Ally Cargo Subs.

[Paul MacQ]

Doing a little research on the use of Transport and supply Subs. I note the Japanese Used some of the Large Subs to get supplies to Island garrisons. Also the C-3 class where built for Long Range transport.
Germany built some U-boats WW1 originally as Blockade runners Milch Cows in Second war.

The Allies did not seem to have a use for specialised Transport cargo subs, Would ally Transport subs been a Useful type for operations to support Philippines and Singapore? Before the fell ?. Something like a Dozen with say 600 ton capacity or more operating out of Australia. US seemed to think pre war Philippines was going to be a major Problem to supply.

I know the Allies used subs in an emergency; I am looking at specialised Transport Blockade runners.

[Color-Copycat]

Singapore and the Philippines fell too quickly for something like this to be drawn up and executed on the fly. By the time all the kinks had been worked out and the logistics sorted out, there wouldn't be any surviving holdouts left to resupply.

[Riain]

Submarines were used to resupply Malta on occasion when things were most dire. I think the O, P & R classes were used most often.

[Paul MacQ]

Singapore and the Philippines fell too quickly for something like this to be drawn up and executed on the fly. By the time all the kinks had been worked out and the logistics sorted out, there wouldn't be any surviving holdouts left to resupply.


Yes it is something that needs planning. I am interested that the type was not thought of before 1941. The Idea of a Transport Sub does have a history in WW1.

[Flubber]

The Idea of a Transport Sub does have a history in WW1.


Yes, a history of failure. Which is why no one before WW2 seriously planned on using submarines for the transport.

[MattII]

A history of failure? Deutschland paid off her build cost several times over on that first voyage. Of course, they're not competitive with surface ships in peace-time, but in war, and when nothing else can get through they're more than worth their costs.

[Flocculencio]

A history of failure? Deutschland paid off her build cost several times over on that first voyage. Of course, they're not competitive with surface ships in peace-time, but in war, and when nothing else can get through they're more than worth their costs.

I think the issue is that the Allies were never in those sorts of dire straits. Building and designing an expensive supply sub isn't cost effective when you can build, say, four cheap and disposable freighters for the same time and money. Even if two are sunk it doesn't matter because there are always more where those came from.

[MattII]

I think the issue is that the Allies were never in those sorts of dire straits.Malta was for quite a while, and they did use submarines to resupply it (surface ships had a nasty habit of not arriving).

[Flubber]

A history of failure?


Yes, because they didn't accomplish a damn thing. Germany still lost the war as her citizens starved behind an Entente blockade that lasted until 1919.

Deutschland paid off her build cost several times over on that first voyage.

So what? One sub made money back. Whoop-de-doo.

Another, the Bremen, departed port only to never be heard from again and the preliminary contracts to build additional cargo subs safely in US yards were never funded. Diplomacy aside, Wilhelmine Germany wasn't congenitally stupid. If more cargo subs could have made an actual difference, they would built more cargo subs. They didn't build them for a reason.

Of course, they're not competitive with surface ships in peace-time, but in war, and when nothing else can get through they're more than worth their costs.

I guess all the Axis and Allied navies who, after looking at their use in WW1, decided not to build cargo subs were just fucking stupid then, right?

No one plans on supplying long term besieged garrisons because no one plans on being besieged for that long in the first place. Do you seriously think the prewar RN would have said "Gee, Malta is going to be all but completely blockaded by Italian and German forces in the next war so we better set aside some of our precious submarine tonnage for vessels that haul cargo instead of sinking enemy vessels..." or the prewar USN said the same thing about Bataan or that the prewar IJN planned on having dozens of penny-packet infantry forces bypassed during the US advance and so would need cargo subs to supply those forces?

The idea here isn't to apply our 2011 hindsight or, even worse, video game "brainstorms" like zeppelin paratroopers to decisions made in the past. The idea here is to examine what realistic alternate decisions the people in the past could plausible make given an honest appraisal of what they knew at the time.

[MattII]

Yes, because they didn't accomplish a damn thing. Germany still lost the war as her citizens starved behind an Entente blockade that lasted until 1919.Wow, so just because Germany lost in the long-run, everything they did in the war was a failure?

So what? One sub made money back. Whoop-de-doo.Hey, there's a lot of military investments that haven't made money back.

Another, the Bremen, departed port only to never be heard from again...You win some, you lose some.

...and the preliminary contracts to build additional cargo subs safely in US yards were never funded.Which proves that merchant submarines don't work, how?

Diplomacy aside, Wilhelmine Germany wasn't congenitally stupid. If more cargo subs could have made an actual difference, they would built more cargo subs. They didn't build them for a reason.More subs were made actually, it's just that by the time they were, America was in the war against them, so they were taken over by the navy.

I guess all the Axis and Allied navies who, after looking at their use in WW1, decided not to build cargo subs were just fucking stupid then, right?If you have a free (ie, only intermittent, in any, enemy air presence), open sea-coast you don't really need a merchant submarine.

No one plans on supplying long term besieged garrisons because no one plans on being besieged for that long in the first place. Do you seriously think the prewar RN would have said "Gee, Malta is going to be all but completely blockaded by Italian and German forces in the next war so we better set aside some of our precious submarine tonnage for vessels that haul cargo instead of sinking enemy vessels..." or the prewar USN said the same thing about Bataan or that the prewar IJN planned on having dozens of penny-packet infantry forces bypassed during the US advance and so would need cargo subs to supply those forces?Given Britain's Prime Minister pre-war was Neville "peace in our time" Chamberlain...

The idea here isn't to apply our 2011 hindsight or, even worse, video game "brainstorms" like zeppelin paratroopers to decisions made in the past. The idea here is to examine what realistic alternate decisions the people in the past could plausible make given an honest appraisal of what they knew at the time.Video game brainstorms couldn't really have been much worse than the wartime legacy of Mr N. Chamberlain. Of course, given the nominal strength of RN Mediterranean Squadron vs. the Regia Marina, and the expected ability of the French to defend themselves, the British government might not have seen the need to build any dedicated submarine transports.

[Paul MacQ]

No one plans on supplying long term besieged garrisons because no one plans on being besieged for that long in the first place. Do you seriously think the prewar RN would have said "Gee, Malta is going to be all but completely blockaded by Italian and German forces in the next war so we better set aside some of our precious submarine tonnage for vessels that haul cargo instead of sinking enemy vessels..." or the prewar USN said the same thing about Bataan or that the prewar IJN planned on having dozens of penny-packet infantry forces bypassed during the US advance and so would need cargo subs to supply those forces?

The idea here isn't to apply our 2011 hindsight or, even worse, video game "brainstorms" like zeppelin paratroopers to decisions made in the past. The idea here is to examine what realistic alternate decisions the people in the past could plausible make given an honest appraisal of what they knew at the time.

Thanks for the Honest reply. My understanding of Plan Orange developed in the 1920's was PI was going to be left to defend itself until build up to start an Offensive against Japan. I gather in your opinion that this would not have been enough to Develop Expensive special Purpose Subs for one task. And the reason I started the thread. I wanted the reason why not.

Reading “ Siege Malta 1940-1943” by Enerle Bradford, and Fortress Malta An Island under Siege “ by James Holland I get the Idea that Britains thought that Malta was undefendable in case of War with Italy and Germany back in 1938. It was pushed through by Churchill when he became PM to make it a place to take the offensive against Italy. Even then after Cunningham testing the Italian Naval resolve.

Yes in hindsight Transport Subs might have been useful. I was looking for possible hooks they might have been seen as useful before the War started.

[MattII]

Unlikely I should think, they were apparently expecting another trench warfare scenario.

[Flubber]

Thanks for the Honest reply.


You're welcome. I'm glad I could cut through some of the usual gibberish.

I gather in your opinion that this would not have been enough to Develop Expensive special Purpose Subs for one task.

Plenty of special purpose subs were built before and even during the war, but each were built for, what seemed at the time, very good reasons.

Both the US and France built a few "cruiser" subs, subs with large calibre guns, to act as commerce raiders. Wargames then showed that subs which relied primarily on gunfire don't work well so the idea was dropped.

Japan built a number of "midget" subs before and during the war as part of an "asymetrical" warfare effort meant to whittle away at the numerical superiority her potential enemies held. While the record of those subs varied, Japan's industrial/strategic position meant she had to gamble where other nations did not.

Japan also built a series of subs which carried seaplanes. They were meant to act as scouts but failed dismally in actual practice. Again, this was a gamble.

The UK built midget subs too for various "fringe" missions like trying to sink the Tirpitz or IJN warships based in Singapore. Again, this was akin to gambling in certain special circumstance and no one in the RN had seriously suggested building a flotilla of midgets before the war or keeping them afterward.

And the reason I started the thread. I wanted the reason why not.

No real overall utility. Yes, they could be handy in certain special circumstances but how can you predict certain special circumstances.

Reading “ Siege Malta 1940-1943” by Enerle Bradford, and Fortress Malta An Island under Siege “ by James Holland I get the Idea that Britains thought that Malta was undefendable in case of War with Italy and Germany back in 1938. It was pushed through by Churchill when he became PM to make it a place to take the offensive against Italy. Even then after Cunningham testing the Italian Naval resolve.

All that illustrates my point neatly. Malta is someplace in the OTL where subs delivered cargo and thus would be a place where a purpose-built cargo sub could be used. However, the UK never really planned on holding the island until 1940.

It's also a matter of money. Subs are expensive and require specialized crews. It's better to build a sub that can fight and then use it to carry cargo if you're forced to do so.

Yes in hindsight Transport Subs might have been useful. I was looking for possible hooks they might have been seen as useful before the War started.

This is a fantasy considering the lifespan of sub hulls, maintenance issues, and dozens of other reasons but...

Have WW1 Germany build more, lay them up when Bremen sinks, and then hand them over to the Entente with the rest of the HSF. Instead of scrapping them in the 20s or 30s, Britain keeps two or three in ordinary for whatever reason only to take a hard look at them when the siege of Malta kicks off. A group of half-mad volunteers the likes of Jack Churchill or Orde Wingate are scraped up from the RN, the old subs are towed to Gibraltar, and, after a crash course, the loonies are off to Malta aboard subs older than most of the men aboard.

Like I said, an utter fantasy.

[Flocculencio]

Malta was for quite a while, and they did use submarines to resupply it (surface ships had a nasty habit of not arriving).

Yup- but that was an isolated, very specific situation. Constructing ships in depth for every single particular situation isn't feasible without hindsight.

[Flubber]

Yup- but that was an isolated, very specific situation. Constructing ships in depth for every single particular situation isn't feasible without hindsight.


Very neatly put. Thank you.

[Riain]

Does a `milch cow` count as a cargo sub?

Also, considering the value of the strategic materials being shipped via sub, and the minor resources that a handful of cargo subs consumes in the context of WW1 then the concept is sound enough to try. Maybe if Bremen hadn`t vanished we`d be saying how valuable the small cargo sub programme was.

[MattII]

Yup- but that was an isolated, very specific situation. Constructing ships in depth for every single particular situation isn't feasible without hindsight.Yes, as I noted in a later post.

Does a `milch cow` count as a cargo sub?Yes, although again, a perceived lack of use means that the allies won't be building any, at least to start off with.

[Riain]

It was the Grampus class minelaying subs that were used as cargo subs. They were designed to carry 50 mines in a casing outside the hull as well as torpedo tubes, not long before the RN designed a mines which could be laid from a standard 21 inch tube. In the event this big space was used as cargo space for the Malta run, I don`t know how many runs were done but the operation was called Magic Carpet and I get the impression that it was sustained for quite a while.

So it turns out that while the British didn`t build a cargo sub they had one suited to the purpose already in service and used it extensively.

[MattII]

It was the Grampus class minelaying subs that were used as cargo subs.All sorts of subs were used in the "Magic Carpet", the most regular being the River-class vessel HMS Clyde.

In the event this big space was used as cargo space for the Malta run, I don`t know how many runs were done but the operation was called Magic Carpet and I get the impression that it was sustained for quite a while.The "Magic Carpet" was sustained for quite a while, but none of Grampus-class subs ever took part as far as I know, the two that weren't sunk or captured before or during Operation Barbarossa were later reassigned to the Pacific.

[Riain]

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-12SS-05Grampus-Rorqual.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-12SS-05Grampus-Porpoise.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/xAH-MaltaSupply03.htm

This site references Macintyre, which I have here. It goes into how the Grampus subs had special tanks built to fit into the mine stowage to maximise the carriage of aviation fuel, 14,000 gallons per trip.

[Paul MacQ]

Thanks Rain for the Great Links