question for experienced IX Kaleuns

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by firepower41

As a minor historical point of interest, isn't the problem with sinking them in harbor that they can be raised and eventually repaired? How does that fit into Doenitzes tonnagewar? Should one prefer to sink them outside the harbor where they cannot be dredged, or do the enemy use more resources raising the hull etc. from the harbor than they would fabricating the ship from new parts?

I honestly don't know enough about shipbuilding etc. in those days for an answer, but I do know some sunken BBs from Pearl Harbor were raised to fight, as well as the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier, which the Soviets raised and refloated in 1946.

In a certain sense, every resource used in fixing up a ship that was damaged/sunk in a harbor isn't available for other uses (like building more ships). Also, some ships just aren't worth salvaging. If you break a ship in two, as opposed to just putting a hole in it, you aren't going to be able to put her back together (I suppose it is *POSSIBLE*, but I would bet the expense isn't worth it). Also, some ships are just too old to justify the expense, even in wartime when the enemy is desperate for hulls.

Think of it this way: If you sink a ship in a harbor, that is X number of tons of cargo that isn't going to be shipped to it's destination for the amount of time that ship is being repaired, which generally runs into months. In addition, if the ship was laden with cargo at the time you sank it, that cargo might be ruined (ie., if it was foodstuffs, textiles, gunpowder, gasoline/oil, etc.). So it can be worth it to sink them in the harbor, especially if you haven't had much luck elsewhere.

I figure that sinking a ship that will likely be raised and put back into service is like sinking half a ship. It isn't as good as putting one down 'over 1,000 meters', but it is better than not sinking one at all.