U-Boats cost Germany WWII!

[Rockin Robbins]

In another thread comparing SH3 and SH4 I raised the irrelevent question of how different U-Boats were than American submarines. So I decided to start a new thread to discuss design and use of both types of subs.

Much has been made of the similarity of German strategy in the Atlantik and American stategy in the Pacific. They were both unrestricted warfare upon the shipping of the enemy nation with the intent of denying them supplies necessary to prosecute the war. So why the difference in outcome?

The German U-Boat was a badly designed vessel, used in an inappropriate manner which actually guaranteed total defeat for Germany. The American fleet submarine, while not built for the purpose and strategy with which it was used, fit its use perfectly.

Let's look at the German side first. Fundamentally, the greatest flaw in the dominant Type VII U-Boat design was that it was too small and did not carry sufficient firepower to make a difference when acting alone. Carrying only 14 torpedoes, some of which were carried on the exterior of the hull, against a 20 ship convoy, they were urinating on a forest fire. Even during the best times, the U-Boat fleet had only a few months where they destroyed more shipping than the Allies built. The battle of the Atlantik was a war of attrition and the U-Boat fleet didn't have the firepower to destroy quicker than the Allies built their fleets. It was only a matter of time before they were overwhelmed, even by inferior equipment. They were doomed by design.

Then there are fatal flaws in the German strategy, borne of the critical difference between Japan and Britain. Japan stood alone, with few supplies of her own and depended on her own merchant fleet to bring war supplies to the home island. Total submarine warfare sank the merchies, denying Japan supplies to produce ships, planes and weapons. The result was victory in the Pacific.

However, Germany's war against Britain was only superficially similar. The differences made unrestricted submarine warfare a foolish proposition. British supplies came not on British bottoms but on neutral ships as well. In order to starve the enemy, Germany had no choice but to sink American merchants. But America was not subject to starvation by U-Boat strangulation. Once American war production ramped up, even with poor defenses against U-Boat attacks, ships were being built faster than the U-Boats could ever sink them. The war was over, even though it took a few years for Germany to acknowledge the fact.

Using U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, then, was a colossal blunder, wasting valuable resources which could have been used to produce planes, tanks, weapons....you know, actually useful war materials! Coupled with the equally idiotic Battle of Britain, Germany could only choose to die then or later. The war was unwinnable.

Notice that I said nothing about Enigma machine follies or the incessant radio chat that doomed thousands of German sailors. They were just sidelights of the essential flaw.

Just think if after Dunkirk Goering had made a special broadcast: "To our comrades across the Channel. We have allowed your army to escape Dunkirk because we have no quarrel with our friends in England. We realize you had unfortunate obligations due to your treaties with European countries, but those obligations are now satisfied. Germany has realized her aims. It now lies to us to reform a new world in our own image, leading civilization on to the greatness that only we working together can achieve." No U-Boat unrestricted warfare. No Battle of Britain. No Americans in the war. I'd say Germany would have won. U-Boats lost the war.

Let's go to Japan! America did not merely copy German submarine strategy. First, they determined that it was appropriate to the situation and could result in victory. Japanese war materiel was entirely made in Japan from supplies shipped there on Japanese bottoms. Therefore, sinking Japanese merchants would deprive Japan of the ability to continue the war. American submarines were supplied with 24 torpedoes apiece, enough to justify the long transit times to and from reloading, and giving each submarine enough punch to remain on station for a telling amount of time, delivering significant blows to keep ahead of Japanese production. This minimized the need for excessive radio chat. In fact American boats acting in wolfpacks still did not use the radio very much. They knew the results of radio direction finding. And this appropriate use of a weapon which fit its theater of operations perfectly resulted in victory for the Allies in the Pacific.

So there you go! Pop out those "so many ways" that I am wrong.

The following has been a reasoned troll to generate discussion, not animosity. I hope we can have fun with this, not fight.

[AVGWarhawk]

All I can say for both theaters, it was no simply victory.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think the U-boat was necessarily a flawed design. I think bureaucracy was the fatal flaw in the U-boat arm. The U-boat was designed with the war it had to fight in mind. Smaller size wasn't a downfall as the Atlantic theatre was smaller than the Pacific. They didn't need to be as big as fleet boats. Especially once the U-boat bases on the coast of France were established.

If Doenitz had the numbers he asked for in the beginning of the war, they would have certainly been able to put more of a stranglehold on Britain. You can blame Hitler's obession with battleships and the misallocation of resources towards surface ships and the Graf Zeppelin project, when they could have been used to build up the U-boat fleet to the critical mass needed in order to completely encircle Britain.

There's certainly a lot of decisions that were made that bring up a lot of "if's". If Hitler hadn't been so obssessed with keeping boats out of the action defending the coasts of Norway against an invasion that never came, and sending them on suicide missions through the Med trying to help Rommel, they would have been able to focus on the Atlantic where they needed to be. If the development of the Type XXI was given the priority it deserved instead of being relegated to the back burner once the war was "won", they would have had that asset available. If the schnorkel had been installed in boats prior to 1943, it would have helped tremendously. If the Germans had realized the importance of radar (going back to your point about the Battle of Britain...one of the major blunders of the Luftwaffe was not taking out British radar installations which gave the RAF early warning enough to scramble during air raids), they would have certainly made more progress in that arena as well. It's not like the technology was unknown to them, it's just that they didn't know how to use it.

[Reinhard Hardegen]

In 1942 6 u-boats almost stoped the convoys up and down the east coast of the united states. If Hitler would have let more boats into the US waters then all shipping would have come to a crawl and the UK would have had to drop out of the war. No D-day, no one to come to the aid of the allies in the war.

In just 8 months U-boats had almost won the war in the US waters. If they had the 20 - 30 boats there, it would have been a differant war.

[cmdrk]

Atlantic Theater:
Allied cost in shipping, escorts, and planes - $17 billion
German cost in subs - $2.7 billion

Cost ratio 6 to 1

Pacific Theater:
Japanese cost in warships and merchants - $18 billion
US cost in subs - $873 million ($0.873 billion)

Cost ratio 20 to 1

Note:
Atlantic cost is for sunk merchants and cost of escorts/planes used during the battle. The sunk merchant tonnage cost was about $6.2 billion. The Allies spent $14 billion to replace then increase total merchant tonnage.

The Japanese cost is based on Dollar to Yen exchange base on the cost per ton to build a destroyer in the respective countries ($1.8 per Yen). The costs are from warship and merchant tonnage sunk, plus cost of escorts built.

Per info from Cmdr. M. Poirier's analysis at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...campaigns.html

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by cmdrk

Atlantic Theater:
Allied cost in shipping, escorts, and planes - $17 billion
German cost in subs - $2.7 billion

Cost ratio 6 to 1

Pacific Theater:
Japanese cost in warships and merchants - $18 billion
US cost in subs - $873 million ($0.873 billion)

Cost ratio 20 to 1

Note:
Atlantic cost is for sunk merchants and cost of escorts/planes used during the battle. The sunk merchant tonnage cost was about $6.2 billion. The Allies spent $14 billion to replace then increase total merchant tonnage.

The Japanese cost is based on Dollar to Yen exchange base on the cost per ton to build a destroyer in the respective countries ($1.8 per Yen). The costs are from warship and merchant tonnage sunk, plus cost of escorts built.

Per info from Cmdr. M. Poirier's analysis at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...campaigns.html

Granted. Submarines are a very cost-effective means of waging war. Except that we could afford the cost and much more. The Japanese could not. The Germans could not. Similarly, we could absorb a number of casualties that would cost the Axis powers the wars and come back for more. We fought two years in the Pacific without winning a single battle, losing tens of thousands, caught our breath and spent more, lost more men and won. Victory comes only to those who are willing and able to pay the terrible cost.

The Kriegsmarine was willing but not able. If they had another 100 submarines, they would not have had enough crew to man them. One of the reasons the Type XXI never got into combat was their inability to train crews. Topp talked about that in a famous interview where he said the Type XXI couldn't have turned the tide. Numbers of subs don't win wars, the qualified and well-trained people in them to.

Hitler as part of the equation makes sense also. For my reasonable plan for Germany to work, Hitler would have had to be sane. A sane man wouldn't have even begun WWII to get to the point where they could consolidate their victory on the Continent, mollify Britain and then attack Russia at their leisure and with British and American aquiescence (the next step in my logic). After all, British and American supplies were instrumental if the survival of Russia. As it was, victory was initally by a small margin for the Russians. The unknown is how cohesive Russia would be if deprived of Stalingrad, Moscow and Kiev, losing the entire European part of Russia. Would the Asian Russians fight to regain Europe, or would cultural differences result in the Asians saying good riddance to their European oppressors? I can't begin to guess the answer to that one.

And you can meld the crazy ruler is the reason for defeat with my weird theory if you wish. A sane Hitler would (if he was still crazy enough to start the war:rotfl not have used U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, realizing that they had no choice but to attack American shipping and realizing that U-Boats were utterly powerless as a weapon against the United States. Once the US entered the war the Germans were losers.

@CaptainHaplo I agree with you about how amazing the discussion has been. I had some misgivings when I launched it as evidenced by my last paragraph about the spirit I hoped the discussion would have. It has had better than I dared to hope. It just shows what a great place SUBSIM is.

My theory is really more of a thought experiment than a reflection of reality because as others have said, it was the insanity of Naziism that caused the war to begin with and was responsible for the lousy choices Germans made throughout the war. If you believe my theory about consolidating victory on the continent, coopting America and Britain and then whipping Russia, you have to believe in a total reversal in the mindsets of Hitler and his henchmen. Of all the military leaders in Germany, only Admiral Donitz would have been capable of such imaginative thought and abandonment of Nazi doctrine to achieve victory.

I hadn't thought of your point that if you consented on any terms to be led by Nazis, you were one of them regardless of your personal beliefs. Maybe it's ownership of that lousy truth that has made the German people the great people they are today. If we Americans are smug about not being that stupid, I would counter by saying that there was another country in the world that could have gone that wrong: the United States of America. It's possible that Germany just beat us to it. Who knows. I just know that if Naziism happened in a country with the cultural richness of Germany, it could have happened elsewhere.

[kylesplanet]

This is a great thread and I must admit, RR has really peaked my curiosty. RR, your making alot of sense in you argument and I'm waiting anxiously for more! I love someone throwing out an unconventional idea that validates some of my own thoughts.

[CaptainHaplo]

The Japanese reason for war was less "mad" by far - Japan needed the resources of the Far East, particularly Indochina - to continue to fuel the economic expansion they were undergoing. When the American policy of isolation and a trade embargo occurred, Japan had little choice but to go to war. Doing so meant that they ultimately HAD to face an American force intent on protecting its own economic interests. For an island nation that lacked the resources at "home" that were needed, there was little choice if economic growth was to continue.

However, the start of WWII in Europe was not due to the need for resources. The Rhine Valley was, and is today, a major source of industry. Germany, economically speaking, had the financial base to compete with just about any major player. The problem wasn't financial, it was the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was an insult to the idea of "German pride". It is often said that the seeds of WW2 were sown in the ending of WW1 - and that is very true. While the average German after WW1 did suffer economically, industry itself (and by that read corporations) were thriving. It was this economical disparity that allowed Hitler to stir the masses initially, by promising to return Germany to its "rightful" place and restore its glory - and in so doing, have the masses benefit. The same type of economic situation was what led to Mussolini gaining power in Italy as well.

Ultimately - the "New German Empire" grew too fast, made too many enemies (its own fault) and its few friends were to distant or inept to aid it. Had ole Adolf been content in uniting continental Europe and securing what resources Europe lacked (mainly oil) from the Middle East, we would have a drastically different world today. Thankfully, Adolf was a nutjob and the world avoided what could have been a far more greater disaster due to his and others blunders.

Had "greater Germany" extended more respect to the rest of Europe instead of setting up the numerous puppet governments, broken away from the "superior race" nonsense and the rest of the silly Nazi bullcrap, they might have stood a chance. But its a good lesson that such history teaches - when the foundation is rotten, it doesnt matter how big the house is - its going to fall....

Such was the history of the Greeks, the Romans, the 2 attempts by Germany, etc - yet for some reason - we as humanity still haven't learned.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Just think if after Dunkirk Goering had made a special broadcast: "To our comrades across the Channel. We have allowed your army to escape Dunkirk because we have no quarrel with our friends in England. We realize you had unfortunate obligations due to your treaties with European countries, but those obligations are now satisfied. Germany has realized her aims. It now lies to us to reform a new world in our own image, leading civilization on to the greatness that only we working together can achieve."

Well, the first problem with that scenario is that it supposedly actually happened. The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance. The British Ambassador, Sir David Kelly, reportedly replied "We're not easily frightened. Also, we know how hard it is for an army to cross the channel. Last little corporal who tried came a cropper. So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! And even then we won't listen."

At least that's the way Battle Of Britain tells it.:rotfl:

I'll have to find it in a book to verify, but until then...

[Ducimus]

Somebody's just itchin' for some debatin'. :rotfl:

my 2 cents worth:

1.) Code breaking, and not knowing it had been broken
2.) Lack of advances in electronic warfare


And on that note, im GLAD they lost, and good riddence! You'll never find me saying, "well, if uboats had done this or that theyd have won the war!" as if cheering for ones favorite football team. In discussions such as these, i think its important to keep ones perspective on reality.

[Donner]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

And on that note, im GLAD they lost, and good riddence! You'll never find me saying, "well, if uboats had done this or that theyd have won the war!" as if cheering for ones favorite football team. In discussions such as these, i think its important to keep ones perspective on reality.

What he said!

I consider the men of the U-bootwaffe heroic. I have been fortunate enough to make friendships with several U-boat Ritterkreuzträger commanders as well as ordinary seamen, torpedomen, and machinists. I have discussed their experiences with them at length and I am in awe at their bravery. They are all very kind gentlemen and they have been helpful in my research and patient with my many questions. They have and will continue to have my utmost respect.

But having said that, I am also thankful that they lost.

[Rockin Robbins]

But the U-Boats sinking merchie convoys off the US coast meant nothing. That shipping was a lifeline to nobody. And once us not so quick-witted Americans learned to turn off lighthouses, stop broadcasting directional signals in the form of peacetime radio stations and in general to behave as if we were in a war The situation changed.

The US was no island that could be hurt meaningfully by U-Boats and any thought that greater U-Boat success would have changed the war is just fantasy. Admiral Danial Gallery demonstrates that at their greatest time of sinking Allied shipping, they were losing because the Allies built more tonnage than unhindered U-Boats could send to the bottom. Sinking Atlantic merchants did nothing to stifle the production of Allied weaponry, as sinking Japanese shipping in the Pacific did. They were swatting an ostrich with a fly swatter. It only made the ostrich mad.

They Type XXI would only have forced the Allied ASW plotters to draw bigger circles. Once the hole in the middle of the Atlantic was plugged, the U-Boats had nowhere to hide from the planes of the ubiquitous jeep carrier hunter-killer groups.

No change in the nature of a weapon that lost the war just by virtue of using it could have resulted in a German victory. The order to commence unrestricted submarine warfare was the order to hand victory to the Allies. Once carried out, nothing could have changed the outcome. Each submarine built meant fewer tanks, trucks, planes, bombs, bullets, the list is much longer of the materials that were sacrificed to build submarines. How would building more submarines of any type help?

Germany should have only used submarines for coastal defense and action against bona fide military targets. They should have left Britain alone totally aside from the necessity of politely nudging them from the continent.

The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance.

That is very different from the scenario I laid out. In reality the German ambassador said, "You might as well quit now. It will be much worse for you if you keep fighting." That is a threat. I laid out a promise, with no threat implied. The British would have accepted that even if they had to throw Churchill overboard to do it. After all, they did make him walk the plank immediately after the war.

[Ducimus]

Generally speaking, i don't think the men of the uboat arm were bad, just their cause was. Which, to play on words, wasn't just. Thats one of the beautiful things about the pacific, the cause was just.


But, to get back on topic some. The effect of code breaking and radar can't be emphasized enough, in both theaters acutally.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

No, not the case of Japan was busy with China. Japan had a squirmish with Russia and they got their butts kicked real bad. They sure didn't want that again and were wary of a war with Russia.

[Captain Vlad]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The effect of code breaking and radar can't be emphasized enough, in both theaters acutally.

They really can't. Allied superiority in radar was a massive force multiplier for our own submarine campaign and a massive inhibitor on the Germans.

Code breaking...well...we all know how important that was.