U-Boats cost Germany WWII!

[Rockin Robbins]

In another thread comparing SH3 and SH4 I raised the irrelevent question of how different U-Boats were than American submarines. So I decided to start a new thread to discuss design and use of both types of subs.

Much has been made of the similarity of German strategy in the Atlantik and American stategy in the Pacific. They were both unrestricted warfare upon the shipping of the enemy nation with the intent of denying them supplies necessary to prosecute the war. So why the difference in outcome?

The German U-Boat was a badly designed vessel, used in an inappropriate manner which actually guaranteed total defeat for Germany. The American fleet submarine, while not built for the purpose and strategy with which it was used, fit its use perfectly.

Let's look at the German side first. Fundamentally, the greatest flaw in the dominant Type VII U-Boat design was that it was too small and did not carry sufficient firepower to make a difference when acting alone. Carrying only 14 torpedoes, some of which were carried on the exterior of the hull, against a 20 ship convoy, they were urinating on a forest fire. Even during the best times, the U-Boat fleet had only a few months where they destroyed more shipping than the Allies built. The battle of the Atlantik was a war of attrition and the U-Boat fleet didn't have the firepower to destroy quicker than the Allies built their fleets. It was only a matter of time before they were overwhelmed, even by inferior equipment. They were doomed by design.

Then there are fatal flaws in the German strategy, borne of the critical difference between Japan and Britain. Japan stood alone, with few supplies of her own and depended on her own merchant fleet to bring war supplies to the home island. Total submarine warfare sank the merchies, denying Japan supplies to produce ships, planes and weapons. The result was victory in the Pacific.

However, Germany's war against Britain was only superficially similar. The differences made unrestricted submarine warfare a foolish proposition. British supplies came not on British bottoms but on neutral ships as well. In order to starve the enemy, Germany had no choice but to sink American merchants. But America was not subject to starvation by U-Boat strangulation. Once American war production ramped up, even with poor defenses against U-Boat attacks, ships were being built faster than the U-Boats could ever sink them. The war was over, even though it took a few years for Germany to acknowledge the fact.

Using U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, then, was a colossal blunder, wasting valuable resources which could have been used to produce planes, tanks, weapons....you know, actually useful war materials! Coupled with the equally idiotic Battle of Britain, Germany could only choose to die then or later. The war was unwinnable.

Notice that I said nothing about Enigma machine follies or the incessant radio chat that doomed thousands of German sailors. They were just sidelights of the essential flaw.

Just think if after Dunkirk Goering had made a special broadcast: "To our comrades across the Channel. We have allowed your army to escape Dunkirk because we have no quarrel with our friends in England. We realize you had unfortunate obligations due to your treaties with European countries, but those obligations are now satisfied. Germany has realized her aims. It now lies to us to reform a new world in our own image, leading civilization on to the greatness that only we working together can achieve." No U-Boat unrestricted warfare. No Battle of Britain. No Americans in the war. I'd say Germany would have won. U-Boats lost the war.

Let's go to Japan! America did not merely copy German submarine strategy. First, they determined that it was appropriate to the situation and could result in victory. Japanese war materiel was entirely made in Japan from supplies shipped there on Japanese bottoms. Therefore, sinking Japanese merchants would deprive Japan of the ability to continue the war. American submarines were supplied with 24 torpedoes apiece, enough to justify the long transit times to and from reloading, and giving each submarine enough punch to remain on station for a telling amount of time, delivering significant blows to keep ahead of Japanese production. This minimized the need for excessive radio chat. In fact American boats acting in wolfpacks still did not use the radio very much. They knew the results of radio direction finding. And this appropriate use of a weapon which fit its theater of operations perfectly resulted in victory for the Allies in the Pacific.

So there you go! Pop out those "so many ways" that I am wrong.

The following has been a reasoned troll to generate discussion, not animosity. I hope we can have fun with this, not fight.

[AVGWarhawk]

All I can say for both theaters, it was no simply victory.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think the U-boat was necessarily a flawed design. I think bureaucracy was the fatal flaw in the U-boat arm. The U-boat was designed with the war it had to fight in mind. Smaller size wasn't a downfall as the Atlantic theatre was smaller than the Pacific. They didn't need to be as big as fleet boats. Especially once the U-boat bases on the coast of France were established.

If Doenitz had the numbers he asked for in the beginning of the war, they would have certainly been able to put more of a stranglehold on Britain. You can blame Hitler's obession with battleships and the misallocation of resources towards surface ships and the Graf Zeppelin project, when they could have been used to build up the U-boat fleet to the critical mass needed in order to completely encircle Britain.

There's certainly a lot of decisions that were made that bring up a lot of "if's". If Hitler hadn't been so obssessed with keeping boats out of the action defending the coasts of Norway against an invasion that never came, and sending them on suicide missions through the Med trying to help Rommel, they would have been able to focus on the Atlantic where they needed to be. If the development of the Type XXI was given the priority it deserved instead of being relegated to the back burner once the war was "won", they would have had that asset available. If the schnorkel had been installed in boats prior to 1943, it would have helped tremendously. If the Germans had realized the importance of radar (going back to your point about the Battle of Britain...one of the major blunders of the Luftwaffe was not taking out British radar installations which gave the RAF early warning enough to scramble during air raids), they would have certainly made more progress in that arena as well. It's not like the technology was unknown to them, it's just that they didn't know how to use it.

[Reinhard Hardegen]

In 1942 6 u-boats almost stoped the convoys up and down the east coast of the united states. If Hitler would have let more boats into the US waters then all shipping would have come to a crawl and the UK would have had to drop out of the war. No D-day, no one to come to the aid of the allies in the war.

In just 8 months U-boats had almost won the war in the US waters. If they had the 20 - 30 boats there, it would have been a differant war.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Just think if after Dunkirk Goering had made a special broadcast: "To our comrades across the Channel. We have allowed your army to escape Dunkirk because we have no quarrel with our friends in England. We realize you had unfortunate obligations due to your treaties with European countries, but those obligations are now satisfied. Germany has realized her aims. It now lies to us to reform a new world in our own image, leading civilization on to the greatness that only we working together can achieve."

Well, the first problem with that scenario is that it supposedly actually happened. The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance. The British Ambassador, Sir David Kelly, reportedly replied "We're not easily frightened. Also, we know how hard it is for an army to cross the channel. Last little corporal who tried came a cropper. So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! And even then we won't listen."

At least that's the way Battle Of Britain tells it.:rotfl:

I'll have to find it in a book to verify, but until then...

[Ducimus]

Somebody's just itchin' for some debatin'. :rotfl:

my 2 cents worth:

1.) Code breaking, and not knowing it had been broken
2.) Lack of advances in electronic warfare


And on that note, im GLAD they lost, and good riddence! You'll never find me saying, "well, if uboats had done this or that theyd have won the war!" as if cheering for ones favorite football team. In discussions such as these, i think its important to keep ones perspective on reality.

[Donner]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

And on that note, im GLAD they lost, and good riddence! You'll never find me saying, "well, if uboats had done this or that theyd have won the war!" as if cheering for ones favorite football team. In discussions such as these, i think its important to keep ones perspective on reality.

What he said!

I consider the men of the U-bootwaffe heroic. I have been fortunate enough to make friendships with several U-boat Ritterkreuzträger commanders as well as ordinary seamen, torpedomen, and machinists. I have discussed their experiences with them at length and I am in awe at their bravery. They are all very kind gentlemen and they have been helpful in my research and patient with my many questions. They have and will continue to have my utmost respect.

But having said that, I am also thankful that they lost.

[cmdrk]

Atlantic Theater:
Allied cost in shipping, escorts, and planes - $17 billion
German cost in subs - $2.7 billion

Cost ratio 6 to 1

Pacific Theater:
Japanese cost in warships and merchants - $18 billion
US cost in subs - $873 million ($0.873 billion)

Cost ratio 20 to 1

Note:
Atlantic cost is for sunk merchants and cost of escorts/planes used during the battle. The sunk merchant tonnage cost was about $6.2 billion. The Allies spent $14 billion to replace then increase total merchant tonnage.

The Japanese cost is based on Dollar to Yen exchange base on the cost per ton to build a destroyer in the respective countries ($1.8 per Yen). The costs are from warship and merchant tonnage sunk, plus cost of escorts built.

Per info from Cmdr. M. Poirier's analysis at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...campaigns.html

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

U-boats lost the war? No, sir I disagree. Yes, you have many valid points which I agree with but WW2 was not a one-dimensional war. Hitler's mismanagement and the attrition rate when up against the USSR and USA. I think his greatest blunder was war with the soviets. They hand a non-aggression pact signed up. The Ost Front War bled Germany dry. If Japan had agreed to attack the Russians when Hitler invaded the East in 1941 things may have been different. I have no respect for nazis. My father was with the RAF and things he saw made him fight on. I just wish he had sent a u-boat to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.

I'm just glad the allies knocked the stuffing out of the bad guys.

[Rockin Robbins]

But the U-Boats sinking merchie convoys off the US coast meant nothing. That shipping was a lifeline to nobody. And once us not so quick-witted Americans learned to turn off lighthouses, stop broadcasting directional signals in the form of peacetime radio stations and in general to behave as if we were in a war The situation changed.

The US was no island that could be hurt meaningfully by U-Boats and any thought that greater U-Boat success would have changed the war is just fantasy. Admiral Danial Gallery demonstrates that at their greatest time of sinking Allied shipping, they were losing because the Allies built more tonnage than unhindered U-Boats could send to the bottom. Sinking Atlantic merchants did nothing to stifle the production of Allied weaponry, as sinking Japanese shipping in the Pacific did. They were swatting an ostrich with a fly swatter. It only made the ostrich mad.

They Type XXI would only have forced the Allied ASW plotters to draw bigger circles. Once the hole in the middle of the Atlantic was plugged, the U-Boats had nowhere to hide from the planes of the ubiquitous jeep carrier hunter-killer groups.

No change in the nature of a weapon that lost the war just by virtue of using it could have resulted in a German victory. The order to commence unrestricted submarine warfare was the order to hand victory to the Allies. Once carried out, nothing could have changed the outcome. Each submarine built meant fewer tanks, trucks, planes, bombs, bullets, the list is much longer of the materials that were sacrificed to build submarines. How would building more submarines of any type help?

Germany should have only used submarines for coastal defense and action against bona fide military targets. They should have left Britain alone totally aside from the necessity of politely nudging them from the continent.

The German Ambassador in Switzerland approached the British Ambassador and offered to make peace. When rebuffed, he pointed out that the British didn't have a chance.

That is very different from the scenario I laid out. In reality the German ambassador said, "You might as well quit now. It will be much worse for you if you keep fighting." That is a threat. I laid out a promise, with no threat implied. The British would have accepted that even if they had to throw Churchill overboard to do it. After all, they did make him walk the plank immediately after the war.

[cmdrk]

Originally Posted by DavyJonesFootlocker

U-boats lost the war? No, sir I disagree. Yes, you have many valid points which I agree with but WW2 was not a one-dimensional war. Hitler's mismanagement and the attrition rate when up against the USSR and USA. I think his greatest blunder was war with the soviets. They hand a non-aggression pact signed up. If the nazis had stuck with it long enough there would've been a longer war if not victory for the enemy. The Ost Front War bled Germany dry. If Japan had agreed to attack the Russians when Hitler invaded the East in 1941 things may have been different.

But the Japanese were too busy in China at the time.

The Russian campaign was ill conceived and the German aim was too broad.

Concerning the Uboat war, Germany's effort caused the Allies to expend a considerable amount to counter. But, that would not work as the Allies had considerable more resources and production.

The only way I think the Uboat war could have worked was if Donitz had 100+ combat subs at the start. They were never really too far ahead of the curve as both sides ramped up their efforts.

[Ducimus]

Generally speaking, i don't think the men of the uboat arm were bad, just their cause was. Which, to play on words, wasn't just. Thats one of the beautiful things about the pacific, the cause was just.


But, to get back on topic some. The effect of code breaking and radar can't be emphasized enough, in both theaters acutally.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

No, not the case of Japan was busy with China. Japan had a squirmish with Russia and they got their butts kicked real bad. They sure didn't want that again and were wary of a war with Russia.

[joea]

Originally Posted by DavyJonesFootlocker

U-boats lost the war? No, sir I disagree. Yes, you have many valid points which I agree with but WW2 was not a one-dimensional war. Hitler's mismanagement and the attrition rate when up against the USSR and USA. I think his greatest blunder was war with the soviets. They hand a non-aggression pact signed up. The Ost Front War bled Germany dry. If Japan had agreed to attack the Russians when Hitler invaded the East in 1941 things may have been different. I have no respect for nazis. My father was with the RAF and things he saw made him fight on. I just wish he had sent a u-boat to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.

I'm just glad the allies knocked the stuffing out of the bad guys.

Yup, the figure thrown around is 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front. True not 80% of u-boots sunk, but Germany put most of its resources into the Heer (and the Luftwaffe) not the Kriegsmarine.

[mookiemookie]

Ducimus is right, and I missed that point in my earlier post. Codebreaking and radio intercepts were also a major downfall for the U-boat arm. After all, what is a submarine when you take away it's greatest asset, which is stealth?

But I still disagree with RR. After Dunkirk in mid-1940, the Germans had Britain on it's heels. They had effectively confined them to the home isles and had free reign of France. A lot of people will say that Germany declaring war on the US was a mistake, but I disagree. If they had enough U-boats to cordon off Britain, they certainly could have declared war on the US and sunk every supply ship that was sent over. If you want to blame anyone for losing the war, I'd say blame the Luftwaffe. They came very close to knocking the RAF out of commission and clearing the way for Operation Seelowe. They switched tactics at the end to bombing civillian targets in order to break the will of the people. If they had continued focusing on military targets like airfields, ports and radar installations, they would have had air superiority and could have attacked at will. All the Allied ships in the world wouldn't have helped if there were no ports left to receive them.

It certainly would have cleared the way for an invasion of Britain, which would have been no easy fight, but it would have had the effect of taking away the staging point for D-Day. They had enough problems getting an invasion force across the English Channel....there's no way they could have done it across the Atlantic Ocean, especially if Doenitz had the numbers of U-boats he wanted. With a Type XXI prowling the seas at this point, (let's call it late '41/early '42 for arguments sake) the air gap would have been a non-issue. And by removing the escort carrier issue, you effectively remove the U.S.'s production advantages. Who cares if they can put a million planes in the sky if they can't find your U-boats, of which you have significant numbers to sink any supply ships that attempt to reach Britain?

By consolidating gains in the West, you deny the US a staging ground for any meaningful assault on Germany and certainly could be in a very strong bargaining position. All because you used U-boats in the way they should have been used and in the critical mass needed to make a difference.