Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigboywooly
What you have to remember is that the first world war wasnt long gone and up until then Submarines hadnt been used to any effect
Even then the Uboats were targeting warships at the start till they switched tactics
|
 U-boats sunk almost 13 million tons of allied and neutral shipping in WW1.
While that isn't a lot percentage wise, consider the "fear factor" and the disproportionate amount of allied resources devoted to the U-boat threat.
Clay Blair goes into a lot of the reasons behind why the Brits were slow to really do anything about ASW in Hitler's U-Boat War (the first one). Disadvantages of convoying, underestimating the actual threat U-boats posed (or correctly estimating it, depending on which side of that argument you stand on), the sticky politics of waging unrestricted submarine warfare...etc
I'd recommend picking up that book for an in depth discussion of it. The first 100 pages or so go into a lot of detail regarding WW1 and the run-up to WW2 |
WWI Subs may not have been used in the same numbers as they were in WWII but their effect was marked. The sinking of the Lusitania on its own has been quoted as receiving much of the credit for promting the US to join the war. I'd say submarines certainly had an impact on WWI albeit nowhere near as great as the submarine forces of WWII.
I agree Clay Blair's book has some interesting insights into the military doctrine of all side. it must be said that Hitler and Raeder certainly underestimated the impact that submarines would have on the war and this is highlighted by Donitz' frustration in not being able to field as many boats as he would have liked at any time during the war. Much of this was due to the prevailing attitudes that big warships would be war winners.
As far as the British opinion at the start of the war there was significant division within the RN about ASW and their response was largely driven by the time it took to overcome those divisions.