PDA

View Full Version : Debate: Cherry-picking



Stingray-65
07-01-2006, 03:19 PM
Something I wondered about relating to tonnage: Would "cherry-picking" be considered a valid tactic? I mean, if your job is to cut supplies off to England & you sink only the biggest merchant ships on your patrol, wouldn't you be depriving them of even more supplies than you would've had you sunk every merchant (tug, small merchant, etc.) you come across?

Or should there be a time factor to consider into the equation? In other words, get out there & sink as many ships as possible, RTB to resupply & get back out there ASAP! (repeat process).

You obviously can't sink them all, so why worry with the small fry? It seems to me you would want to "hit where it hurts the most".

I dunno... I'm tired & thought it might be something interesting & good to discuss.

KaleunFreddie
07-01-2006, 03:55 PM
As far as I can remember, this is what they did. the smaller ships were just 'left-overs'..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kaleun1961
07-01-2006, 04:03 PM
The idea was to sink as much enemy shipping as efficiently as possible. One torpedo has the potential to sink a great amount of tonnage. By this I mean, the torpedo that sinks a 1,000 ton vessel might also sink a 10,000 ton vessel. By targeting the bigger vessels they would get more bang for the buck. It is also easier to hit bigger vessels due to the fact that the margin of error for a longer vessel is less than the margin of error for a shorter vessel. It is quite possible to have to use more torpedoes to sink a smaller vessel just due to the fact that it is harder to hit!

Donitz knew it was suicide to send U-boats after the Allied vessels supporting the Normandy landings, but he did the calculations and reckoned that the loss of a U-boat to sink a transport full of equipment and troops would save more German lives in the end if those troops and equipment were prevented from landing.

Stingray-65
07-01-2006, 04:33 PM
Ahhh Rgrt. Excellent historic example.

Goose_Green
07-01-2006, 04:39 PM
It's a long shot and I maybe way off, but I guess Operation Drumbeat was a form of cherry picking. They did go after the huge amount of shipping in the form of tankers, the Allies were heavily dependant on the tanker traffic from New Orleans & Galverston and central America before the United States started moving the oil via piplines from Texas to the North Atlantic ports off America such as New York etc.

Personally, from the point of view for the game itself I have always gone after the big targets such as Tankers and anything else that was worth "more bang for buck" as K61 mentioned.

HW3
07-01-2006, 04:39 PM
In real life the u-boat commander had no idea when, or if, the next ship would cross his path. If he had a small ship in good position, he could not afford to pass the shot up. Now a convoy attack was a different story somewhat. They would shoot at the biggest targets they could reasonably target.

turnip_tick
07-03-2006, 03:26 PM
another thing to consider is that the convoys were trying to ship as much material as possible in the most eficient way possible. that meant large ships. if you sink the large ones, empty or otherwise, then the enemy cant use it any more. sooner or later the loss of the large ships will mean that they need to start using smaller ships. historically that means logistics problems. if it takes a gaggle of coastal merchants to move the same load as one C3 then the supply line is slowed down. some cargo wouldn't be able to be moved at all. the idea was to make as large an impact on the allies war effort as possible, not just in terms of lost cargo but also in the logistics, and loss much more valuable ships (value in terms of cost...bullets and bombs cost money, and in terms of steel...tanks need steel, and in terms of shipwrights....if joe blow is building a replacement C3, then he aint building a new BB)

hueywolf123
07-03-2006, 03:35 PM
If I remember rightly, My grandparents used to tell me of the rationing that took place in England, This started almost straight away because it was expected that Germany would try to strangle the British economically, kind of a seige. This went a long way to helping them, as when things did get tight, the populace were used to it, and stocks did not completely dwindle away. It must be said, however, that it did get very close for a time and if Hitler had given Doenitz his way, the U-boat arm probably would have succeded.
Example, the Type XXI prototype was tested in 1939 (with the hydrogen engine) and measured at a speed of 32kts submerged. Hitler would not divert any funds to this - but just imagine the consequences if it had gone ahead

WilhelmSchulz.
07-03-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Goose_Green:
It's a long shot and I maybe way off, but I guess Operation Drumbeat was a form of cherry picking. They did go after the huge amount of shipping in the form of tankers, the Allies were heavily dependant on the tanker traffic from New Orleans & Galverston and central America before the United States started moving the oil via piplines from Texas to the North Atlantic ports off America such as New York etc.

Personally, from the point of view for the game itself I have always gone after the big targets such as Tankers and anything else that was worth "more bang for buck" as K61 mentioned. Well actuly they went after all ships. It was just alot of tankers had to pass up and down the east coast.

turnip_tick
07-03-2006, 03:41 PM
wow potentially unlimited fuel supply and the ability to out run most of the surface ships while staying hidden. imagine a wolf pack of them.

hueywolf123
07-03-2006, 03:44 PM
Yep, a good read, go to U-boat net and look up types or technologies. It's in one of them, a longish read but makes you think about all that lost potential
I stand corrected, it was 28kts in 1940
Walter Turbine (http://uboat.net/types/v80.htm)
If they'd waited a couple more years before hitting out, imagine...

turnip_tick
07-03-2006, 05:35 PM
i am imagining. if they used a hydrogen engine and if it were perfect then we would all be driving hydrogen cars, and phoenix would be a rain forest and mississippi would be under water from all the car exhaust

hueywolf123
07-03-2006, 05:57 PM
The walter turbine was hydrogen fuelled, but considered quite unstable. There is way too much money in crude oil for the government of any country to allow this technology to succeed overnight, better profit to leave it out till all else has dried up. Or will the greenhouse debate win out first?
Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to create, therefore you must ask, 'what is the least wastefull to produce?'

turnip_tick
07-03-2006, 06:15 PM
it takes a lot of energy now. but the first gas engines werent very efficient either. electric carrs from 20 yrs ago werent any better. the first step is to build it then perfect it.
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm

it wouldnt have been over night but after 60 yrs with a working model...

hueywolf123
07-03-2006, 06:48 PM
Well we are now using hydrogen fuel cell technology.This is because hydrogen engines require heaps of space, not available in cars but available in ships.
It seems to have taken this long to reduce size, but this is the same for everything, i mean it took 40 or more years before valves were replaced by transistors

Stingray-65
07-05-2006, 11:45 AM
For those of you that don't know (probably Americans) "valves" (in the above statement) are the same as "tubes", not the valves in your engine. Kinda like "spanner" & "wrench" are the same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif