Jump to content
Ace_04

What if the Kriegsmarine had a full U-Boat fleet to start the war?

108 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,435
[-K-]
Members
5,261 posts
9,099 battles

Just curious......how differently do you think the Battle of the Atlantic would have been if Germany's Kriegsmarine had a 300-strong U-Boat fleet at its disposal at the outbreak of WWII?  It's no secret that the subs had a spectacular level of success for the first part of the war considering their limited numbers.  Would Donitz have had enough time to starve Britain into submission before the U-Boat war turned sour?

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,563 posts
9,982 battles

Or perhaps the urgency would have pushed the allies to invent countermeasures such as depth charges and sonar earlier in the war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,191 battles
43 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Or perhaps the urgency would have pushed the allies to invent countermeasures such as depth charges and sonar earlier in the war.  

They would certainly have had the motivation, as Donitz wreaked havoc with the little he had until about early 1944. With a full load out, the only issues I see him as having would be docks to service all those boats, which the Germans never really did get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
933 posts
2,815 battles
29 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Or perhaps the urgency would have pushed the allies to invent countermeasures such as depth charges and sonar earlier in the war.  

ASDIC (Sonar) was invented in the late 20's and every British destroyer, and most cruisers had a set fitted in 1939.  Depth charges had been around since mid WW 1 (about late 1915) and steadily improved.  The Y gun and K gun had been invented and were in use. 

Y gun.  Most navies stopped using it because it took up too much deck space:

WAMUS_Y-gun_pic.jpg

The K gun.  This is the US version that uses black powder to fire it

kgun_4.jpg

The British version is hydraulic and retains the mounting for the depth charge when fired to conserve steel

743438.jpg

As for U-boats, I doubt the Germans could have built 300, and certainly would have had to reduce production of something else if they tried to do that.  So, what do they give up to build more U-boats?  Also, what types would these be?  More Type VII's?  This is the most common boat in 1939.  There are just 8 Type IX A U-boats in service in September 1939.

As for defeating Britain with them?  Not a chance.  U-boats are spoilers.  They are for conducting a guerre de course.  They're modern day pirate ships or merchant raiders.  They can't exert sea control, they can just try to deny free use to the enemy.  If the submarine, as it was in WW 2, was a navy's main weapon of choice, as it was for Germany, it's really an admission that you've lost any hope of winning a war at sea.

For example, more ship sinkings for Britain means they alter their behavior.  They increase the number of escorts to protect the remaining ships.  They choose different routes to move them by.  They increase other ASW assets like aircraft.  They put more money and effort into countering U-boats.

The US having suffered a lot of sinkings off the Eastern seaboard in 1942, chose to build a pipeline between Pennsylvania and Texas to move oil rather than ship it by sea as they previously did.  This was finished by 1944, and it effectively would have ended U-boat sinkings of tankers hauling oil along the US East Coast simply because they'd no longer be needed.  This is the sort of behavioral changes that occur.

More U-boats = More ASW and alternatives to them by their opponent.

U-boats won't win a war with Britain for Germany... PERIOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
12 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

ASDIC (Sonar) was invented in the late 20's and every British destroyer, and most cruisers had a set fitted in 1939.  Depth charges had been around since mid WW 1 (about late 1915) and steadily improved.  The Y gun and K gun had been invented and were in use. 

Y gun.  Most navies stopped using it because it took up too much deck space:

WAMUS_Y-gun_pic.jpg

The K gun.  This is the US version that uses black powder to fire it

kgun_4.jpg

The British version is hydraulic and retains the mounting for the depth charge when fired to conserve steel

743438.jpg

As for U-boats, I doubt the Germans could have built 300, and certainly would have had to reduce production of something else if they tried to do that.  So, what do they give up to build more U-boats?  Also, what types would these be?  More Type VII's?  This is the most common boat in 1939.  There are just 8 Type IX A U-boats in service in September 1939.

As for defeating Britain with them?  Not a chance.  U-boats are spoilers.  They are for conducting a guerre de course.  They're modern day pirate ships or merchant raiders.  They can't exert sea control, they can just try to deny free use to the enemy.  If the submarine, as it was in WW 2, was a navy's main weapon of choice, as it was for Germany, it's really an admission that you've lost any hope of winning a war at sea.

For example, more ship sinkings for Britain means they alter their behavior.  They increase the number of escorts to protect the remaining ships.  They choose different routes to move them by.  They increase other ASW assets like aircraft.  They put more money and effort into countering U-boats.

The US having suffered a lot of sinkings off the Eastern seaboard in 1942, chose to build a pipeline between Pennsylvania and Texas to move oil rather than ship it by sea as they previously did.  This was finished by 1944, and it effectively would have ended U-boat sinkings of tankers hauling oil along the US East Coast simply because they'd no longer be needed.  This is the sort of behavioral changes that occur.

More U-boats = More ASW and alternatives to them by their opponent.

U-boats won't win a war with Britain for Germany... PERIOD.

Especially if Germany sacrificed their Battleship program to get those U-boats, Allied Naval doctrine would be radically different against a surface fleet that had no teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,195
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,806 posts
10,310 battles

I think it would have been extremely problematic for the UK, and I disagree with @Murotsu's conclusion that the U-boat arm (or wider Kriegsmarine) couldn't have had a major impact or forced the UK out of the war entirely given a very different set of circumstances. The points on ASDIC, depth charges being pre-war inventions are spot on, and in-war developments would be useful but not as fundamental as those.

The obvious example would be the crippling effect inflicted on the Japanese by the US submarine campaign in the Pacific, and although the RN are light-years ahead of the IJN in ASW competency but were still very badly stretched, short of escorts and suffered heavy merchant tonnage losses early-mid war. The UK needed not only to import strategic materials including oil, a significant proportion of food, lumber, metals, but wholesale weapons. They also needed to pay for things which exports were not an inconsiderable part of. 

The difficulties for the RN would hinge on 'how quickly can you build up new ships and new aircraft to go submarine hunting if you have a massive deficit?' The RN was light on escorts even when confronted by the 57 U-boats at the start of the war and equipped with a fleet of >150 destroyers plus various sloops. The RN's fundamental appreciation was that Fleet Destroyer + ASDIC was a wonder-weapon for ASW and would sweep the seas, they were effective but not that good.

 

On the plus side for the RN, U-boats don't grow on trees. The pre-war Type VII builds for instance typically took 11-16 months to complete from keel laid to commissioning. Following commissioning the boat would typically spend 2-3 months working up in the Baltic with the U-boat training Flottille based there.

That means these 300+ submarines don't spring into existence overnight.

In addition the Germans laid down only 39 U-boats in 1939, that's with war imminent and then broken out. It took time for them to ramp-up production. About 140 boats in 1940, and about 200 in 1941.

Therefore even at peak war production levels producing 300 U-boats would require laying down hulls over 18 months or so, and getting the last of your 300 boats into service about 33 months after you started the crash program - coming on 3 years.

 

 

In terms of escort building, there's mixed news. Once up to speed the Flower class corvettes were being churned out in a little as 6-9 months, but the problems of ramping production also hold true. The pre-war escorts the RN built were typically higher-end and took longer, 18 months for a Black Swan class sloop, 10-15 months for a Hunt class Destroyer, 18+ months for a 'Fleet' destroyer, even a War-Emergency Program one, 2 years for a pre-war ship. If you try and stick with a high-quality response you may be out-built rather rapidly.

 

Given long enough the Allies (or Britain) can probably produce sufficient escorts to make up the shortfall, but you always need more escorts than attackers, U-boats are cost-effective builds and even a short (6-month to 1 year) window where the escorts are overwhelmed could be fatal. If the 57 initial U-boats could sink 200-300,000t of shipping per month in the first year or so of war, unless they were countered the losses inflicted by 300 U-boats would be proportionally greater (though likely not 5x greater). Exactly how well the Allies could counter a greatly expanded U-boat fleet if they were 'caught cold' is unknown. I don't think they spent long periods thinking 'this is fine, let's not bother with Enigma, HF/DF, RDF, Corvette's, LRE, Support Group tactics, the 1-ton depth charge, Hedgehog, Fido etc. etc.' and may have been running at close to full capacity.

 

2 hours ago, Sventex said:

Especially if Germany sacrificed their Battleship program to get those U-boats, Allied Naval doctrine would be radically different against a surface fleet that had no teeth.

Sacrificing battleships for U-boats might have been a good move. Building 4 battleships when the British have 15 does leave you somewhat compromised, especially as most of those battleships pre-date yours and you're playing catch-up but still losing.

However, the various industrial capacities may not overlap as much as you think, especially pre-war. Building battleships may not preclude building submarines and vice-versa, unless on purely budgetary grounds.

Although with a reduced KM surface fleet the RN could probably re-direct their resources, some simply have low utility for ASW. For instance the old R and QE class battleships could forestall an attack by Scharhorst/Gneisenau at sea (as happened more than once) but could give almost no ASW protection - unless they emulate HMS Dreadnought (whose one combat action was to ram a U-boat).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,563 posts
9,982 battles
3 hours ago, Murotsu said:

ASDIC (Sonar) was invented in the late 20's and every British destroyer, and most cruisers had a set fitted in 1939.  Depth charges had been around since mid WW 1 (about late 1915) and steadily improved.  The Y gun and K gun had been invented and were in use. 

Y gun.  Most navies stopped using it because it took up too much deck space:

WAMUS_Y-gun_pic.jpg

The K gun.  This is the US version that uses black powder to fire it

kgun_4.jpg

The British version is hydraulic and retains the mounting for the depth charge when fired to conserve steel

743438.jpg

As for U-boats, I doubt the Germans could have built 300, and certainly would have had to reduce production of something else if they tried to do that.  So, what do they give up to build more U-boats?  Also, what types would these be?  More Type VII's?  This is the most common boat in 1939.  There are just 8 Type IX A U-boats in service in September 1939.

As for defeating Britain with them?  Not a chance.  U-boats are spoilers.  They are for conducting a guerre de course.  They're modern day pirate ships or merchant raiders.  They can't exert sea control, they can just try to deny free use to the enemy.  If the submarine, as it was in WW 2, was a navy's main weapon of choice, as it was for Germany, it's really an admission that you've lost any hope of winning a war at sea.

For example, more ship sinkings for Britain means they alter their behavior.  They increase the number of escorts to protect the remaining ships.  They choose different routes to move them by.  They increase other ASW assets like aircraft.  They put more money and effort into countering U-boats.

The US having suffered a lot of sinkings off the Eastern seaboard in 1942, chose to build a pipeline between Pennsylvania and Texas to move oil rather than ship it by sea as they previously did.  This was finished by 1944, and it effectively would have ended U-boat sinkings of tankers hauling oil along the US East Coast simply because they'd no longer be needed.  This is the sort of behavioral changes that occur.

More U-boats = More ASW and alternatives to them by their opponent.

U-boats won't win a war with Britain for Germany... PERIOD.

 

Here's a great article n the subject. Much of what you said above. http://www.uboataces.com/boa-uboat-end.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[HYDRO]
Members
1,559 posts
3,751 battles

If the situation had gotten too critical for Britain, there is always the possibility that the US would enter the war sooner. Especially with 300 U-Boats around, a serious event of an attack on US ships would be probable if you take into account the unrestricted sub warfare doctrine going on at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[PIZZA]
Supertester
918 posts
18,496 battles

I don't believe for a minute that additional u-boats would have accomplished much other than more commercial shipping being sunk.  The U.S. was building commercial ships faster than Germany could sink them.  We would have started sooner if needed.  The allies pushed for technology against the sub threat and after Black May of 43, the Atlantic war was pretty much over.  Had Germany started with more subs, i think we would have seen Black May in 42 or sooner.  More subs would have simply meant more technology and more commercial ships sooner.  Hitler, no matter what Doenitz tried to convince him of, would not start upgrading subs until it was too late.  More U-boats at the start only means more U-Boats at the bottom of the ocean and more lives lost on both sides.

Edited by BaronVonTom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
933 posts
2,815 battles

There has never been in all of history a guerre de course sea campaign of merchant raiding by an inferior naval power in the face of a superior one that resulted in the superior naval power being brought to the negotiating table to end a conflict.  No matter how much more damage having more U-boats would have done... and this largely depends on what type(s) are being built... it wouldn't have crippled Britain sufficiently to bring them to the peace table on its own.

Now, if the boats were primarily Type VII, this is even more true as these boats couldn't venture out more than about mid- Atlantic in area.  That means British / Commonwealth shipping anywhere but within say maybe 800 miles of Britain is relatively safe as there would be few U-boats that could attack that shipping.  As I pointed out, Germany started the war with just 8 Type IX boats capable of roaming the Atlantic or going to distant stations.

Then there's the question of what Germany would do in terms of scope of action.  If the Germans right off decided to make most or all of the Atlantic open season for their boats they'd have been facing an enormous backlash from neutral nations, particularly the US.  That might get earlier US involvement in the war directly.  That's a lose for Germany.

Historically, Germany started out with a rather small area that was declared unrestricted for U-boats directly around Britain.  The British were pretty much able to negate that strategy by a combination of convoying, eliminating convoy movement in some areas, like the Channel, by increasing aircraft patrols, or by only moving coastal convoys in daylight.  The German response was to open up more ocean, in this case the Eastern half of the Atlantic, to unrestricted submarine warfare.  That got the US's initial involvement.

Moving this further out into the Atlantic got the US escorting convoys to a "MOMP," (Mid-Ocean Meeting Point) where British escort ships took over.  This in effect instantly doubled the number of available British ASW vessels as they were now making only half a trip in the Atlantic.

Merchant raiding, like I said is a spoiler.  It has never been decisive in a war on its own.  US submarines alone in the Pacific weren't going to defeat Japan any more than German ones would defeat Britain in the Atlantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles

The U-Boat campaign really did not work out for the Germans in WWI, even though at the time, the U-boats were like wunderwaffe, with the Royal Navy not really understanding submarines despite having some in their fleet. 

"...the very best among us fail to realise the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish!" - "Jacky" Fisher

The Germans simply could not sink enough shipping to "starve" Britain out, even while the RN did not know how to effectively counter them.  And this campaign did push Brazil into war with Germany and was pushing America closer to war.  Even Japanese Destroyers were sent into the Mediterranean to hunt down Austro-Hungarian submarines.  So even with this advantage, I don't Germany in WWII would manage much better with a RN now savvy to ASW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,200 posts
8,961 battles
On 4/30/2018 at 11:40 AM, STINKWEED_ said:

Or perhaps the urgency would have pushed the allies to invent countermeasures such as depth charges and sonar earlier in the war.  

Such counter measures took time to create, test, and put into use. That is the reason why later in the war allies had far more advanced equipment and sub hunting techniques is because it simply took that long to develop them.

If Germany had started the war with the full U-Boat force that they needed they likely would have been successful in starving out Great Britain. Karl Dönitz knew Germany needed larger U-Boat fleet at the start of the war, but had to make do with insufficient numbers of U-Boats until it was too late for them to save Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
1 hour ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Such counter measures took time to create, test, and put into use. That is the reason why later in the war allies had far more advanced equipment and sub hunting techniques is because it simply took that long to develop them.

If Germany had started the war with the full U-Boat force that they needed they likely would have been successful in starving out Great Britain. Karl Dönitz knew Germany needed larger U-Boat fleet at the start of the war, but had to make do with insufficient numbers of U-Boats until it was too late for them to save Germany.

"starving" Britain would be a little extreme.  As this scientific study shows, the British could subsistence on locally produced food that was properly rationed and still remain fighting fit.  However, there is the possibly that internal corruption could occur, with the wealthy taking a larger share and the poor being left the starve, but that is pure speculation.

 

"In 1940, the British government rationed bacon, butter and sugar, just as the team finished their trial. Their report and its conclusion – that Britain could stay fighting fit even if all food imports were lost – was circulated to government departments. But the study was kept secret until after the war. As more foods were rationed, the experiment provided assurance that home front health was secure. Had the conclusion been different, Britain may have had to decide whether to distribute the limited food equitably – and suffer the consequences of widely degraded health – or give more food to workers most important to the war effort. Elsie and Mac's experiment showed this horrible reckoning was not necessary: Britain could afford to be fair and still be fighting fit." - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/sep/24/fighting-fit-britain-second-world-war

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[LSKF]
Members
10 posts
314 battles

I think the majority of replies to this thread focus too much on the home front. Take the British Evacuation from Dunkirk at the outset of the war. If the Germans had the submarine capacity to outfit for sea even 100 U-Boats, not the 300 Donitz requested, then the more massive evacuation ships would have been torpedoed, dealing major blows to the British and Free French militaries. However, as I stated earlier, we are focusing a lot on the home front in this thread. If we ignore starving Britain out for a second, the materials of war were being provided by the Americans via the Lend-Lease act. If that 300 strong U-Boat arm was fully operational, then the destruction of those materials would have been accelerated at the outset of the war, making the war immensely more difficult for the British. Lack of war materials at the war's outset means that Britain would not have had the ability to fight back a German invasion, should it have come immediately after the invasion of France. At any rate, there certainly would not have been sufficient raw materials to keep the Royal Air Force and the Army's Anti-Aircraft guns running, nor the oil supplies from British Colonies at the outset to keep the ships of the navy and the planes of the RAF available. As such, it is my firm belief that the Germans would have had sufficient advantage at the beginning of the war to have conqoured Britain easily due to the lack of raw materials, as I further believe that  counter-measures would not have been developed fast enough to reverse the teutonic advance of the German Military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
50 minutes ago, CaptLincoln said:

Lack of war materials at the war's outset means that Britain would not have had the ability to fight back a German invasion, should it have come immediately after the invasion of France.

That's where you lost me.  Even with all the subs, the British would have beaten the Germans like a drum if they ever attempted Sealion.  The British were already making preparations for low cost weapons that would be adequate for the defence of the islands.  These emergency weapons were not needed because of the Dunkirk miracle, but even cut off from supplies, the Luftwaffe could not afford the losses they sustained in the Battle of Britain, and the Germans never had the transport capacity to attempt invasion, even if every one of those 300 subs carried a squad of soldiers on them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,200 posts
8,961 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

"starving" Britain would be a little extreme.  As this scientific study shows, the British could subsistence on locally produced food that was properly rationed and still remain fighting fit.  However, there is the possibly that internal corruption could occur, with the wealthy taking a larger share and the poor being left the starve, but that is pure speculation.

 

"In 1940, the British government rationed bacon, butter and sugar, just as the team finished their trial. Their report and its conclusion – that Britain could stay fighting fit even if all food imports were lost – was circulated to government departments. But the study was kept secret until after the war. As more foods were rationed, the experiment provided assurance that home front health was secure. Had the conclusion been different, Britain may have had to decide whether to distribute the limited food equitably – and suffer the consequences of widely degraded health – or give more food to workers most important to the war effort. Elsie and Mac's experiment showed this horrible reckoning was not necessary: Britain could afford to be fair and still be fighting fit." - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/sep/24/fighting-fit-britain-second-world-war

There is more than one type of starvation, they might be able to grow food, but what about fuel or manufactured good made from materials not in England?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,195
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,806 posts
10,310 battles
1 hour ago, CaptLincoln said:

Take the British Evacuation from Dunkirk at the outset of the war. If the Germans had the submarine capacity to outfit for sea even 100 U-Boats, not the 300 Donitz requested, then the more massive evacuation ships would have been torpedoed, dealing major blows to the British and Free French militaries.

Well, with about 80 U-boats in June 1940 the Kreigsmarine only sank 1 destroyer at Dunkirk with them, out of 9 Allied destroyers lost in total. Destroyers were among the bigger ships used in the evacuation. Air was the major threat. Even increasing the U-boat arm considerably expanded it's hard to say it would have made much difference to the successful evacuation of 340,000 men.

That's of course assuming that the British just sat there in the years up to WWII and said 'oh the Germans are building a lot more U-boats than we thought? better do nothing about that'.

The British had come to the 'Anglo-German Naval Agreement' with Germany in 1935 which limited German U-boat strength to 45% of their own. Had that been breached or not agreed (even if it were feasible to build more/faster) then there should have been a re-armament response.

2 hours ago, Sventex said:

"starving" Britain would be a little extreme. 

Likely true.

The context though is that not only is protein needed, but all sorts of war materiel, from the mundane to the exotic, from fabricated US goods to fuel oil for the RN, avgas for the RAF etc. It's not enough to not-starve, there are quite a few angry Germans 20 miles away in France at the time.

On 4/30/2018 at 5:41 PM, Murotsu said:

There has never been in all of history a guerre de course sea campaign of merchant raiding by an inferior naval power in the face of a superior one that resulted in the superior naval power being brought to the negotiating table to end a conflict.

True.

On the other hand, it was a potential risk in WWI and WWII and the number of conflicts where there have been significant forces on each side, and a world of radio communications, long range submarines, import dependence etc. is pretty limited. WWII was also the first time nuclear weapons were deployed, that it hadn't been done before didn't stop that for instance.

If you look at Japan, they may not have surrendered but if you'd put Britain in Japan's 1945 condition in say 1941 I'm not sure if they'd hold on. Having no fuel, a starving population, critical shortages of everything is one thing when the USA is mostly on the other side of the Pacific and you believe your Emperor is a God and another when it's 21 miles to the Luftwaffe in Calais, and WC 's merely a good orator.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
933 posts
2,815 battles
2 hours ago, CaptLincoln said:

I think the majority of replies to this thread focus too much on the home front. Take the British Evacuation from Dunkirk at the outset of the war. If the Germans had the submarine capacity to outfit for sea even 100 U-Boats, not the 300 Donitz requested, then the more massive evacuation ships would have been torpedoed, dealing major blows to the British and Free French militaries. 

You might want to revise this.  U-boats sank exactly one destroyer and several merchant ships during the evacuation.  U-boat losses for the period were 8 including:

U 1, U 49, U 50 and U 64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
13 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

There is more than one type of starvation, they might be able to grow food, but what about fuel or manufactured good made from materials not in England?

Germany was starved of those materials, it still took a Russian army to storm Berlin to get them to capitulate.  Japan was under severe austerity and massive resource shortages along with a crippling oil embargo from the US and USN subs sinking their oil tankers from Borneo.  Even with many major cities firebombed, they still hung on.  It was still contentious if even the atomic bombs would have been enough given the attempted coup of the Emperor that happened.  Seeing how these two countries hung on while being starved of resources, I'm certain Britain would would have held on admirably, Churchill does not strike me as a weak-willed individual.  While the British War Machine would start slowing down, the US's entry into the war would have put it running again by smashing up the U-Boat fleet.  Britain only needs to buy time.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,562 posts
6,867 battles
On 4/30/2018 at 1:30 PM, Murotsu said:

U-boats won't win a war with Britain for Germany... PERIOD.

You're begging the question, or engaging in a straw man argument, with "could U-boats have won the war?" Of course not, but they could have, and did, go a long way towards contributing towards a winnable war against Britain, and for this reason Churchill stated that, "the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril."  You are arguing against his appreciation of things. I'll go with Winston.

By the same logic you can raise the issue of the Allied bombing campaign's claim to be able to "win the war" on Germany on it's own. Bomber Harris was wrong, and a war criminal to boot as it turned out. War is a synergy of multitudinous elements, none of which remotely likely to win it on it's own.

The Type XXI U-boat could have been produced earlier and in greater numbers (only two were produced but it was being constructed since 1943). This Uboat could outrun many surface ships submerged and could fire 18 torpedoes in 20 minutes. Churchill was right to be apprehensive about this threat. That they accomplished so much with so little proves it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
46 minutes ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

The Type XXI U-boat could have been produced earlier and in greater numbers (only two were produced but it was being constructed since 1943). This Uboat could outrun many surface ships submerged and could fire 18 torpedoes in 20 minutes. Churchill was right to be apprehensive about this threat. That they accomplished so much with so little proves it.

The US atomic bomb could have been produced earlier and in greater numbers.  Giving nations super weapons earlier and in larger numbers just further detaches the scenario from reality.  Whenever a nation tried to rush development of a super-weapon, it almost always ends badly.  The Type XXI was one such weapon, wikipedia makes this only too clear:

"Between 1943 and 1945, 118 boats were assembled by Blohm & Voss of Hamburg, AG Weser of Bremen, and Schichau-Werke of Danzig. Each hull was constructed from eight prefabricated sections with final assembly at the shipyards. This new method could have resulted in construction time of less than six months per vessel, but in practice all the assembled U-boats were plagued with severe quality problems that required extensive post-production work to rectify. One of the reasons for these shortcomings was that sections were made by companies having little experience with shipbuilding, after a decision by Albert Speer. As a result, of 118 Type XXIs constructed, only four were fit for combat before the Second World War ended in Europe. Of these, only two conducted combat patrols and neither sank any Allied ships."

If they rushed the development of this sub even further, it'd be an even greater catastrophe as these lemons would be sent into sea and probably sink themselves.  Anyone ever watch the movie K-19 The Widowmaker?  I'd imagine a similar situation if they tried to develop and build the sub years ahead of it's time.  They didn't really know how to build the things in 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,562 posts
6,867 battles
3 minutes ago, Sventex said:

If they rushed the development of this sub even further, it'd be an even greater catastrophe as these lemons would be sent into sea and probably sink themselves.  Anyone ever watch the movie K-19 The Widowmaker?  I'd imagine a similar situation if they tried to develop and build the sub years ahead of it's time.  They didn't really know how to build the things in 1944.

Well you missed my point didn't you? nm. You're begging the question again and I've lost interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
3 minutes ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

Well you missed my point didn't you? nm. You're begging the question again and I've lost interest.

Your right, I think I missed the point of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×