U-Boats cost Germany WWII!

[tater]

RR, I'm always put in the odd position of defending IJN ASW capability at the same time I say it was overall ineffective. As I've said before, the principal japanese ASW failure was at a larger scale. Late to the party with convoys (to maximize ASW assets near shipping), and small convoys when they did. Failure to even recognize there was a problem, etc.

Also, and I think this cannot be stressed enough: CODE BREAKING and sigint.

Allied ASW capability was massively multiplied by codebreaking (and axis hubris regarding their codemaking skills). We put out ships where the u-boats were NOT, and we put ASW assets where they WERE. Sinking or delaying (so they cannot achieve attack position) submarines in ww2 is actually not that hard if you know where they are roughly. You just stay around saturating the circle of their possible position submerged. At some point they MUST come up. If you have no idea where they are, this is difficult. If you know the grid position where they are supposed to be by orders from back home... you send some planes and DEs.

So while allied equipment and doctrine was better, I think the results shown—the slaughter of the u-boat forces—is very heavily weighted by intelligence information. So u-boats lost 80%+ and the USN lost 20% of their boats. If intelligence was even a 2X force multiplier, the IJN was half as good 1 on 1 overall. I'd wager the value of intelligence was a greater multiplier than 2X, frankly.

tater

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by tater

.......If intelligence was even a 2X force multiplier, the IJN was half as good 1 on 1 overall. I'd wager the value of intelligence was a greater multiplier than 2X, frankly.

tater

Hear! Hear! That is a marvelous point! I was wondering when you'd chime in here!

[odjig292]

This discussion suggests that some people do not realize how much training and skill goes into finding a submarine in the Atlantic or Pacific and then sinking it. It took decades for the Allies to get good at it. The British started in WWI and lost 6600 ships worth 12.8 million tons without learning. The German WWI crews managed to sink some 32 ships for every U-boat lost. That was why the mythical Anti-Submarine Detection Investigation Committee developed sonar between the wars. The RN came into WWII with a weapon that could detect submarines underwater up to 1500 yards away. Dönitz quickly neutralized this weapon by attacking on the surface, and with several U-boats at a time overwhelming the few escorts available. The Germans started off sinking 10 merchant ships for every U-boat lost in 1939 but as their Kapitans learned, the kill ratio increased to 30 ships per U-boat by March 1941. Then Dönitz lost four of his top Kapitans in one month. The kill ratio declined steadily after that.

From 1939 to 1941, while British and Canadians were building corvettes by the dozens, they had serious crew problems. They did not know how to train civilians. By contrast, the US Navy took a new ship, got some 15% of their old salts who knew what they are doing as “plank holders” and then brought in a crew of raw recruits and allocated 20 to 90 training specialists to the ship. The training crew stayed with the ship until it was ready (usually 90 days) and the trained sailors stayed with the ship as part of a team from then on. The USN wound up with trained ships quickly.

The Brits and the Canadians would allocate a few trained people to a ship, and then pull many of them off after several weeks to man the next new ship, and replace them with raw recruits. The crews never had time to learn how to work as a team before they were transferred. It drove the captains wild. They would spend a voyage training people only to have half on them transferred to a new ship when they hit port. The RN expanded 7 times from its peace time size while the Canadian Navy expanded 50 times. In the RCN, the 2% who knew how to run a ship were stretched very thin. On top of that the escort destroyers and corvettes did not work all the time with the same groups so the convoys were often guarded by ships that had never worked together and had different tactics and signals.

It was July 1940 before the British established HMS Western Isles under the legendary V-Adm. “Monkey” Stephenson who started to teach effective tactics to the ASW groups. It was November 1941 before 10 cm radar allowed the escorts to pick up the conning towers of the U-boats attacking their convoys and almost a year before all of the British ships were equipped. After Pearl Harbor, the RN transferred much of their ASW technology to the USN and helped with setting up the convoys to reduce the carnage along the US Atlantic coast. When Paukenschlag was over, and the U-boats returned to the Atlantic, they found a much better trained and equipped RN waiting for them. The poor country cousins were the RCN who had no training, no 10 cm radar and were usually allocated the “slow” convoys that took serious losses.

In November 1942, Sir Max Horton took over Western Approaches, and restructured the escort groups. He also set up Hunter-Killer support groups to aid the convoy escort groups that came under attack. These include experienced captains like Johnny Walker as well as groups with CVE’s to provide air cover. In May 1943, Horton pulled all the Canadian ships off the Atlantic and replaced them with the top RN escort crews including those from the Gibraltar, Murmansk and Sierra Leone runs. The expanded numbers of German U-boats ran up against the best trained ASW crews on the planet and lost 23 U-boats out of 70 at sea in one month. Many more limped home badly damaged. If the escorts didn’t get them, the hunter-killer groups probably did. The Canadian ships were sent to the Western Isles training grounds and had their radar upgraded. After that, they were able to hold their own with RN escorts. The US Navy build many CVE’s and formed their own H-K groups. From then on the U-boats really didn’t have a chance.

Comparing the difference between the U-boats and the US submarines based on the results does not make any sense. They were two entirely different wars and the tactics used were miles apart. All U-boat sighting reports were Huff-duffed and a hunter-killer group often sent to sit on them until they were sunk. There was air cover all the time over a convoy with airplanes that had 10 cm radar that could spot a U-boat on the surface 20 miles away. Their radio reports were broken and they often found Allied hunter-killer groups waiting at their rendezvous points. The convoy escorts had Hedgehog or Squid projectiles that rarely missed. Even on the way to or from their bases in France, they were subject to attack at night by bombers that could approach almost silently and drop bombs or homing torpedoes using searchlights. The Germans lost most of their experienced captains by 1943 and since they lost six out of seven U-boats that sortied at the end of the war, they never were able to build up a cadre of professionals like they had at the start of the war.

The US submarines had none of these problems. By 1943, they had trained crews and experienced captains that grew better as the war progressed. According to Roscoe, US subs sank 1152 ships worth 4.96 million tons for 52 subs lost. That’s a kill ratio of 22 ships per sub lost. The Axis were up against an enemy that was eventually better equipped, had better technology and had more resources. That doesn't mean they fought less gallantly. Everyone put their life on the line. The Allied approach gave them better odds by the end of the war, but it wasn't easy.

[Rockin Robbins]

That was an amazing post!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

That was an amazing post!

Agreed

[scrag]

Yes I will stand by my earlier statement that in comparison the Japanese sucked at ASW particularly at the beginning of the war. US Boats were also victums of there very successful tactics - the more risk they took the more easier it was for an enemy to locate them. A number of your "facts" re-enforce my point that yes we suffered in losses but since you like listings here is an easier comparison:
Look how effective Radar was in ASW (used by the US) in sinkings against the IJN Sub force (one comparable in size, and MSN to the US) then look again at the US losses. Ours were bad but theirs where almost the entire force. Then for comparison look at the Brits/US in ASW vs the Germans - again tremendous losses on part of the Germans. Both Axis powers suffred in Tactics and Sophisticated Equipment the the Allies QUICKLY embraced and used (Radar is an outstanding example). So the Japanese sucked at ASW, Sucked at Submarine warfare, Sucked at adopting new technology. They had a general lack of respect for submarine warfare and would not yield on changing the tactics on employing there submarine force and hence failed in ASW. Had the been nearly as good as you try to prove we would have har to switch our tactics. Fact is our technology overcame damn near anything they tried to do (including mining the entrances to the Sea of Japan. The excelled at having an excellent PreWar realization of the importance of Aircraft and Aircraft Carrier. There ground forces excelled at living off the field and they were extremely tenacious where ever encountered.

Tank wise the Germans recognized that the T-34 was a superior tank in just about every way to every other tank of the era (Allied or Axis). Sure the Tigers and armour and firepower as dod the Panther, but they were not easily produced, suffered from poor mechanical reliability, not capable of operating in all the conditons or at least had significant issues in doing so. The T-34 had mobility, adequate firepower (foreverything except dealing head to head enganements with Tigers and Panthers - in which the Germans would be over run and over come by the Russian tanks speed and mobility), sloped armour, simplified controls and shared common munitions with other Russian field pieces. A testiment to the T-34 brillance in design can be seen in the fact the Tanls were still in use in the early 90's.
When Hitler asked a General what he needed to win in the Eastern Front the General responded by asking for T-34's.

This thread began with the premise that the U-Boats cost germany the war - :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Total BS but fun to debate. The premise that the design is flawed is also crap as they were in fact very well designed - in fact the Germans were so crappy at submarine design that no one used them after the war - oops that is BS too.
Wow every Cold War power had something incorporated from the Germans in post WW II design and construction.
What the Germans (and Japanese) lacked was a healthy respect for ASW capable Nations as the US and UK in the advent and use of RADAR in ASW.
BTW anytime you care to come to Pearl Harbor and visit - might be fun to show you the memorials, the places where those you talk about lived and worked, the Bowfin and maybe if I can arrange it a tour on one of our SSN's.

[odjig292]

Scragg said "This thread began with the premise that the U-Boats cost Germany the war - Total BS but fun to debate."

I don't think we disagree on that point. My point was that the Allies poured years of research and experience into their ASW efforts before they were able to defeat the U-Boats in 1943. I'm a believer that the war could have gone against Britain if Donitz had had the 300 U-boats that he wanted at the start of the war. I'm not too sure they couldn't have reversed the situation in 1943 if they had built the Type XXI in 1943 instead of waiting two years. The Germans had excellent technology but they were too late with it. If they had had the V1, V2 and V3 ready a year earlier, it would have made the invasion a very dicey affair. I can't speak to the tanks. My interest is in the Navy.

One point that I didn't emphasize enough was the calibre of the leaders. Germany was winning early in the war, because they had exceptional Kapitans like Prien, Schepke, Kretchsmer and others, but they were beaten by captains like Macintyre , Walker and Gallery who eventually had better equipment and tactics. Lockwood had exceptional captains once he cleaned house and sent O'Kane, Morton and others on patrol. The Allies got stronger as they got better equipment and their leaders became more experienced, while the Germans got weaker as their best warriors failed to return. Neither the Germans nor the Japanese lacked for courage in the field but the Allies just kept getting stronger and better.

As for Pearl Harbor, I've been there and enjoyed every minute to be at such a historic site. I've also been to Guadacanal, Lei, Port Moresby, Dieppe, Hiroshima, Nanking, Gettysburg, Little Big Horn, etc, etc. Enjoyed every one. I still haven't made it to Normandy, but maybe this spring.

[candy2500]

[quote=odjig292]Scragg said "This thread began with the premise that the U-Boats cost Germany the war - Total BS but fun to debate."

yes total BS

its a mathematical number as easy as 1+1. two nuts thought they could take over the world with the population of two nations + a few folks added here and there from there pick up games and it isn't going to work.

[Rockin Robbins]

Tigers, Panthers and ASW Oh My!: hands down the finest title of any post in the thread so far! Yeah, my hypothesis presupposes false premises:

that the leaders of Germany were or could be rational
that the Germans had good enough intelligence to form persuasive arguments to keep Britain to withdraw from the war. This would have included some reason to trust German truthfulness.
that the Germans would actually have been smart enough to realize that logistics wins wars and used the resources saved by not building subs to beef up those logistics.
that Hitler could actually have been satisfied with the continent of Europe
that having achieved his war aims Hitler would revert to benevolent uncle mode and been warm and fuzzy to all his neighbors. Maybe he would bake them cookies!
that in any way Hitler could have been a productive and cooperative member of the human race, contributing to the good of his fellow man.

I'm amazed that I didn't come under attack for some of those weaknesses of my argument that U-Boats alone lost the war. Even if they did ensure it, many, many, boneheaded moves after that continued to hand victory to the Allies. All of you have established that beyond doubt.

I'll also grant Scrag's argument that U-Boats' design was good. It just wasn't good for winning the German side of WWII. Germany bit off more than they could chew and died of indigestion. Had Britain not contributed to this the Russians wrote the ending to that tale anyway.

What's going on here? I've returned to the subject after nearly hijacking my own thread. Cool! Who could have thought such a great thread would happen from one half-baked post. I'm going to shut up again and read some more incredible posts! Is SUBSIM a great place or what!

[Storabrun]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Even if they did ensure it, many, many, boneheaded moves after that continued to hand victory to the Allies. All of you have established that beyond doubt.

I don't know if you mean it, but I get the impression that you think that Germany would have won the war if no misstakes were ever made. Or that the war was shortened alot by German misstakes. But the thing is the war wasn't short at all.
The combined might of the Soviet Union, USA and Brittain was simply overpowering Germany. If the Germans were boneheads I think we would have seen a very short war

In my opinion the entry of USA into the war pretty much made a German victory impossible. But I find it hard to place pearl harbour into the category of German misstakes. The declaration of war and paukenschlag probably was though. Without that it could have been pretty hard for Roosevelt to get americans to accept the idea of "germany first". The war with Brittain was a waste of time and resources. I agree completely with you on that one. But it can only be called a misstake if it really was possible to avoid. With Churchill it wasn't possible IMO.

[Joe S]

The initial post in this thread caught my eye, but I do not have the time to read all of the intevening posts. Here is my response off the top of my head:
1) There was nothing wrong with the design of the U-boats. They were simple and effective weapons. maybe not as sophisticated as the Gato but still a dangerous weapon in the hands of a skilled and determined crew.
2) When the u-boats had the technical advantage, before radar and long range air patrols, they did not have enough boats to deliver a decisive blow.
3) the Germans refused to believe that Enigma could be broken dispite considerable evidence to the contrary. A major mistake in the u-boat war.
4) The germans refused to believe that radar could be sucessfully deployed on a ship or airplane and in fact halted thier own development of ship and airborne radar and refused to believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary that the allied had it until the allies had a considerable lead on them.
5) The rivalry between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe impaired the German use of aircraft as scouts for u-boats and as cover for u-boats. Germany never developed an aircraft carrier which resulting in the allies having uncontesed control of the air over the atlantic and the coast of occupied Europe.
6) The Kriegsmarine was never able to challenge the allies on the sea thereby conceding to the allies control of the air and the surface of the ocean. the U-boat was the Germans only effective naval weapon of the war.

There you have it, the main reasons why the U-boat wasnt more effective, many of which are tied to major mistakes made by the Germans themselver:
1) not having enough boats in the days before air cover and radar,
2) not having the technology to match allied radar
3 not realizing their enigma code had been broken
4 Not being able to contest allied air patrols.

Take away radar or neutralize it, eliminate the codebreaking problem, and reduce the allied air cover and the u-boats could have been a lot more effective in the later days of the war. Just my opinion, fwiw. Joe S

[scrag]

Who thought the world would be made merrier
first victumize the defenseless
then see things that others couldn't
speaking like a king and acting like thief
by taking most of Europe in a week
Oops comes Stalin - pretty much the same cept uglier
the 2 bullies end up in a fight leaving the Brits up all night
to figure a way to get the US to fight
then enter the Japanese who think they are no ones fool
deciding to pummel a sleeping giant with their naval might
Wow Adolf thinks these Asian guys might be alright
'Cept now Uncle Joe is pissed as he has to kiss butt on a different political front
Give us your crap so I can fight - or at least survive till you guys decide it is alright
Land in Europe already, I am holding an idiot by the nose,
So you Anglos can kick him in the butt - we might just think you don't suck
Suddenly a guy named Benito is swinging from a pole - the Italians don't like all this Axis footware so decide to switch sides overnight
Now Hitler thinks his party is still fun
Cept there are loaded guns coming from both sides this time
Now Tojo thinks - this is really no fun
particularly when the land of the rising sun gets 2 new bright suns of their own...
Okay not a good rhyme but what ever.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Joe S

5) The rivalry between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe impaired the German use of aircraft as scouts for u-boats and as cover for u-boats. Germany never developed an aircraft carrier which resulting in the allies having uncontesed control of the air over the atlantic and the coast of occupied Europe.

Moot point, since the Germans didn't really have capable aircraft for carrier operations, outside of the Ju 87. Think the 109 could be tricky to land on the rough, improvised airstrips of the Eastern Front? Would have been far worse trying to land it on a carrier.

[Rockin Robbins]

I don't think the Germans could have kept one or five aircraft carriers alive anyway. They would have only been further wastes of resources, sending giant swastikas to the bottom of the sea! They would have made the Bismark play second fiddle in the swastika contest.

[Torplexed]

A Kriegsmarine carrier fleet would have been quite the white elephant indeed. The Germans also had plans to convert a cruiser (Sedlyitz) and some liners (Potsdam, Europa, and Gneisenau) into carriers. All came to naught and that was probably for the best given the drain on shipbuilding in Germany anyway. Thanks to the Great War, the Kreigsmarine had some officers with experience in surface warfare and that war went badly in the end. When it came to newfangled carrier tactics they probably would have been out of their depth.

An aircraft carrier is only as good as it's aircraft. Part of what made the USN and Japan the premier naval aviation powerhouses they were, was the fact that their aircraft had been designed from the wheels up to operate from a carrier. As mentioned the Bf-109 and Ju-87 were just hurried substitutes.

The weapons for delivery were also very important. The Japanese had the best aerial torpedo of the war, while oddly, the US aerial torpedo was a failure for most of the war. Luckily, for the US the magnificent Dauntless dive bombers made up for this. Training of the aircrews was also critical. Göring with his single minded-determination to control everything that flew would have created a command disaster for the Germans. The Japanese and USN created separate air arms within their respective services and the training was entirely different.