Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbuna
Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.
|
Well said! There are so many factors involved that it would be nearly impossible to create a formula everyone would agree with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimbuna
Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.
|
A reasonable statement
.
My only argument along these lines is that the u-boat arm never really had a chance from the beginning (not enough boats to accomplish the envisioned strategy). They were naver able to seriously threaten the UK. In fact, year-by-year statistics reveal that UK's merchant fleet grew every year of the war, replacements and new builds from many sources were always more than the losses they suffered from u-boats. But this wasn't a problem caused by the u-boats or their crews. It really came down to leasing shipping, aquiring shipping from other lost/threatened nations and the US' industrial capacity. They were handed a broken strategy at the beginning. What would they have been able to accomplish if they would have had 300 boats? Much more than they did without a doubt!
Cheers!