Das Boot Mystique

flag4 · 03-21-10, 02:07 PM

HA!!

i am reading the same now. and Hardegen is just about nearing his American position for attack. have just been reading the american part about how innept and dismissive they where of what was coming - Incredible!!!!!

what a book. all that have'nt yet, MUST read it - cheap copies are a
available from amazon - mine was less than a £ i think!!

have also ordered: "Business in Great Waters: U-boat Wars, 1916-45 (Wordsworth Military Library)"
John Terraine; Paperback; £0.77

...want to get into the ww1 campaign!

Paul Riley · 03-21-10, 02:14 PM

There's some fantastic books at Amazon,some truly rare and unique finds.
I worship Amazon!

sharkbit · 03-22-10, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

There's some fantastic books at Amazon,some truly rare and unique finds.
I worship Amazon!

Don't forget e-bay. I've bought a ton of used(and new) books there as well-cheap, cheap. Generally though, Amazon is usually the best and cheapest place for used and new books.
Barnes and Noble and Borders-

Paul Riley · 03-22-10, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkbit

Don't forget e-bay. I've bought a ton of used(and new) books there as well-cheap, cheap. Generally though, Amazon is usually the best and cheapest place for used and new books.
Barnes and Noble and Borders-

Never tried B&N or Borders

Stick to Amazon mate,you can't go far wrong with them

sharkbit · 03-22-10, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

Never tried B&N or Borders

Stick to Amazon mate,you can't go far wrong with them

Believe me-B&N or Borders will never see a dime of my money!

Paul Riley · 03-22-10, 08:03 AM

Then I reckon they wont see a 'penny' or 'pound' of mine

sharkbit · 03-22-10, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flag4

i am reading the same now. and Hardegen is just about nearing his American position for attack. have just been reading the american part about how innept and dismissive they where of what was coming - Incredible!!!!!

I'm at that same point now. It's interesting how Gannon points out that what was about to fall upon the American coast will be a bigger catastrophe than the attack on Pearl Harbor, yet is not widely known.
It's a shame how petty rivalries, back-stabbing, glory seeking, anti-English sentiment, and politics made this a catastrophe waiting to happen. The US Navy was tottally unprepared.

03-24-10, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkbit

I'm at that same point now. It's interesting how Gannon points out that what was about to fall upon the American coast will be a bigger catastrophe than the attack on Pearl Harbor, yet is not widely known.
It's a shame how petty rivalries, back-stabbing, glory seeking, anti-English sentiment, and politics made this a catastrophe waiting to happen. The US Navy was tottally unprepared.

The best of The US Navy was sent to The Pacific, where USA was having her head handed to her.

Although the tanker harvest was on USA's East Coast, it hurt Engand more than it did USA.
Japan was busy conducting invasions on US Territory, including The Aleutians (Alaska!).

As high as the price tag was in The Atlantic, The Pacific was more important to USA at the time. And USA was loosing, big time.

03-24-10, 01:37 PM

Admiral King has been portrayed in all manner of negative light, mostly by British and some Canadian naval historians and there is some merit in their arguments. However, these are mostly one-sided and rarely is the situation regarding convoying on the East Coast looked at through the eyes of CINCLANT and the office of the CNO.

- Clay Blair has showed the movements and availablility of every US escort during this period and pretty much demolishes the myth that everything that floated was sent to the Pacific.

- The Eastern Sea Frontier forces were sailing convoys, troopship convoys to Newfoundland, Iceland and the UK while maintaining their share of the escort duties West of the MOMP and Saint John. This destroys the myth that he did not believe that convoys were the answer.

- King was a trained submariner and to him, an unescorted convoy was seen as a gift to an aggressive submarine commander. He over estimated the ability of a submarine to make multiple attacks and under estimated the difficulty in locating convoys as opposed to independantly routed merchants.

- He over estimated the ability of the Army Air Corps to conduct effective anti-submarine patrols in coastal waters, the role that the USAAC had demanded and won during interservice political squabbles in the thirties.

- He prioritized his escort assets to protect what he considered the high value targets, the troopships.

- Not learning from the British experiances is no worse than the British dogmatically ignoring American (and other people's) innovations until crunch time has come and gone. All military services are prone to the "That won't happen to Us" mindset and always have been.

He may well have been an S.O.B. and rabid Anglo-phobe but these traits had little to do with the naval disaster that unfolded off America's east coast. The British would do well to remember that many of King's operational doctrines had been theirs and that in late 1940 when there was no solution in sight to defeat the night-surface attack, a number of prominant RN admirals considered abandoning the convoy system entirely. This in light of the demonstrated ability of U-Boats to make multiple attacks against a poorly defended convoys is exactly what King anticipated would happen.

Ernest King was certainly wrong about a great number of things but not because he was a hide-bound, Brit hating idiot. He was wrong because he went with his training and experiance, because the Air Corps could not do the job they had demanded be theirs and because he prioritized the lives of US servicemen over merchant ships and material.

There's plenty of blame to share, King has a big piece but does not own it all.

03-21-10, 02:07 PM	#1
flag4 Watch Officer Join Date: May 2007 Location: as far away as possible Posts: 1,625 Downloads: 147 Uploads: 0	HA!! i am reading the same now. and Hardegen is just about nearing his American position for attack. have just been reading the american part about how innept and dismissive they where of what was coming - Incredible!!!!! what a book. all that have'nt yet, MUST read it - cheap copies are a available from amazon - mine was less than a £ i think!! have also ordered: "Business in Great Waters: U-boat Wars, 1916-45 (Wordsworth Military Library)" John Terraine; Paperback; £0.77 ...want to get into the ww1 campaign! __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] ' We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different.' Kurt Vonnegut

03-21-10, 02:14 PM	#2
Paul Riley Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sheffield, England Posts: 2,679 Downloads: 165 Uploads: 0	There's some fantastic books at Amazon,some truly rare and unique finds. I worship Amazon! __________________ Best Patrol: 10 merchants + HMS Nelson for 68.056 Tonnes

03-22-10, 08:03 AM	#6
Paul Riley Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sheffield, England Posts: 2,679 Downloads: 165 Uploads: 0	Then I reckon they wont see a 'penny' or 'pound' of mine __________________ Best Patrol: 10 merchants + HMS Nelson for 68.056 Tonnes

03-24-10, 01:37 PM	#9
Randomizer Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Admiral King has been portrayed in all manner of negative light, mostly by British and some Canadian naval historians and there is some merit in their arguments. However, these are mostly one-sided and rarely is the situation regarding convoying on the East Coast looked at through the eyes of CINCLANT and the office of the CNO. - Clay Blair has showed the movements and availablility of every US escort during this period and pretty much demolishes the myth that everything that floated was sent to the Pacific. - The Eastern Sea Frontier forces were sailing convoys, troopship convoys to Newfoundland, Iceland and the UK while maintaining their share of the escort duties West of the MOMP and Saint John. This destroys the myth that he did not believe that convoys were the answer. - King was a trained submariner and to him, an unescorted convoy was seen as a gift to an aggressive submarine commander. He over estimated the ability of a submarine to make multiple attacks and under estimated the difficulty in locating convoys as opposed to independantly routed merchants. - He over estimated the ability of the Army Air Corps to conduct effective anti-submarine patrols in coastal waters, the role that the USAAC had demanded and won during interservice political squabbles in the thirties. - He prioritized his escort assets to protect what he considered the high value targets, the troopships. - Not learning from the British experiances is no worse than the British dogmatically ignoring American (and other people's) innovations until crunch time has come and gone. All military services are prone to the "That won't happen to Us" mindset and always have been. He may well have been an S.O.B. and rabid Anglo-phobe but these traits had little to do with the naval disaster that unfolded off America's east coast. The British would do well to remember that many of King's operational doctrines had been theirs and that in late 1940 when there was no solution in sight to defeat the night-surface attack, a number of prominant RN admirals considered abandoning the convoy system entirely. This in light of the demonstrated ability of U-Boats to make multiple attacks against a poorly defended convoys is exactly what King anticipated would happen. Ernest King was certainly wrong about a great number of things but not because he was a hide-bound, Brit hating idiot. He was wrong because he went with his training and experiance, because the Air Corps could not do the job they had demanded be theirs and because he prioritized the lives of US servicemen over merchant ships and material. There's plenty of blame to share, King has a big piece but does not own it all.