PDA

View Full Version : German U-Boats VS. The World



Giantsfan24
03-11-2005, 06:28 PM
I am not even CLOSE too 95 percent of the people on this board in regardsa to knowledge of U-Boats but why did germany seam to have such a monopoly of them especially in the early war? Did other countries not see them as valuble as Germany did? One has to wonder if germany had not attacked Russia and Japan did not attack us, what would have happened.
Thanks

lysergic
03-11-2005, 06:41 PM
Well, in the early years, germans had no real and powerful naval army. No cruiser or destroyer that could face allied navy. (or just some ones) So submarine was a solution...

Giantsfan24
03-11-2005, 07:22 PM
Wow I honestly didn't know that. Kinda funny, wasn't the British navy the best in the world? And the German was the best in underwater navy? Wow, the battles must have been crazy(understatement of the day).

Paul_K
03-11-2005, 07:53 PM
Germany didn't have a monopoly in submarines...all the major naval powers had them. What differed was who they went to war with and how much that adversary relied on free passage at sea. The two prime examples are Britain and Japan, both island nations and both heavily dependent on protected sea lanes to import the requisites of war...fuel, food, weapons, raw materials etc. Those sea lanes were therefore an obvious target, for the U-bouats in the case of Britain, and the United States Navy boats in the case of Japan.

However, in WW2 the British navy could not have done the same to Germany, simply because Germany was a land power, not a maritime one. The vast bulk of her imported raw materials came overland on railways from the east. For example, while Britains oil and petrol came in tankers across the Atlantic and were prime U-Boat targets, much of Germany's oil and petrol came by train over land from Romania.

As for Japan, she is a country almost bereft of natural resuources. With the exception of meagre coal seams, all her energy needs are imported by sea, and so it was in 1940. Again, it was an obvious measure to direct submarines campaign against these imports. In contrast to the Battle of the Atlantic, US submarines never faced concerted escort and hunter-killer groups the way the Kreigsmarine did.

Nevertheless, the USN boats achieved what was required of them...they virtually destroyed Japan's merchant marine in toto, and her ability to import all the essential materials she needed to prosecute the war.

Delfin1941
03-11-2005, 10:17 PM
Well Britain has a huge Fleet of ships and another fleet of merchant vessels with whom it made trade overseas. (Much of Britain's food, much of the raw materials and all of the Oil had to be imported from overseas..)

Germany could not go against the British fleet face to face (Britain was a true naval power, Germany was not) but the solution was to build submarines and use them to destroy Britain's lifeline of merchant vessels. (this almost worked and crippeled Britain).

Also Germans were experts in perfectioning the Submarine.. I believe in 1911 the first Periscope for a submarine was built..
Until 1945 Germany was the World's leader in Submarines and country that had most experience and tradition with them.

Poacher886a
03-11-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


Also Germans were experts in perfectioning the Submarine.. I believe in 1911 the first Periscope for a submarine was built..
Until 1945 Germany was the World's leader in Submarines and country that had most experience and tradition with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could'nt be further wrong!
Britian invented the submarine, and the first powered submarine,so clearly had more experience.
It also had one of the largest submarine fleet's in the world,way more than Germany.
It's subs were more advanced than germany's and had lots more classes,including commerce raider's with twin turret's etc.

You forget that the first main sub wars were those of WW1,after Germany's loss of this restriction's were placed on both country and war machine while other's continued to develope their's.
Only during WW2,where Germany had a need for U-boats,and country's like Britian did not so much,did Germany overtake in term's of tech and number's,though Britian still built a further 167 sub's!

Mashiki_a
03-11-2005, 10:43 PM
Don't forget it's easier to hide a U-boat in a closed pen, then it is to hide a destroyer, cruiser or battleship in drydock. Hitler was in violation of treaty before WWII by rearming. So hiding planes, U-Boats, manufactuing plants, etc, were just as important. It also made it less likely that the Western powers would march to war against him...if they couldn't find the weapons, giving him time to continue building his army in secret and then later in not so secret facilities.

Once it became too late...well it didn't matter then.

U-312.Berger
03-12-2005, 12:20 AM
If Germany had concentrate on england and not Russia,then i belive the war has ended werry fast.(sorry bad typig)

Poacher886a
03-12-2005, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-312.Berger:
If Germany had concentrate on england and not Russia,then i belive the war has ended werry fast.(sorry bad typig) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did in 1940 when we stood alone against all the axis and lost!
Then we got are **** together and kicked him out of Africa! the turning point of the war.

Had he not invaded Russia the war would have taken alot longer though.

Delfin1941
03-12-2005, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Poacher886:
Britian invented the submarine, and the first powered submarine,so clearly had more experience.
It also had one of the largest submarine fleet's in the world,way more than Germany.
It's subs were more advanced than germany's and had lots more classes,including commerce raider's with twin turret's etc.

You forget that the first main sub wars were those of WW1,after Germany's loss of this restriction's were placed on both country and war machine while other's continued to develope their's.
Only during WW2,where Germany had a need for U-boats,and country's like Britian did not so much,did Germany overtake in term's of tech and number's,though Britian still built a further 167 sub's! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we go that far, we can say that Leonardo Da Vinci invented the 'first submarine', or that they existed in 'Atlantis' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Britain's submarine arm played a pretty minor role in ww2, compared to what you make it sound...
USA has greater submarine tradition then England, even Russia since 1945 does.
England has had a century of failure in torpeado design.
(Recently Canada purchased submarines from england which leaked water and sparked an electric fire that killed and injured some sailors). England is a ship country, not a submarine country.
So on a list of the most significant submarine users in ww2, Britain comes after Germany, USA, Japan, Italy but ahead of Russia.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Dominicrigg
03-12-2005, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Delfin1941:
Britain's submarine arm played a pretty minor role in ww2, compared to what you make it sound... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong its just understated because of the immense success of the surface fleet. Check into sub history you will see for the few targets they had (they faced armed enemies) they had success second only to Germany.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
USA has greater submarine tradition then England, even Russia since 1945 does.
England has had a century of failure in torpeado design.
(Recently Canada purchased submarines from england which leaked water and sparked an electric fire that killed and injured some sailors). England is a ship country, not a submarine country. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch!! Check into your history Britains Torps were the best in the world, not bad for a Navy which put subs at the bottom of the pile in terms of importance. Also the "rubbish sub which leaked" you dont know a thing about, read the reports instead of anti British propaganda. The captain left hatches open in rough sea, which let water in shorting the ship, causing a fire. Captain error, enquiries will mean he will more then likely lose his post. The ships have been mothballed for years and are amazing ships considering.

Dont insult the Canadian navy, they know the quality of these. Remember these ships were designed to defend your life against Russian Nukes, and be the first response.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So on a list of the most significant submarine users in ww2, Britain comes after Germany, USA, Japan, Italy but ahead of Russia.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So in your knowledge of the situation you come after my cat.

Bockholt
03-12-2005, 12:00 PM
Interesting discussion!

Certainly in both World Wars Britain had massive naval (i.e. armed : the Royal Navy) and merchant fleets; perhaps comparable to US equivalents today in dwarfing everyone else's. Britain is still in 2005 a World Power because of...er...nuclear submarines - they make all the difference, but that's another story.

In 1940 Hitler believed the war in the West 'won' - Germany had knocked out France, avenging 1918. Britain, a sad nation of umbrella-carrying appeasers like Prime Minister Chamberlain, was surely happy with its overseas Empire. Luckily for everyone alive today Churchill then took over! Hitler's real aim was always Russia (Hugh Trevor-Roper points out that this is obvious from reading Mein Kampf, published long before he came to power).There was no way anybody could invade Britain in 1940 because of the power of the Royal Navy, even if the Luftwaffe had somehow defeated the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

The Kriegsmarine was impressive - and worried the British - as had the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet in 1914. But it was still a Middle Welterweight facing up to a Heavyweight if it came to the crunch (as it did at Jutland in 1916, when the British should have done much better). Remember, too, that you only need a Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow in Scotland to effectively control the North Sea and blockade Germany.

The key to defeating Britain, as Paul quite rightly points out, is therefore INTERDICTION, which might be achieved with U-boats - if only you have enough! Also, both in the air (RADAR) and at sea (ASDIC), the Germans were thwarted by superior British technology. And the British were excellent at anti-submarine warfare...Depth charges, anyone? In summary, U-boats greatly upset Britain in both World Wars, but in both she successfully hit back and defeated the threat long before the war was over. The British are very efficient about inflicting aggression on their enemies, the absolute key to success in war : they deliver the goods (preferably in the form of High Explosives).

As for Royal Navy submarines, also discussed above, have a look at how they performed in WW2 in the Mediterranean...the UK did an enormous amount to encourage & supply Anti-Nazi Freedom Fighters ('the Resistance') from Calais to Crete, Bordeaux to Brest-Litovsk...submarines played their part in SOE ops! Best of all, British Intelligence was (& we hope, remains) superb. Well, you know stuff about getting hold of Enigma machines that Hollywood doesn't...QED

Baletzan
03-12-2005, 12:50 PM
I found an interesting read about submarine history

http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAone.htm

HeibgesU999
03-12-2005, 12:57 PM
Before WWII, many experts thought it would be impossible for a submarine to launch a torpedo attack from periscope depth without being detected.

The British Navy to a large extent, thought that ASDIC made the submarine obsolete.

Watching the Germans rape the British Merchant Marine for 3 years, it is strange that Japan didn't make top notch ASW forces. They must have equated their own strategic situation to Britain's?

Dominicrigg
03-12-2005, 02:22 PM
Nicely written post bockholt.

As to japan i think their downfall was in Air superiority rather then anti sub efforts.

After taking the lessons from British Airpower at Taranto attack they went from strength to stagnation.

They didnt learn from thier own lessons of the power of aircraft and allowed their airforce to be outstripped technology wise and eventually number wise.

In a similar way to the Reich (though there were many amazing experiments in germany, they were never given the attention they should have been) soon their airforce was outclassed, outnumbered and then eventually wiped out. One thing the second world war showed was the might of Airpower over any other technology (other then the big bomb...)

Its strange that these two countries who perfected two types of warfare (carrier strikes and blitzkrieg) then went on to forget their own lessons later in the war. Though lucky for us i suppose.

finchOU
03-12-2005, 02:58 PM
Quote by Bockholt:

"There was no way anybody could invade Britain in 1940 because of the power of the Royal Navy, even if the Luftwaffe had somehow defeated the RAF in the Battle of Britain."

People still dont realise that WW2 was Aviation's Coming out party? Even before the war Aircraft proved to be a viable weapon against Battleships...and the proved that they Out matched them during the War. If the Luftwaffe had defeated the RAF, the sea would have soon followed. Imagine being a sub commander patroling the North sea and having airsupport at your finger tips? Spot a DD? Call in the fly boys.....do you think that DD will stick around long?

The BOB was won in the air...which is where it had to be won...everyone knew this!

Bockholt
03-12-2005, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

People still dont realise that WW2 was Aviation's Coming out party? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely WW2 was Submarines Coming out party?!?

The too-late German Type XXIs+ were quickly developed by the victorious Powers, USA, Britain & Russia, from mere submersibles into true Submarines, soon Nuclear-powered & Nuclear-armed (first rocket, then cruise). Later joined by France (a great naval power with a fine submarine heritage) & China, these were the World Powers of the Cold War.

I come from an aviation background (as you may know if you are aware of my flight in L59...), & love aircraft, but it is under the sea, not in the air, that the true ability to control our Freedom, their Doom, lies...

Poacher886a
03-12-2005, 08:31 PM
,,As said,an interesting thread!

Bockholt:I think Britian is a world power for more reasons than it has Nuclear sub's!

I don't think Germany could ever had invaded Britian,you only have to look at the scale of D-day to see what was needed,Germany was planning to invade with 90,000 troops,against a nation willing to 'take one with you',we already had photo's of their naval build up and had gun's that could shell them from France to Britian.
With limited beaches to land on and the fact Churchill had authorized the MUSTARD GASSING(band by the geniver convention and a little known fact)of all beaches should the Germans land,i think an invation would have been a spectacular failier.
Of course we could speculate over this for ever!

The Aircraft though very sucessfull against the ship's was'nt a fore gone conclution as proved by the Americans in the pacific,where the jap's were even employing Kamikazi with little effect.
Ship's had a very good air defence.
Of course by the closing month's of the BoB Britian was turning out 3 aircraft to every 1 of Germany's so this would never have occuired.
As said we also had guns that were capable of hitting France from England.meaning that any invation would have been under fire from the off.
Leionardo's invention of the sub was only an artist's impresion of what might be,but britian made the first actual sub and the first powered and the first to fire a torpedo,the Amerians used one first in a combat situation,though not a sub as we know them to be,and france as stated were hot on devolopement as well,Germany in comparison was a late commer to the sub game but of course took the development further during WW2(not WW1)due to the use FOR THEM in the war.

Bockholt
03-13-2005, 04:01 AM
Well, I believe the worst defeat ever suffered by the Royal Navy was when Japanese aircraft sank the PRINCE of WALES and REPULSE, which never even saw a Japanese ship. In the Falklands state-of-the-art HMS SHEFFIELD was destroyed by a cheap Exocet launched from an elderly Phantom which only required a brave pilot. Certainly aircraft are a great threat to ships, including submarines; look how many U-boats succumbed to Hudsons, Sunderlands & Catalinas.

As for who invented the submarine...I don't know of any Leonardo da Vinci sub.Englishman William Bourne proposed, but never built, a practicable submersible boat in 1578, a version of which was later made by the Dutchman Cornelius Drebble and demonstrated on the Thames. First to be designed & built was laid down in Rotterdam by French designer DE SON, 1653; underpowered by clockwork engine! 18th century Americans were very good : Bushnell's TURTLE, 1776 (used against the Royal Navy) and Fulton's NAUTILUS of 1800 which he, a pacifist, tried to sell to the British and the French!

Then we have the German Wilhelm Bauer's BRANDTAUCHER design of 1850, followed by the Confederate States of America using CSS HUNLEY which, though suicidal, did sink USS HOUSATONIC in Charleston harbour, 1864 - ist submarine kill in combat.Confederates also had DAVID and the USN had the beautifully-named INTELLIGENT WHALE. In 1879 Rev. George Garrett of Liverpool built RESURGAM which was quite successful & improved by Nordenfelt (Swedish arms manufacturer).

But surely the first true submarine was adopted by both the US & Royal Navies (A Class), the HOLLAND ship. John P. Holland was a US citizen, but originally Irish, so I think <span class="ev_code_GREEN">Old Ireland </span> can claim the invention!

Have a look at http://www.submariners.co.uk/Boats/Barrowbuilt/Beginning/

Dominicrigg
03-13-2005, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> where the jap's were even employing Kamikazi with little effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Japanese kamikasi had massive effect. I watched a docu about it the other day. The problem was by the time they started with "Divine wind" they had next to no aircraft already. If they had been crazy enough to kamikaze from the start then the results would have been devastating.

They sunk and crippled many ships with kamakize attacks. I cant find the list at the moment but im sure of it. Crashing your plane into a ship is easier then bombing it, hence the success.

Little known fact, did you know the germans also had a "suicide squad" of fighters. Their aim was to ram into bombers to save the populace from being bombed. Though i have seen no info on how successfull this was (again i would think ramming an aircraft was easier then shooting it down)

Poacher886a
03-13-2005, 04:47 AM
Everything i've read on Kamikazi suggest's that the effect was mainly on morale,but very few could actuatly make it through to the ship's.

Dominicrigg
03-13-2005, 04:55 AM
Im fairly certain, i dont have time now but i will dig up some info on it when i get back from football as its very interesting. I thought the same as you till i saw this program and then read into it. They got an aircraft carrier or 2 im sure.

Yarrick_
03-13-2005, 11:50 AM
Well, in the first posts it was said that Germany was a power with great number of subs, but What it is sure is that they didn't realized (apart from Doenitz) which was its potential until the middle of the war. I believe that the age of submarines was WWI and that WWII was the age of the plane, not the submarine. I also don't agree that the invention of submarines owes the greatest part to Germany, but I'm getting really tired that in this forums everybody (including me in another discussion a long ago) are always claiming that our country is the one who invented the submarine and this sort of things. Every developed country which has more or less a naval tradition has made essential efforts in developing what submarines are today. Why claiming that your our country is best in that aspect? No one could have done it without the others, the borders are not closed walls even if somebody tries to make them that.

Bockholt
03-13-2005, 12:40 PM
Poacher, my friend, I see you have had the same trouble with this scheissdreck Avatar/picture posting system as der Alte Bockholt! They should sort this; other forums are much, much better, more user-friendly for such things - come on Administrator guys!

As for Kamikazes...the aircraft were more effective against US carriers with their wooden flightdecks than ever they could be against the British, armoured ones. If they made it, they were nasty, target was the control tower. There is also the mere psychological factor : the enemy is prepared to die for his cause, however misguided/stupid/evil...how did we all feel on September 11 2001? Thoroughly revolting, but you could not call such an enemy a coward, even though a mass-murderer.

On the Japanese Kamikaze you must read Ivan Morris : The nobility of failure - he just about explains it. The pilots were surprisingly educated, not that politically brainwashed & actually rather against the militarist madness which reduced their country to its lowest ebb. This book is long out-of-print, but should be acquired through any good library.

Messervy
03-13-2005, 12:52 PM
@Bockholdt
IT won`t work with IMG tags!!!!!
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">http://<IMG SRC="</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"> </span>http://http://img156.exs.cx/img156/2197/bockholt7mn.jpg

Messervy
03-13-2005, 12:54 PM
Hang on in here a while Bockholdt!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/Messervy/Bockhold.jpg

Paste this into your URL line:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/Messervy/Bockhold.jpg

and before make sure you delete everything that is in the box!

Giantsfan24
03-13-2005, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bockholt:

On the Japanese Kamikaze you must read Ivan Morris : _The nobility of failure _ - he just about explains it. The pilots were surprisingly educated, not that politically brainwashed & actually rather against the militarist madness which reduced their country to its lowest ebb. This book is long out-of-print, but should be acquired through any good library. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be wrong(I don't think I am) but watching a doc. onn WW2 and Emperor Hirohito, didn't they get indoctrinated with the "death before dishonor" mentality?

Dunbal
03-13-2005, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bockholt:
.There was no way anybody could invade Britain in 1940 because of the power of the Royal Navy, even if the Luftwaffe had somehow defeated the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sort of was the whole point wasn't it? If the Luuftwaffe had beaten the RAF then the royal navy would have been at the bottom of the channel and in no position to stop an invasion. What stopped any attempt at a successful invasion was the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the RAF. Germany thus ended up with two problems: 1) They failed to acheive their objective (ie the losses they suffered were in vain), and 2) their Luftwaffe suffered severe casualties.

At this point it became easier to stick their heads in the sand and pretend England would just go away, and somehow hope that attrition in the North Atlantic would prevent England from ever becoming a serious threat. What they didn't count on was the subsequent movement of the convoy routes far to the north and having their codes compromised - which meant that England was not suffering or even withering like it was supposed to but actually building enough armament for an offensive in Africa. The second world war was very much lost for Germany in the North Atlantic.

Many historians play down the impact of Africa on the German war machine, saying that it was a "sideshow" and really had no effect. What happened in Africa however is that British troops managed to gain valuable combat experience and were no longer "green" when the Italy/Normandy invasions came about.

Poacher886a
03-14-2005, 02:35 AM
Dunbal:Well said.

It is also important to note,that Germany was a superiour force at the onset of war(which is hardly supprising as they were ready for a war they knew they were going to start)When the BEF was beatan back to Dunkirk(mainly due to the collapse of the french in the south)it was a serious moral crush for the British,still 350,000 soldier's were saved and ready to repell any German invation!
When we sorted our self's out and took on Germany in Africa,it was the first time we were playing on a level playing field with both our's and Germany's best commander's and similar equipment.

One must remember it was both Germany and Italy we were facing,Defeating Ger/Ita in a convincing way showed the world the Germans could be stopped and was their first notible deafeat,where they had thrown all they had at it!!
This was a massive morale crusher and the turning point in the war.It also promted Churchill to remark to the Americans:
GIVE ME THE TOOLS AND WILL FINISH THE JOB.

Dominicrigg
03-14-2005, 03:09 AM
Churchill was the master of speeches lol. Im sure now looking back on it he realised what a massive historical event he was a major player in even as it happened. He relished the challenge and i sometimes think loved it. If you look at his later career he almost seems to miss the way things were for him in wartime.

The world is **** lucky to have had such a guy around!

3 Cheers for Winston!

**cheers and then checks the mail for sh3**

Poacher886a
03-14-2005, 04:33 AM
Domm: Yea Churcill was a one man classic,and his speaches were so inspireing to the nation.

One of my favourite's apart from the Fight them on the beaches speach of course,was when Hitler remarked of Churchill he was a DRUNKEN FOOL to which Churchill replied...I MIGHT BE A DRUNK BUT YOUR UGLY...AND I'LL BE SOBER IN THE MORNING

Pure class!!

Deamon-
03-14-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also Germans were experts in perfectioning the Submarine.. I believe in 1911 the first Periscope for a submarine was built..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, 1904 were the german experimental sub "Forelle" equiped with a periscope, followed by U1 1906. The periscopes were in development already prior to that.

Deamon

Deamon-
03-14-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Poacher886:
You could'nt be further wrong!
Britian invented the submarine, and the first powered submarine,so clearly had more experience.
It also had one of the largest submarine fleet's in the world,way more than Germany.
It's subs were more advanced than germany's and had lots more classes,including commerce raider's with twin turret's etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you talk about WWI then i must disagree. Although germany came quite late to the u-boat party, was this just because the general technology wasn't available at that time to build realy capeable subs.

It wouldn't have made mutch sense to build u-boats prior to 1906 for germany. So this decission was the right one, though they should have started to build in mutch larger numbers from the beginning but the combat valuation was also missed at that time and formation of this new weapon also interfered the surface fleet building programm of that time so the production was rather slow, since the plan was to try to build a bigger surface fleet then england befor subs were suddenly available.

Neverthless the German u-boat designs were superior to the british in many ways. All the early british classes were made for coastile operations while every german u-boat were ocean going.

The Zeiss optics of german periscopes were the best in the world. AFAIK the british periscopes lacked precission in bearing measurment targeting was more difficult. The british torpedos had apparently alot of flaws, they had problems to keep course, problems to keep depth and the longer they were running the slower they became, what makes reliable shooting quite difficult.

Many german u-baots suvived surprize attacks of british submarines because of this flaws. Not few Merchants in Meditteranien sea could escape to the harbour after being torpedoed by british subs, indicating rather weak warheads.

AFAIK the german torpedos were more reliably and had a good punch.

The british E-class had also a very bad habit to suddenly dive to deep from the surface what could have drawn the crew on the bride and could have as well lead to a loss if the hatch was still oppen.

The big british submarines with the steam propulsion were very troublesome, they were very unstable if running submerged and at all to many accidents occured on them.

Well in WWII i'm not so mutch of an expert in british WWII subs since i'v specialized in WWI subs but the new german types that came to late like the typ XXI and XXIII were clearly superior.

Infact germany didn't took long to be up to part with the rest of the world once it has started to build submarine for the navy befor WWI. There were experimental submarines prior to that. It was mainly due to the lack of a reliable and save surface propulsion systems for subs at that time that keept german out of submarine building, after to many deadly accidents occure in other navys with benzin motors.

After all i could finde out i can only conclude that the german u-boats in WWI were superiour to the subs of other nations, not all to mutch though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You forget that the first main sub wars were those of WW1,after Germany's loss of this restriction's were placed on both country and war machine while other's continued to develope their's.
Only during WW2,where Germany had a need for U-boats,and country's like Britian did not so much,did Germany overtake in term's of tech and number's,though Britian still built a further 167 sub's! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it was prohibited to germany to develope and build submarines, did the german designers go in to other countrys and continued to refine their designs, just under another flag.

As the right time came they returned back to the nazi germany and ther they go. So finaly germany behinde other nations in submarine design.

Deamon

Dunbal
03-14-2005, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When the BEF was beatan back to Dunkirk(mainly due to the collapse of the french in the south)it was a serious moral crush for the British,still 350,000 soldier's were saved and ready to repell any German invation!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with Dunkirk is that the British were fighting Germany's offensive according to a plan drawn up before the war - and unfortunately Germany wasn't being cooperative by following the rules of that plan. It was a severe blow to morale but it also underlined the importance for the British of brushing up on their maneuver skills, and that bombs on the bottom of a plane were just as or even more important than big guns in the field.

ChaytonWarrior
03-14-2005, 07:08 PM
Well, Germans were leading in submarine technoligy. And they still do, i read recently that they made the first submarine that runs with a new water engine, that makes diesel refilling useless, and you dont have to use a nuclear engine either, but i didnt read much into details so i dont know what is right.
Submarines in World War 2 were hardly real submarines, as 80% of the time they traveled on the sea, only in emergency/being attacked situations they dived. At the end of the war, german was actually developing the first real submarines, lucky for a lot of sailors the german leadership didnt saw a need in those designs and so developed it way too late, so it could have made a big diffrence, if that hadnt been the case, then they had inflected quiet a lot of damage.
At the end of war, Russia was actually clever enough to capture the german submarine "scientist" and use them for their own needs, which made them to leading submarine nation in the cold war. Look just at that lovely Typhoon class http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Philipscdrw
03-14-2005, 07:39 PM
The first 'modern' submarine was made by James P Holland, as stated earlier - he was an Irish expatriate to the USA who designed the submarine to strike the evil British navy who were occupying Ireland at the time - instead he sold his design to the British. The 'Holland' class of 1899 had no periscope and one torpedo tube, and when submerged it would 'porpoise', i.e. just break the surface with its nose (which had portholes for the captain to see out from). I assume that the torpedoes were aimed by pointing the whole sub at the enemy and firing...

Kris_Pusaka
03-15-2005, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giantsfan24:
I am not even CLOSE too 95 percent of the people on this board in regardsa to knowledge of U-Boats but why did germany seam to have such a monopoly of them especially in the early war? Did other countries not see them as valuble as Germany did? One has to wonder if germany had not attacked Russia and Japan did not attack us, what would have happened.
Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until 10.1940 Germany had no more than 64 subs (average of 14 subs at sea).

And 10.1941 Germany had 198 subs (average 25 subs at sea).

These numbers show how much the german high command relied on u-boots, as the essential part of their naval force.

BlitzPig_Rivet
03-15-2005, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Poacher886:
Domm: Yea Churcill was a one man classic,and his speaches were so inspireing to the nation.

One of my favourite's apart from the Fight them on the beaches speach of course,was when Hitler remarked of Churchill he was a DRUNKEN FOOL to which Churchill replied...I MIGHT BE A DRUNK BUT YOUR UGLY...AND I'LL BE SOBER IN THE MORNING

Pure class!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was indeed a classic quote, but I hope you don't mind a small correction.

Hitler, may well have called Churchill a drunken fool, but he is not who the quote refers to. That would be Lady Astor. It's well known that the two never got on well, and the episode is reputed to have taken place at a party the two happened to be attending.

Lady Astor: "Mr. Churchill, you are drunk!"

Winston Churchill:
"Yes, and you, Madam, are ugly. But tomorrow, I shall be sober."

Here's another one which I thought was a classic. They were both staying at Blenheim Castle visiting the Marlboroughs.

Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."

Winston Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dominicrigg
03-15-2005, 07:55 AM
lmao razor wit!!

On the BEF, it wasnt tactics skills or anything like that, infact they fought amazingly and like tigers. It was this :

BEF 200,000
German Army 6,000,000

I think the outcome is a forgone conclusion, especially when the french showed a massive lack of commitment and fighting spirit. Worlds away from the amazing fighting from them which stalled Germany in World War II.

Bockholt
03-15-2005, 03:41 PM
Lady Astor making a speech to a slightly hostile crowd while standing for Parliament on an anti-alcohol ticket:

'I would rather commit adultery than drink a pint of beer...'

ROUGH VOICE FROM CROWD : 'Wouldn't we all!'

Dunbal
03-23-2005, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kris_Pusaka:

These numbers show how much the german high command relied on u-boots, as the essential part of their naval force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet Doenitz was still screaming throughout the war that he needed more U-boats and was pretty much ignored. He had a LOT, but he knew he didn't have ENOUGH. Compare this with Yamamoto, who knew the Japanse would eventually lose the war even before he was ordered to begin it.

Unfortunately the politicians who don't have to look people in the eye and send them to die, and are not (usually) shot at on a regular basis, and who take decisions based on how they FEEL about things rather than what the FACTS are; always seem to make this kind of mistake:

Doenitz: I need more boats. German gov't: oh he's got enough boats we'll make more tanks/rifles/planes instead so we can invade Russia.

Yamamoto: If you start the war I will be able to do what I want for 6 months (ie after 6 months we will get our butts kicked). Japanese gov't: oh, well by then I'm sure we'll have found another solution to win the war.

quillan
03-23-2005, 04:33 PM
Comparative naval strengths as of Sept 1939

These numbers include both ships that are already built and ships that are nearing completion.

Battleships/Battlecruisers UK 18, Germany 4
Pocket Battleships UK 0, Germany 3
Aircraft Carriers UK 10, Germany 1
Heavy Cruisers (8"+ guns) UK 15, Germany 4
Light Cruisers (6" or less) UK 62, Germany 6
Destroyers UK 205, Germany 25
Destroyer Escorts UK 73, Germany 42
Motor Torpedo Boats UK 39, Germany 17
Submarines UK 70, Germany 98


Taken from the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, 4th edition, page 1152.

Hertston
03-23-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunbal:

That sort of was the whole point wasn't it? If the Luuftwaffe had beaten the RAF then the royal navy would have been at the bottom of the channel and in no position to stop an invasion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RN would probably have stopped any invasion attempt, RAF or not, although without air protection casualties would have been enormous. The Luftwaffe did not have anything like the anti-shipping effectiveness demonstrated by the Japanese or US a couple of years later.

Traveler2004
03-23-2005, 05:36 PM
Japan had a large sub force. I wish UBI would release an expansion covering at least american and japanese forces. The jap carrier sub would be cool.

RIPelliottsmith
03-23-2005, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunbal:
The second world war was very much lost for Germany in the North Atlantic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read this 4 or 5 times in the last week. Where the hell does this idea come from? Some ludicrous chain of supposed cause and effect that english people dream up?

The 13 million soviet and german soldiers that lay dead between berlin and moscow might wonder how a few uboats in the north atlantic decided their fate. I'd certainly like to know.

Reanimator
03-23-2005, 11:23 PM
A lot of this talk about the LW defeating the RAF and clearing the way for the german army is really nonsense. THe RAF was having trouble in the beginning of the BOB because they were losing southern airbases and they were losing pilots. They had plenty of planes and bases in the north that could be made ready in the case of an invasion. The german bombers could get as far as London and no farther, so while they might have gained air superiority for a time over the channel, the majority of the waters and air space around the UK would be safely in British hands. Germany could never have invaded successfully, they didn't have the man power, the air range, the pickets ships, or even the landing craft to do it. It was the pipe dream of air power being enough to win territory, one that was shared both sides and on both sides proved wrong time and time again.

As for submarines, you have to remember that the navies of the world were products of lessons learned from the last war (meaning WW1). Both sides saw the battleships as still the main force (to be proved wrong) even though both sides had elements claiming that soon air would completely replace a surface navy (also wrong). For the japanese, americans, and british, the u boat became a picket ship. Too slow to hold with the main battleship line, it was forced to harass the enemy and make sneak attacks on easy targets. Japan was so convinced of this role that they used it throughout the entire war. Their u boats were noisey, big, and commanded not to go after commerce and instead go after bigger and faster warships, that also turned out to be a lot harder to hit. They also never thought of u boats being used on their merchant force, so they never developed anti submarine measures, though they did some eperimenting with the first helicopters.

America was shocked by pearl harbor and wanted blood, so they went right for unrestricted sub warfare. Perhaps had the japanese not hit pearl harbor and wiped out the (old, obsolete) battleship fleet the subs might have been used differently. But thats just speculation. Also, it was very important to remember the Brit's really needed the US. They couldn't build enough destroyers. They were fighting a war that spanned the worlds oceans, and this was a mighty task for the dying British Empire. As said, there was no hostile merchant marine to really take on.

Hitler took home some lessons from the last war as well. He saw his people starve from the English blockade. So he decided to take the Ukraine and the bread basket of Europe to feed his people, but he ignored the huge communist army sitting on top of it. He saw how unrestricted u boat warfare was a success, he just ignored how well the brit's crushed it later on. (Again, they needed more destroyers and were greatly aided by the US comming in. WW1 was a bit different as they needed to defend against the German dreadnoughts comming out. Someone said early that jutland should have gone better for the british. This totally reduces the gains and brilliant design of the German dreadnoughts and the skill of the german navy. Yet it is telling that the next day Jellicoe could leave Scappa flow with a mighty force of dreadnoughts, while Scheer was unable to make the same claim.)

So Hitler saw the u boats as an effective way of neutralizing the British. After 1940 and the loss of the few surface sea raiders he had in the atlantic, he saw they were cheaper too.

One more thing about air power. A large surface fleet is not an easy thing to take out with aircraft. Special training is needed and a lot of daring. Level bombing was never good against ships because they moved. You needed an aircraft they could get low and had range. The stuka was a good aircraft for this, but lacked the range. The Japanese had the best airforce in the world at the beginning of the war, a debatable statement, but not when it came to aircraft being used against ships. The Japanese were years ahead in naval aviation, both technologically and experience wise. It was a long time comming for both the US and the other allies to compete with the Jap's in this area.

Dunbal
03-24-2005, 05:38 AM
Oh, so the survival of the UK has nothing at all to do with Germany's loss of the second world war? The strategic bombing campaign didn't affect the German economy. Africa didn't tie up German resources. The campaign in Italy didn't knock one of Germany's allies out of the war and the invasion of Normandy was not crucial in defeating Germany?

All of these happened simply because England was not forced to surrender. The US would have had a hard time fighting a war at the ends of an ocean without having a base. England was that base. And although the US did not win the war for the allies on its own it certainly was a deciding factor. The Russians were sceaming for a second front and despite the amount of people who died in the east, remember it took Russia YEARS to push the Germans back - this is not a sign that Russia was going to manage this all on its own. It's a sign that they managed to do it just barely.
Sure every significant event contributed to the outcome of the war (Stalingrad, etc) - that's why they are remembered as significant events. But the Battle of Britain and the North Atlantic happened first, so they are generally considered turning points. The amount of people killed does not show how effective a campaign is - it's quite the opposite in fact.

simmybear31
03-24-2005, 06:42 AM
The major issue for the Germans in their war Strategy in the 1939 to 1941 era was that Hitler had promised his High command they would not have to fight a major European opponent until 1943/4 at the earliest.

Germany in the early war years was woefully ill equipped to fight a strategic war but ideally equipped to fight a short term tactical war e.g. Poland, France and the Low Countries and Denmark/Norway. They were also incredib;ly focussed on land forces with the Luftwaffe basically a tactical battlefield support airforce rather than a strategic power projection airforce.

Britain lacking in most ways to hit back at Germany after 1940 took the opposite view of building the RAF and particularly Bomber Command into a true strategic airforce that could conduct multiple operations across Germany and in support of the build up for D Day.

The Kriegmarine always suffered from Hitlers lack of true Strategic genius and therefore were always second best - with the exception of the threat posed by the Tirpitz in Norwegian waters the German surface fleet was effectively crippled by the end of 1941 after major losses in the Norway invasion and the loss of the Bismark.

The U-boat service whilst posing a major threat was never going to win the war alone only at best to achieve a position of negotiation by stalemate. Once in particular the Atlantic air gap had been closed U boat pickings moved further and further afield with increasing danger to transiting u-boats, by this stage the threat had evaporated.

quillan
03-24-2005, 08:14 AM
You guys are also overlooking another factor. After the first world war, Germany was limited by treaty in the types and sizes of warships they could build, both in individual tonnage and total tonnage. They technically weren't allowed to build u-boats at all, but they are much easier to hide than, say, a battlecruiser. Also, a sub can inflict damage far out of proportion to it's size. In a surface ship vs surface ship battle, a destroyer isn't good for much more than taking on other destroyers, or perhaps a cruiser. A sub can feasably take out anything.

Kris_Pusaka
03-24-2005, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quillan:
Comparative naval strengths as of Sept 1939

These numbers include both ships that are already built and ships that are nearing completion.

Battleships/Battlecruisers UK 18, Germany 4
Pocket Battleships UK 0, Germany 3
Aircraft Carriers UK 10, Germany 1
Heavy Cruisers (8"+ guns) UK 15, Germany 4
Light Cruisers (6" or less) UK 62, Germany 6
Destroyers UK 205, Germany 25
Destroyer Escorts UK 73, Germany 42
Motor Torpedo Boats UK 39, Germany 17
Submarines UK 70, Germany 98


Taken from the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, 4th edition, page 1152. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


98 german subs (present or buying built) in september 1939 ? These numbers differ heavily with the numbers I took from following source:

KTB des OKW:
"Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht"
, Teilband I, page 62 E, Bechtermünz

(War Journal of German HQ's)

Section: "Aufteilung der deutschen U-Boote und Ihre Verwendung 1939-1941"

Where no more than 64 subs appear, even as late as October 1940. (37 subs in Academy, Testing, Production. And only 27 ready for duty).

Stolly
03-24-2005, 08:47 AM
These people kidding themselves that the Luftwaffe could have prevented the RN from utterly destroying an invasion fleet consisting of towed river barges moving at 5 knots need to answer this question.

If the Luftwaffe failed to prevent the RN and other civilian vessels evacuating 300k+ people of a beach in France because it could not sink enough stationary ships in daylight, what makes you think it would have more success sinking turning destroyers moving at 30 knots at night ?

Thats before you even think that the Kreigsmarine had to take so many sailors off its warships to man the invasion fleet that many of their vessels had only skeleton crews.

mightyduck100
03-24-2005, 09:45 AM
The analogy between England and Germany during WWII is exactly the same as England and France during the Napoleonic wars.

In fact the same as any island based vs continental based power. A continental based power will always concentrate it assets on land.

The reason Englands Navy was so powerful during this time was that it had to be in order to maintain a fragile "Empire" across the world.

Both Napolean and Hitler had designs on invading England but were fearful of the damage the Royal Navy could and did inflict.

Its 200 years since Trafalgar this year. A perfect example of how a weak land based power, England, could keep an incredibly superior land based power, France, at bay via Naval superiority.

Man for man England, France, Germany, whoever are no different but having the largest amount of most mobile assets is usually going to be a telling factor.

In more modern times this analogy transfers to Air Power. You only have to look at the guesstimated size of the US Air Force and what it can deploy to understand why its now the world's premier military power.

Sorry about the essay there guys. Gone off into one there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hertston
03-24-2005, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIPelliottsmith:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunbal:
The second world war was very much lost for Germany in the North Atlantic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read this 4 or 5 times in the last week. Where the hell does this idea come from? Some ludicrous chain of supposed cause and effect that english people dream up?

The 13 million soviet and german soldiers that lay dead between berlin and moscow might wonder how a few uboats in the north atlantic decided their fate. I'd certainly like to know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The "ludicrous" chain of supposed cause and effect is nothing of the sort.

Supplies vital to keeping Russia in the war were shipped to Murmansk. Most of them started out in the US and were shipped across the Atlantic.

Celeon999
03-24-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well, Germans were leading in submarine technoligy. And they still do, i read recently that they made the first submarine that runs with a new water engine, that makes diesel refilling useless, and you dont have to use a nuclear engine either, but i didnt read much into details so i dont know what is right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At least in one point. Im from Germany and i can asure you wont find much details about this new sub. Trust me i tried to get some myself and the only thing ive heard was "Top Secret" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Its only known that this sub (Type 212) has a revolutionary hydrogen fuel cell engine that nearly reaches the power and endurance of an nuclear drive but it is about 3 to 5 times quieter. The German Bundesmarine has announced that it is the quietest and "stealthiest" submarine in the world for now.

The Prototype that is currently tested is named U-31.

The other interesting thing on this sub is that there are rumors that it has a maximum diving depth that exeeds by far all that other submarines in the world can go for now.

On the questions how deep ? and deeper that an american nuclear sub ? an speaker of the bundesmarine said with a smile : First : "its a secret.." Second : "...much much deeper" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For those who unterstand german - here is the link to the Bundesmarine Website with a Photo of the Type 212

You need to click on "Waffen und Systeme" near the top of the page and then on "Uboote"

Sorry but a direct link does not work.

Type 212 (http://www.marine.de/80256B100061BA9B/frame/N25ZXFQB639CSCKDE)


Sorry for my poor English



P.s : The real way to watch Das Boot is in german.

RIPelliottsmith
03-24-2005, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>remember it took Russia YEARS to push the Germans back - this is not a sign that Russia was going to manage this all on its own. It's a sign that they managed to do it just barely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there you go proving your own point wrong. If germany only 'barely' lost to the soviet union after losing the battle of the atlantic, it follows that they could have also won in the east while still losing the battle of the atlantic. (For example, you probably think that if the winter had been warmer, moscow would have fallen.) Therefore, the atlantic did not decide the war.

Hey dunkirik decided the war! Hey the hurricane decided the war! Hey a cold winter decided the war! Hey a single tactical battle decided the war! They all follow your logic of A leads to B leads to C...leads to Z. To say 'if not for A, there would be no Z' might seem mathmatically sound, but it's like saying that if NZ didn't drop that catch in the first over against australia, they would have won the cricket game. It's ludicrous.

RIPelliottsmith
03-24-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hertston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIPelliottsmith:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunbal:
The second world war was very much lost for Germany in the North Atlantic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read this 4 or 5 times in the last week. Where the hell does this idea come from? Some ludicrous chain of supposed cause and effect that english people dream up?

The 13 million soviet and german soldiers that lay dead between berlin and moscow might wonder how a few uboats in the north atlantic decided their fate. I'd certainly like to know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The "ludicrous" chain of supposed cause and effect is nothing of the sort.

Supplies vital to keeping Russia in the war were shipped to Murmansk. Most of them started out in the US and were shipped across the Atlantic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am aware of those convoys, but that is beside the point. Are you claiming those convoys 'decided the war'?

Ask yourself this: if you think those convoys saved the soviet union, there must be a certain lower number of convoys that would not have been enough. If 10 less ships had made it to murmansk the SU would have fallen? What happens if 9 make it? SU still collapses? So a single torpedo 'decides the war'? The fact the torpedo man didn't have cramp in his fingers 'decided the war'? The fact a man in a torpedo factory didn't get dumped by his girl the night before 'decides the war?'


I am just sick of this faulty logic that leads people to saying **** like 'Oh this event decided the war', as if other contributions were irrelevant. It is offensive.