SIDE OF WINNERS

[CCIP]

The really easy answer to that is, read all of them I think they all have a bit to offer, and Blair is still a very important source - I respect his research, just not the conclusions he'd made. I don't mean to disrespect either him or Werner, but I have a lot of trouble taking either of them without a grain of salt.

One of my favourite reads lately have been Michael Gannon's books on the U-boat war ("Black May" and "Operation Drumbeat"). And as far as books for general knowledge, there's a lot of really good stuff here: http://www.uboat.net/books/index.html/new_readers.html

The other great thing is that thanks to sites like uboat.net, these days you have access to an impressive amount of raw historical records. Even just reading through those can be really informative, which I've done a lot of (both for modding work and research, and just for fun).

[Zosimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The argument comes from your claim that Britain and France started the war and Germany was apparently just an innocent victim. Yes, Germany got screwed at Versailles in 1919, but it's also true that Germany was the aggressor in 1914 as well, steamrolling through Belgium to get at France. The French also wanted that war, because they felt they had been cheated over Alsace and Lorraine. Britain promised to stay neutral in 1914 if Germany would guarantee Belgium's neutrality. Instead they chose to violate it, just as they did in 1939.

Please link me to the post in which I said that Britain and France started the war whereas Germany was just an innocent victim.

[Sailor Steve]

My apologies. I confused you with the other guy. It happens when you argue with two people at once.

[Raptor_Pilot]

I did read an interesting book called 'Midway of the Atlantic' it was about the battle for convoy ONS 5, and it also had a good analysis of the evolution of convoys, asdic, and aircraft antisubmarine operations.
It was a darned good book, but I can't seem to find it on the google.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by CCIP

The really easy answer to that is, read all of them I think they all have a bit to offer, and Blair is still a very important source - I respect his research, just not the conclusions he'd made. I don't mean to disrespect either him or Werner, but I have a lot of trouble taking either of them without a grain of salt.

One of my favourite reads lately have been Michael Gannon's books on the U-boat war ("Black May" and "Operation Drumbeat"). And as far as books for general knowledge, there's a lot of really good stuff here: http://www.uboat.net/books/index.html/new_readers.html

The other great thing is that thanks to sites like uboat.net, these days you have access to an impressive amount of raw historical records. Even just reading through those can be really informative, which I've done a lot of (both for modding work and research, and just for fun).

Thank you.

uboat.net really has a mixed bag: everything from Van Der Wat to Werner to Buchheim. A novice would need to read quite a few of the references there or he could come away with a rather distorted view. The primary source reports are, as you say, the most illuminating.

I confess that I don't see nearly so much of the bias in Blair that you do. Early war, he seems to emphasize the scrupulously ethical behavior of many of the U-boat skippers. But then, I tend to agree with John D. Campbell: "I prefer to read authors whose work reinforces my own historical prejudices."

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

I tend to agree with John D. Campbell: "I prefer to read authors whose work reinforces my own historical prejudices."

Historical prejudices are contrary to justice, thus contrary to peace.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

Historical prejudices are contrary to justice, thus contrary to peace.

It's a joke, my man!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

It's a joke, my man!

Or, as a friend of mine once said, the definition of Genius: Someone who agrees with you.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Or, as a friend of mine once said, the definition of Genius: Someone who agrees with you.

Brilliant, Steve, Simply brilliant!

[jorgegonzalito]

This debate has perhaps gone a little branch directly to the historical and political implications of submarine campaigns of World War II, but it has been a great deal of teachings about which I have taken due note. My original approach is based more than anything in the law of mathematical probabilities, focus most preferred not to mention -especially enthusiasts German U-boats- but the statistics are there and make a clear difference. A good player is to have the odds in your favor, 70% German submarines lost against 16% of Americans, it is a strong contrast to figures given for reflection. It goes without saying which likely attracts me, because as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Besides that I like well equipped American submarines, large, comfortable and informal and refreshingly sympathetic me seemed to be in war US Navy.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by jorgegonzalito

This debate has perhaps gone a little branch directly to the historical and political implications of submarine campaigns of World War II, but it has been a great deal of teachings about which I have taken due note. My original approach is based more than anything in the law of mathematical probabilities, focus most preferred not to mention -especially enthusiasts German U-boats- but the statistics are there and make a clear difference. A good player is to have the odds in your favor, 70% German submarines lost against 16% of Americans, it is a strong contrast to figures given for reflection. It goes without saying which likely attracts me, because as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Besides that I like well equipped American submarines, large, comfortable and informal and refreshingly sympathetic me seemed to be in war US Navy.

If only SH4 received the modding support which has made SH3 the wonderfully immersive and adaptable experience it is now. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes the ideal gaming experience for them, and the vast set of SH3 mods allows each of us to tailor the game to our tastes. SH4 not so much.

[CCIP]

And yet again, I want to remind that in Silent Hunter games, one plays the commander of a submarine, not the sub itself - usually geared towards the more successful ones, at that. While it's undeniable that U-boats had it a bit tougher by the end, among commanders, particularly the more successful ones, the casualties were not all that high. In fact, out of the top 10 U-boat commanders, only one died on patrol during the war (Prien) - out of the top 10 US submarine commanders, that number was two (Morton and Dealey). The number of U-boat combat losses is about 11-12 times higher than US combat losses, but the number of patrols made by U-boats is some 5 times greater, so again, the difference is not as huge as it initially looks. What's more, because so many of the U-boat losses are concentrated in the last 25 months of the war, it's actually statistically true that serving on a U-boat between 1939 and early 1943 was actually "safer" than on a US submarine at any point in the war. So there's something about mathematics - conclusions from stats, as with everything, also very much depend on the perspective you take on them.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by CCIP

And yet again, I want to remind that in Silent Hunter games, one plays the commander of a submarine, not the sub itself - usually geared towards the more successful ones, at that. While it's undeniable that U-boats had it a bit tougher by the end, among commanders, particularly the more successful ones, the casualties were not all that high. In fact, out of the top 10 U-boat commanders, only one died on patrol during the war (Prien) - out of the top 10 US submarine commanders, that number was two (Morton and Dealey). The number of U-boat combat losses is about 11-12 times higher than US combat losses, but the number of patrols made by U-boats is some 5 times greater, so again, the difference is not as huge as it initially looks. What's more, because so many of the U-boat losses are concentrated in the last 25 months of the war, it's actually statistically true that serving on a U-boat between 1939 and early 1943 was actually "safer" than on a US submarine at any point in the war. So there's something about mathematics - conclusions from stats, as with everything, also very much depend on the perspective you take on them.

Interesting analysis. Did you factor in the duration of patrols? One would anticipate that the USN boats spent more time at sea and more time on station than their KM counterparts. If so, we could expect per-patrol statistics to be somewhat skewed compared to losses per patrol day. And an even greater difference would be expected if we looked at losses per day on station in a combat zone, although the transit zone was likely far more dangerous for the German boats. (I'm just speculating here. I certainly haven't done the research you have.)

[CCIP]

Well, you'd expect that, but actually from what I've seen the opposite was true - US submarines were designed for patrols of 45-60 days and I can't recall any examples of patrols that went much longer than that. U-boats were designed for 30-45 days on patrol at the outset, but in wartime often far exceeded this by necessity and had beaten pretty much all records. By 1942 I would say the average patrol length for a U-boat exceeded that of US submarines. It's not unusual to find even Type VII patrols of longer than 90 days in '42-43. This is partly because US submarines cruised at higher speeds over long distance, and partly because there wasn't the same necessity to push the patrol times.

And yes, more U-boats were lost in transit than in patrol zones, by quite a long shot actually - in part because patrol zones were deliberately set in air gaps and other relative "safe zones". This was yet another reason why patrols were longer - they had to stretch their endurance to get to hunting grounds, and to avoid having to run the gauntlet into open sea more than they needed to. US submarines didn't need to stretch their operating range that much, and didn't have much to risk by returning to base regularly - it actually simplified logistics and kept the subs and crews in much better fighting shape.

One of the really big differences between the U-boats and US submarines: the U-boats were purpose-built for a very specific role, with only slightly more than the bare minimum capabilities needed to fulfill that role. The US submarines were not built for the role they ended up performing at all, but they were much more technologically advanced and versatile, with lots of room to grow in their capabilities. The German U-boats basically spent the course of the war squeezing out every drop of performance they could from the limited capabilities they had. The US boats in the Pacific, conversely, grew in capability and performance proportionally as the war went on. Both are very interesting challenges from a game perspective. It's like learning to drive a brand new car to go on a road trip you've never been on, vs. fine-tuning an old (German-made) car to its limits for winning in a high-stakes rally!

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Well, you'd expect that, but actually from what I've seen the opposite was true - US submarines were designed for patrols of 45-60 days and I can't recall any examples of patrols that went much longer than that. U-boats were designed for 30-45 days on patrol at the outset, but in wartime often far exceeded this by necessity and had beaten pretty much all records. By 1942 I would say the average patrol length for a U-boat exceeded that of US submarines. It's not unusual to find even Type VII patrols of longer than 90 days in '42-43. This is partly because US submarines cruised at higher speeds over long distance, and partly because there wasn't the same necessity to push the patrol times.

And yes, more U-boats were lost in transit than in patrol zones, by quite a long shot actually - in part because patrol zones were deliberately set in air gaps and other relative "safe zones". This was yet another reason why patrols were longer - they had to stretch their endurance to get to hunting grounds, and to avoid having to run the gauntlet into open sea more than they needed to. US submarines didn't need to stretch their operating range that much, and didn't have much to risk by returning to base regularly - it actually simplified logistics and kept the subs and crews in much better fighting shape.

One of the really big differences between the U-boats and US submarines: the U-boats were purpose-built for a very specific role, with only slightly more than the bare minimum capabilities needed to fulfill that role. The US submarines were not built for the role they ended up performing at all, but they were much more technologically advanced and versatile, with lots of room to grow in their capabilities. The German U-boats basically spent the course of the war squeezing out every drop of performance they could from the limited capabilities they had. The US boats in the Pacific, conversely, grew in capability and performance proportionally as the war went on. Both are very interesting challenges from a game perspective. It's like learning to drive a brand new car to go on a road trip you've never been on, vs. fine-tuning an old (German-made) car to its limits for winning in a high-stakes rally!

Thanks for sharing your analysis.

"Veddy interesting!"