How effective were U-boats during WWII?

[P_Funk]

Really if you want to learn about the U-Boat war you can't read one book or look at one site. Every book is different and has different information along with a different take on it as well as a particular bias. I've read 3 different book which covers the war in the Atlantic and each was different and each had different informative value. The only way to learn is to read.

As Winston Churchill said: "Read History! Read History!"

I started with Lothar Gunther Buchheim's "U-Boat War" and followedit up with "The Battle of the Atlantic" by Andrew Williams. Both are quite good books which cover the war. Buchheim's covers the personal side of what it's like to live in a sub and the latter is more of an overview which gives insight into the goings on on both sides of the war and all the action in the middle. I recommend both.

[clive bradbury]

Absolutely - read history! Careful how you read it, though, especially with Blair. Good books in parts but he has a strong anti-British agenda throughout - partly due to lack of understanding of the British mindset as he views everything from an American perspective.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Sarge McSarge

It all depends on how you look at the stats.

There was not 43,526 ships but 43,526 individual voyages. Was this 45 ships each doing every one of 953 convoys or 90 ships doing 476 convoys?? 272 does not look so bad when you look at it this way. If the sinking percentage was 1% per voyage then 10 voyages puts your odds up to 10%

A better way of looking at it is to look at the percentage of capacity sunk.
The total allied merchant shipping tonnage available in the Atlantic and Med was about 67 million tons. This includes about 38 million tons constructed during the war as well as what existed at the start. The U boats sunk about 14.5 million tons so it is closer to 25% of total and about half of what was available at the start of the war.




Sarge

The 272 ships lost out of 43,526 tries is pretty good - for the Allies. For example, it means you had a better chance (overall) of crossing the Atlantic in the face of the U-boat peril from Sept. '42 through May '45 than you would have surviving a flight on the Space Shuttle tomorrow.

From a practical standpoint, it meant the Allies had enough transport capacity (however much they lost of their pre-war capacity) to get enough troops and supplies to England to feed, clothe, and house the local population, support an extensive bombing campaign, significant naval operations, and support offensive ground operations in Italy and Western Europe.

I would have to say that the Battle of the North Atlantic was primarily won by the Allies when they won the intelligence war, since it allowed them to figure out where the U-boats were and move convoys around them while moving hunter-killer groups and aircraft to them. They didn't win the war by sinking U-boats (although that helped) - they won by neutralizing them. If the convoy gets through unscathed, the U-boat has been neutralized - whether because the convoy dodged around them, the destroyers or patrol aircraft knew where the u-boat were and so forced them to dive so they couldn't get into firing position. Either way, the Allies win.

Pablo

[XXi]

I remember A book concerning the Battle of Atlantic that mentioned one of the reasons Doenitz simply couldn`t win - in 1942 there were quite many months when U Boats were sinking 700,000 BRT or more. Meanwhile, though, American shipyards were able to lay down up to 1,500,000 BRT monthly. As a result, in late 1943 all merchant loses since the beginning of the war were actually replaced by brand new, large vessels.

Not to forget what all other people here said, of course. The tonnage wasn`t the only factor.

Sometimes I wonder, how Doenitz could think that it is possible to sink the tonnage with the means that were available ? Cutting off the North Atlantic vein could be much more effective.
I presume - but so far it`s just my point of wiev - that perhaps he saw it from WW I perspective, when Germany almoust won the war against Britain due to massive tonnage loses and the American presence in te Atlantic was not that important. So, he though rather about the same way of winning the war, the way that couldn`t work 20 years later.

[Shadow9216]

Funny thing about the great failures of history- the "what if's?" - is that no one ever considers the winning side. What if Britain had adapted its tactics earlier? What if Coastal Command received most of the Liberators rather than Bomber Command? What if The night surface tactics of WWI had been studied more carefully by the Royal Navy- or even Doenitz's book, describing his theories, which was available prewar?

Sure, if Germany had done several things different, they may have reached their goal...but perhaps that would have forced a dramatic rethinking of British strategy. Maybe they would have reacted differently...maybe the US would've intervened, instead of waiting. Who knows?

[Gunfighter34]

I think the German strategy could have worked, but they had a short window of opportunity to get the job done, which lasted maybe through early 1942. They simply didn't have enough boats at the start of the war to make a knockout blow, and it's remarkable that they did as well as they did.

To be fair to the Germans, while everyone knew that America's industrial might was massive, I don't think anyone (including us) foresaw just how incredible a force we would be. One Liberty ship, the Robert E. Peary, was completed in about five days, and we built over 2,500 Liberty-class transports alone! We produced over 80,000 Sherman tank chassis. We turned out staggering numbers of P38s, P40s, P47s, P51s, etc.

So really, the Germans were fighting a losing battle. Had they not invaded Russia in '41 they might have stood a better chance, but they spread themselves too thin and then had to add to their troubles an America whose productivity was increasing on average 40% a year from 1942-45.

[blueparrott]

I think the point of the discussion of alternate tactics is always for the losing side and very seldom for the winning is very true.
I suppose it is natural to think like that since that presents the greatest possibility for a different outcome. It's more intersting to see what Germany would have done differently and won instead of thinking what the allies could have done differently...and won a little bit earlier. I guess it's just the way we are wired. The underdog is always more interesting.

As for industrial caacity I can only say that I think the US capacity is staggering. It was quite an achievement.
Just ponder for a moment Germany in this regard. Over a 1,000 submarines constructed, the bulk of which in the war years.
I a large number of varieties.
Also when it comes to aircraft...33,000 Bf 109s were produced in the space of ten years in, I belive ten different variants. And thay was only one aircraft type of many. Had Germany focused industrial capacity on the good stuff...

Looking at the production figures and comparing them with today is very interesting(even though that comparison isn't very fair.) no matter what country.

[Zie Chuckinator]

Originally Posted by Gunfighter34

I think the German strategy could have worked, but they had a short window of opportunity to get the job done, which lasted maybe through early 1942. They simply didn't have enough boats at the start of the war to make a knockout blow, and it's remarkable that they did as well as they did.

To be fair to the Germans, while everyone knew that America's industrial might was massive, I don't think anyone (including us) foresaw just how incredible a force we would be. One Liberty ship, the Robert E. Peary, was completed in about five days, and we built over 2,500 Liberty-class transports alone! We produced over 80,000 Sherman tank chassis. We turned out staggering numbers of P38s, P40s, P47s, P51s, etc.

So really, the Germans were fighting a losing battle. Had they not invaded Russia in '41 they might have stood a better chance, but they spread themselves too thin and then had to add to their troubles an America whose productivity was increasing on average 40% a year from 1942-45.

God bless america... and no where else! lol jk.

[Ula Jolly]

Reckon I heard somewhere that in 1942 or so, the American navy's expense budget for production of escort vessels, namely destroyers, was the size of an entire peace-time naval budget. Can't confirm it, but I don't think it's very untrue. America came late, but boy did she come. (punpunpun)

[Sarge McSarge]

I remember a quote from someone in the Germay military early in the war and it went something like this
"We (Germay armed forces) can beat any country in the world but we can't beat every country" and in the end that was what it came down too. British stubborness, US manufacturing, Russian attrition. If Germany had put all its resources into a one front war the result would have been a lot different. Hitlers main target was Russia but without taking Poland attacking Russia would have been too hard. An attack through the Czechoslovakia , Hugary, Romania route would have been a logistical nightmare and impossible to conceal so Poland was necessary but of course that brought in France, Britian and the British Commonwealth countries. They should have just stayed at home and built the country up into an enconomic giant and then they could have bought any thing they wanted. Of course that line if thought does not appeal to megalomaniacs.

Sarge

[pampanito]

Originally Posted by blueparrott

Just ponder for a moment Germany in this regard...33,000 Bf 109s were produced in the space of ten years in, I belive ten different variants. And thay was only one aircraft type of many. Had Germany focused industrial capacity on the good stuff...

Yet numbers alone are not a proof of success. This huge output of Bf109s is a good example. By the end of 1942 the Bf109 was no longer a match for some Allied fighters, but the daily replacement needs of the front-line squadrons were so enormous, that Germany could simply not afford to stop or drastically reduce its Bf109 production, in favour of more advanced models. The same was true for tanks, it would have been wonderful for the Germans to equip all their armoured divisions just with Tiger and Panther, but this would imply a drastic descent of overall tank production until the factory lines were changed, so a lot of Mark IVs were still being produced in the last year of the war.
Japan faced exactly the same problem, they already had fighter planes much better than the Zero in 1944, but production could not be massively re-directed because the huge front losses had to be satisfied.

USA and the USSR had not this problem, they had enough production capacity to keep producing the needed replacements, and also for putting the more advanced weapons into line.
Some people still believe that plane for plane or tank for tank, Germany always had the upper hand, and that she was just defeated by superior numbers. That's simply not the case; in 1945 the USSR had in service tanks like the JS-1 better that anything the Panzer divisions could field, and the American P-51s were able to shot-down any plane the Luftwaffe could put in the air. And don't believe the Me-262 could have won the war by itself...

[P_Funk]

I think that the biggest "what ifs?" are:

1. What if Hitler had waited until 1945 to start his conquest when the German Navy alleged that it would have been ready?

2. What if Doenitz had been given the resources he had required at the very beginning of the war?

3. What if Goering hadn't been such a prat and had shared his air power with the U-boats (this would be hand in hand with #2)?

4. (here's a really fun one) What if Churchill had not returned to take command?

Realistically the war, as far as the U-Boats were concerned, needed to be won in the first 2 years or never at all. Their only hope after their early failures was the types XXI and XXIII boats and they came too late.

[pampanito]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I think that the biggest "what ifs?" are:

1. What if Hitler had waited until 1945 to start his conquest when the German Navy alleged that it would have been ready?

2. What if Doenitz had been given the resources he had required at the very beginning of the war?

3. What if Goering hadn't been such a prat and had shared his air power with the U-boats (this would be hand in hand with #2)?

4. (here's a really fun one) What if Churchill had not returned to take command?

Realistically the war, as far as the U-Boats were concerned, needed to be won in the first 2 years or never at all. Their only hope after their early failures was the types XXI and XXIII boats and they came too late.

But...
1. What if by 1945 the ugly truth of what was happening inside Germany had leaked to the outside world, and everyone knew what to expect from Germany and started rearming too?

2. What if the Royal Navy was given the needed resources and was not short of frigates and escort destroyers? Or if only USA had listened to British experience and had started a through convoy system along its Eastern coast and in the Caribbean as soon as war was declared?

3. What if Goering's Luftwaffe fared no better over the Atlantic that it did over Britain against the RAF? What if Allied long-range fighters had been deployed to Iceland, Ireland, Gibraltar, Madeira etc to shoot-down any recce plane Goering could send over the Atlantic?

4. What if Eisenhower had been designated CinC, Atlantic Air and Sea Forces?

As you see, 'what if...' are truly endless, and every one of them can trigger a lot more... :hmm:

[Nopileo]

Well according to a large number of scientists, there are infinite numbers of paralell universes, where the results of every possible decision/event exists. Makes your head spin, eh?

But seriously, what if the leaders of the world discovered that most conflicts could be solved diplomatically, much like the trend is these days? No SH3 would exist then! :hmm:

[Gorduz]

My biggest what if is:
What if Hitler had gone straight for USSR instead of helping the italians with Jugoslavia? This prosponed Opration Barbarossa several month's. Without that detour, the wehrmacht would have reached moscov in 1941. I wonder how that wound have worked out...