Surviving and evading destroyers in shallow water

[Aktungbby]

from the Italian:"the best armor is not to be on the battle field"...submarine warfare as concieved by Germany in both world wars is essentially' offset guerilla warfare' against a superior navy ie the massive Royal Navy1918-1945; since stealth and depth are only defence for the somewhat submersable torpedo boat-(not a true submarine!!??) shallow waters less than 300+ feet defeats the vessel's defense capability. Purely as a matter of logic, and facing the increasingly superior technology of air and surface vessels, utterly negates actions in coastal waters. Remember, as a policy and weapon system for "finding Germany's place in sun" under the Kaiser and his peasant successor Adolph," the concept was failure and an expensive strategic waste of expensive assets and men well above any military concept of tactical expendability at sea in pursuit of victory...whatever that is?!!

[bstanko6]

Wow auto correct... direction changes!

[bstanko6]

I don't think the Uboat was used properly. Doenitz had the right idea for a blockade... his boss uncle Adolf was an idiot and rushed things, forcing a war they were not ready for. I think if Doenitz had the right amount of boats, and a strong budget to increase Uboat tech, we may have had a different history.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I don't think the Uboat was used properly. Doenitz had the right idea for a blockade... his boss uncle Adolf was an idiot and rushed things, forcing a war they were not ready for. I think if Doenitz had the right amount of boats, and a strong budget to increase Uboat tech, we may have had a different history.

nope! once the surface (Hedgehog mortars) and air are totally dominated by 10 centmeter radar capable of spotting a schnorkel (apex hunter a B-24 Liberator (flown by my still living 95 year old uncle); Cutting the five French U-boat ports on the Biscay Bay off from the Atlantic and a FIDO mk 24:

from US Navy OEG Study No. 289, 12 August 1946 provides the following data related to Mark 24 effectiveness:
Number of attacks in which Mark 24s were launched 264 Total number of Mark 24 torpedoes launched - all targets 340 Number of Mark 24s launched against submarines 204; Number of Mark 24 attacks on submarines by US aircraft 142; Number of Mark 24 attacks by Allied (primarily British) aircraft 62; Number of German U-boats sunk by FIDO 31; Number of German U-boats damaged by FIDO 15; Number of Japanese submarines sunk by FIDO 6; Number of Japanese submarines damaged by FIDO 3; Total number of submarines sunk by FIDO (German & Japanese) 37 Total number of submarines damaged 18

and your enigma ain't so enigmatic....(even after Doenitz added a fourth rotor) your happy times are over, technologically, tactically, strategically and numerically BBYY! Doenitz had read his Italian warfare book too:

After (black) May 1943, the rate of loss of U-boats was greater than the rate at which new U-boats were commissioned, and the number of operational U-boats slowly declined. On 24 May 1943, Karl Dönitz — shocked at the defeat suffered by the U-boats — ordered a temporary halt to the U-boat campaign; most were withdrawn from operational service.
May had seen a drop in allied losses coupled with a disastrous rise in U-boat losses; 18 boats were lost in convoy battles in the Atlantic in the month, 14 were lost to air patrols; six of these in the Bay of Biscay. With losses in other theatres, accident, or other causes, the total loss to the U-boat arm in May was 43 boats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_(1943) Part of the u-boat's success is attributaable to the Prime Minister himself, a former first sealord, who knew Germany had been defeated under the Kaiser and would be again: he prioritized his bombers against the German land-mass first and the u-boat threat second:

....claimed that if the Admiralty’s demands for more aircraft had been met, the Battle of the Atlantic might have been won six months sooner. A recent article by John O’Connell asserts that victory could have been achieved a full year earlier if the British had allocated their aircraft differently. Dimbleby puts the figure at “many months.” The implication is that millions of tons of merchant shipping and thousands of lives might have been saved if Churchill had not prioritized the bomber offensive over the U-boat war.

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-prolong-battle-atlantic/

[bstanko6]

So you are saying if Doenitz had 300 uboat, was able to produce the type XXI earlier, and got Goerring forex for a more assisting Luftwaffe...

There would still be no chance to choke Britain?

Hard to believe. Since Britain had no intention of advancing Anti sub tech after WW1.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

So you are saying if Doenitz had 300 uboat, was able to produce the type XXI earlier, and got Goerring forex for a more assisting Luftwaffe...

There would still be no chance to choke Britain?

Hard to believe. Since Britain had no intention of advancing Anti sub tech after WW1.

A MORE SEVERE LONGER CHOKING PERHAPS BUT THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME AFTER OUR TECHNOLOGY ULTIMATELY NUKED NAZI SUB PENS ENROUTE TO BERLIN-IF U WANT TO DREAM YA GOTTA DREAM ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WHAT IF EQUATION BECAUSE RABID 'BOMBER' HARRIS, A PROPONENT OF TOTAL WARFARE, WOULDN'T HESITATE...

"I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier Whenever the bombing campaign of World War II is considered it must be appreciated that the war was an "integrated process". As an example, quotingAlbert Speer from his book Inside The Third Reich, "ten thousand [88mm] anti-aircraft guns ... could well have been employed in Russia against tanks and other ground targets". The Soviet commanders clearly recognized Harris' efforts, as shown by the 29 February 1944 award of the Russian Order of Suvorov First Class to the air marshal

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I don't think the Uboat was used properly. Doenitz had the right idea for a blockade... his boss uncle Adolf was an idiot and rushed things, forcing a war they were not ready for. I think if Doenitz had the right amount of boats, and a strong budget to increase Uboat tech, we may have had a different history.

Nah, Germany didn't have the industrial nor human resources for any of their plans especially once the US entered into it.
Plus, the Allies left the Germans in the ASW/Batlle of the Atlantic dust technology-wise.
The Royal Navy wasn't any pushover either.

[bstanko6]

I understand that...

What I am saying is Germany entered too early.

Had they not, and invested in Uboat tech, and to add not declare war on US. They would have had fighting chance.

[Aktungbby]

ADOLF NEVER COULD TELL TIME; NEITHER POLITICALLY OR HISTORICALLY....

[bstanko6]

I'll give you that. Germanys worst enemy was Hitler!

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

Wow auto correct... direction changes!

Ahh, that makes sense.