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
No I was the one who said that their entire fleet, both surface and submarine, except for a small portion for coastal defense, was useless. You can't attack Russia from the sea and that was their real aim.
|
Duh? I was never aware that Hitler had any plans to attack the Sovjet Union from the sea? Where did you get that idea from?
Ever read His (Mein) Kampf? He doesn't talk about attacking Russia from the sea. There he states that he wants Living Space in the east, that's what it was all about.
Mind that Hitler was first seen (early thirties) as a great guy by many country leaders.
None of whom had read his book (probably because it's actually unreadable, I tried but only after several attempts I could chew through the crap).
Then when the moron got away with annexing the Rhineland, Austria and parts of Tsjechia he may well have thought that attacking Poland would also have no response from both France and the UK.
Luckily Chamberlain was not as pussyfooted as Hitler (and his bunch of criminals) thought.
So, when Chamberlain declared war (and not Churchill as many people believe) it came as a huge surprise. But even then he thought that he could force the UK in a peace treaty by blockading them, and sending his 'glorious' Luftwaffe across the Canal. The whole 'strategy' of blockading the UK came from Doenitz and Raeder. They actually believed they could pull it off with only 300 boats. Wrong, even when they did (1943?) have them it didn't work. Why? Because the British had actually learned from WW1, and these two idiots apparently not. By the way, I still cannot come up with a good reason why they shouldn't have have hanged Doenitz after the war. He bloody well deserved it!
I also agree that Germany didn't have a chance to win. Merely, because Roosevelt and Churchill both recognized the menace for the world of a Greater Germany. Therefore, I think Roosevelt was absolutely right to say: Germany first. Although that opinion was not shared by a lot of american politicians. That's why he had to 'bend' some rules.
Fighting a two front war was well within his capabilities. Japan needed to get all its raw materials from abroad. And being an island it would only be a matter of time before they would stop moving.
BUT...The original question was: Is the U-boat better than the Fleet submarine? I agree with Rockin Robbins that the U-boat was not better, quite the opposite actually. The Fleet subs were more advanced than the U-boats, and indeed had a bigger 'punch'. Both services had their torpedo failures, poor command decision etc. But it was the better organized, and more flexible Silent Service that got the best results. Even with all the mistakes and blunders made they still pulled it off. The germans showed how submarine war fare had to be done (Rudel taktik etc), but it was the US that proved that the theory was right!
In an earlier post I stated that the area of operation also has to be taken into account. I still believe that true. But technology wise the Fleetsub wins.
By the way, what is interesting is that innovation wise the germans looked better. Mainly, because of the rapidly changing situation in the Atlantic they had to come up with newly designed boats. Something that the US didn't really have to do, since they were already winning. So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...
groetjes,