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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sublynx

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]

Originally Posted by Ifernat

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.

[bybyx]

Here are my 2 cents:
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]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

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.