AHQ: U-boat sinking rate to achieve victory?
- Thread starter phx1138
- Start date
Then there is this:
www.foxnews.com
Sunken Imperial Russian warship may contain $130 billion in gold
Explorers have found the wreck of a Russian Imperial Navy ship that was sunk 113 years ago and may contain $130 billion worth of gold bars and coins, according to news reports.
www.foxnews.com
Yes I read the quote. I was pointing out the real reasons that boats don’t like to snorkel. The CO is going to charge his batteries regardless of a few ruptured ear drums. The DBF guys I’ve talked to said that ear drums rarely got ruptured. The article you quote mentions the reasons I and others cited as why boats didn’t like to snorkel. The words it uses for ear drums is “most dramatic effect.” I’m just pointing out that boats don’t like to snorkel. Like just about everything else performed on a boat, it’s not easy.
Deleted member 1487
The most common one was ear pain due to the pressure changes when the system got disrupted by sea water in rough seas. Of course the CO is going to charge like that regardless, but there is no way the crew appreciated that. Of course despite all the other reasons the crew hated the snorkels the CO is going to use it anyway.
1. A dedicated force of long-range maritime support aircraft that will spot and track convoys, guiding u-boat (packs) in. They can also be of use to sort out navigation errors of individual boats or report weather changes. They may also attack individual targets outside of convoys, like fast merchants or stranglers. This obviously requires something like a German Fleet Air Arm, which was not going to happen, since Goering thinks "everything that flies belongs to me". In OTL only a handful of planes were available. You need more and better planes (the FW-200 was largely outdated).
2. Better protection of u-boats while transitting out/into bases, mainly over the Gulf of Biscay. The amount of u-boats lost in the Gulf of Biscay is simply stunning, the Luftwaffe could have done a better job defending them. It will mean however investing heavily on resources.
2. Better protection of u-boats while transitting out/into bases, mainly over the Gulf of Biscay. The amount of u-boats lost in the Gulf of Biscay is simply stunning, the Luftwaffe could have done a better job defending them. It will mean however investing heavily on resources.
The only way the Germans have a chance to win the convoy war is to preplan before the war and make submarines that can be assembled quickly from standardized parts. Then you could plan the production cycle and stockpile components (including whole modules before war is declared without breaking any treaties. This would also mean training more 'reservists' who would fill out crews to man the larger fleet without requiring extensive training time.
Then overwhelm the naval forces in the early part of the war before the Democracies moved from a peacetime to wartime footing. The Type VII boat was an excellent boat for teh North Atlantic. fast diving, capable of going deep. It just needs to be 'Kaiserised' as in Henry Kaiser the creator of the production line for ships. The Germans never did this in any of their weapons programs. The Tank and aircraft programs never moved beyond the 'workshop' mentality either into the mass production of heavy weapons. Speer had some of the right ideas but they came too little too late. The whole idea that they would complete the Z plan by 44-45 was ludicrous The Z plan was not going to give them a fleet to defeat Britain. They would always be hemmed in by the few outlets of the North Sea. Build a few prestige ships but put all the effort in the mid and late 30s into perfecting standardised, quick to build light forces - subs, raiding craft, aircraft, etc.
Then overwhelm the naval forces in the early part of the war before the Democracies moved from a peacetime to wartime footing. The Type VII boat was an excellent boat for teh North Atlantic. fast diving, capable of going deep. It just needs to be 'Kaiserised' as in Henry Kaiser the creator of the production line for ships. The Germans never did this in any of their weapons programs. The Tank and aircraft programs never moved beyond the 'workshop' mentality either into the mass production of heavy weapons. Speer had some of the right ideas but they came too little too late. The whole idea that they would complete the Z plan by 44-45 was ludicrous The Z plan was not going to give them a fleet to defeat Britain. They would always be hemmed in by the few outlets of the North Sea. Build a few prestige ships but put all the effort in the mid and late 30s into perfecting standardised, quick to build light forces - subs, raiding craft, aircraft, etc.
Only the Japanese put serious effort into Submarine Seaplanes and Carriers but even then they were a waste of resources if technically impressive machines.
Aichi M6A - Wikipedia
I-400-class submarine - Wikipedia
BlackDragon98
Banned
True.
The Germans only ever deployed the Fa 330 gyrocopter once in combat IIRC.
Use it to spot a lone Greek steamer and sink it.
The North Atlantic was far too treacherous for the Fa 330 to be deployed and deploy it in the Med was instant suicide with Allied planes everywhere.
Seaplanes may have a place in the much larger (and less rough) Pacific but they would be of little use in the North Atlantic. The colder rougher environment of 'North Atlantic Winter' is no place to try and launch and recover aircraft with a small vessel that cannot capture and pull out of the wave action an aircraft as the Americans could do with their landing mats. And even there it was dicey.Only the Japanese put serious effort into Submarine Seaplanes and Carriers but even then they were a waste of resources if technically impressive machines.
Aichi M6A - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 570999
I-400-class submarine - Wikipedia
View attachment 571000
BlackDragon98
Banned
1. More of these? With Junkers diesel engines maybe?
Blohm & Voss BV 222 - Wikipedia
2. Place Luftwaffe operational training squadrons at airfields covering the Bay of Biscay.
A pair of Luftwaffe fighters could easily take down a Allied ASW plane. The fighters would probably need drop tanks if they want to extend the patrol time.
The only hope for the Uboat if spotted would have been to cut the tow cable, abandoning the pilot and crash dive. They'd probably try to recover the pilot later but I wouldn't give much for his chances.
Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 - Wikipedia
BlackDragon98
Banned
Raeder has to go then. Z plan was his mad dream to make fleet that could take on the RN, forgetting what happened at Jutland.
If Wegener was in charge this would have never happened. He was all for a guerre de course, a raider war, but he was unfortunately sidelined and forced to retire because Raeder took charge.
The Germans should have adopted the Ford production model ASAP.
Factories running 24 hrs, with higher pay for night shifts.
BlackDragon98
Banned
That's probably why it was almost deployed.The only hope for the Uboat if spotted would have been to cut the tow cable, abandoning the pilot and crash dive. They'd probably try to recover the pilot later but I wouldn't give much for his chances.
Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 - Wikipedia
And the thing was flimsy AF.
Wouldn't stand for more than 20 seconds in the stormy North Atlantic.
The pilot would most likely be captured if it was an Allied warship or seaplane that spotted the U-boat.
On the other hand, a gyrocopter would have been extremely useful for the USN in the South Pacific.
Weather was good and IJN ASW was a potato.
First off, I want to thank everybody for the healthy response. It beats the usual resounding silence all hollow. 
It might require scrapping the heavies. It will change the Allied response; I fully expect it to.
How much of that was because it looked like the OTL half-measures & diversions to the Med & Norway were working?
Deck guns are useful for targets not worth a torpedo, as well as cripples.
Modular design (as others discuss) was a effectively a non-starter.
Wire-guided torpedoes are too sophisticated & expensive, &, for attacking merchantmen, essentially pointless.
Attacks without periscope (by sonar) were USN prewar doctrine. The war proved they don't work: it's impossible to get accurate-enough target bearings. (It requires something akin to PUFFS.)
A noisemaker torpedo is an absurd waste of resources.
I will say, schnorchel is a good idea.
Discovering the thermal layers isn't a bad idea, but it presupposes U-boats being under attack by convoy escorts. Most sinkings were unescorted targets.
You're absolutely right. I'd add, "on patrol station".
Why the focus on torpedoes? If they can't hit anything, it doesn't matter how fast they are.
Moreover, if you're firing at a target only doing 10kt, a 50kt torpedo is a waste of effort. So is range of 20mi (or 10), since you can't hit a moving ship at that range anyhow; the fuel is a waste of space. A 25kt torpedo with a range of (say) 8000yd, & a warhead of (say) 2000pd, makes way more sense. (Yes, U-boats won't only be firing at merchants. A handful of fast torpedoes might be needed for opportunity targets, or anti-escort attacks.)
Better, more reliable exploders would be a very good idea--but better firecontrol gear, to achieve more hits (which could, at need, be polished off with guns), IMO is better still. Larger warheads, in connection with better firecontrol, will also produce more sinkings.
Neither requires radical new tech, nor dangerous onboard materials. More to the point, better firecontrol gear can stay secret, so the Brits can't respond prewar--& once war starts, they'll have to realize that's the cause.
How do you achieve it? I'd steal the plans of the TDC, myself. I'd also seriously consider fitting every U-boat with a retractable radar mast & about a 25cm wavelength rangefinding radar. (You have to get that past Dönitz, who seems hostile to new tech...)
)
is another thread. The use of V-2s against the cities of Britain or the U.S. makes Japan's nuisance shelling of Los Angeles look like a brilliant strategy by comparison.
I'm not (perforce) saying "Start with 85 on station". (The Pacific Fleet Sub Force certainly didn't start with 65 on station.) I do mean, your average for the duration has to be 85. If you can reduce the transit time, or increase the tonnage/patrol (both possible), that number (obviously) goes down.
It might require scrapping the heavies. It will change the Allied response; I fully expect it to.
How much of that was because it looked like the OTL half-measures & diversions to the Med & Norway were working?
I don't buy that, I'm afraid. It wasn't necessary to read U-boat signals to know U-boats were near convoys, & DF would achieve that. (Yes, that change will make it harder for the Germans, not easier...)
Indeed, & a fairly small number of Stirlings in Newfoundland would have a disproportionate effect--again, not making it easier for the Germans...
IMO, the Germans could achieve something close to it later than that. In early '43, the Brits were (AIUI) seriously considering abandoning convoys; better German performance earlier might just lead to it.
So much of this demands giant technological leaps, I hardly know where to start.
Deck guns are useful for targets not worth a torpedo, as well as cripples.
Modular design (as others discuss) was a effectively a non-starter.
Wire-guided torpedoes are too sophisticated & expensive, &, for attacking merchantmen, essentially pointless.
Attacks without periscope (by sonar) were USN prewar doctrine. The war proved they don't work: it's impossible to get accurate-enough target bearings. (It requires something akin to PUFFS.)
A noisemaker torpedo is an absurd waste of resources.
I will say, schnorchel is a good idea.
Discovering the thermal layers isn't a bad idea, but it presupposes U-boats being under attack by convoy escorts. Most sinkings were unescorted targets.
I should have recalled how verbose U-boats & BdU were...
You're absolutely right. I'd add, "on patrol station".True, but IMO the number of unescorted ships was high enough, it could be a rarity.
Okay, first off, nitpick alert: they're exploders, not detonators.
Why the focus on torpedoes? If they can't hit anything, it doesn't matter how fast they are.
Moreover, if you're firing at a target only doing 10kt, a 50kt torpedo is a waste of effort. So is range of 20mi (or 10), since you can't hit a moving ship at that range anyhow; the fuel is a waste of space. A 25kt torpedo with a range of (say) 8000yd, & a warhead of (say) 2000pd, makes way more sense. (Yes, U-boats won't only be firing at merchants. A handful of fast torpedoes might be needed for opportunity targets, or anti-escort attacks.)
Better, more reliable exploders would be a very good idea--but better firecontrol gear, to achieve more hits (which could, at need, be polished off with guns), IMO is better still. Larger warheads, in connection with better firecontrol, will also produce more sinkings.
Neither requires radical new tech, nor dangerous onboard materials. More to the point, better firecontrol gear can stay secret, so the Brits can't respond prewar--& once war starts, they'll have to realize that's the cause.
How do you achieve it? I'd steal the plans of the TDC, myself. I'd also seriously consider fitting every U-boat with a retractable radar mast & about a 25cm wavelength rangefinding radar. (You have to get that past Dönitz, who seems hostile to new tech...)
No, no, no, no no. Seaplanes take too long to erect, are damn near impossible to recover in a sea, are extremely hard to land in a sea, & have to be stowed on deck in a way that makes diving very much slower, not to mention operations more hazardous (if the hangar is punctured, it floods...
)As noted, time on station isn't actually as beneficial as widely believed.
The gigantic waste of resources the V-2 represents
is another thread. The use of V-2s against the cities of Britain or the U.S. makes Japan's nuisance shelling of Los Angeles look like a brilliant strategy by comparison.That would go a long way, IMO.
That's also a really good idea. It reminds me of one of my favorite ideas, intruder attacks on Coastal Command bases. (Impractical? If so, the German air effort might be too high to sustain.)
So much of this demands giant technological leaps, I hardly know where to start.
Deck guns are useful for targets not worth a torpedo, as well as cripples.
Modular design (as others discuss) was a effectively a non-starter.
Wire-guided torpedoes are too sophisticated & expensive, &, for attacking merchantmen, essentially pointless.
Attacks without periscope (by sonar) were USN prewar doctrine. The war proved they don't work: it's impossible to get accurate-enough target bearings. (It requires something akin to PUFFS.)
A noisemaker torpedo is an absurd waste of resources.
I will say, schnorchel is a good idea.
Discovering the thermal layers isn't a bad idea, but it presupposes U-boats being under attack by convoy escorts. Most sinkings were unescorted targets.
Not really. Anything under a C3 is easy prey for a deck gun. Greatest Uboat ace of all time did so primarily with a deck gun.
Americans had developed radio guided torpedo in 1930. Germans had Goliath tank. Dedication of resources there would see easy payof, after all it’s just slaving an electro wire to either the hidrophone or periscope of a submarine.
Yes. And USN was torture with poor torpedos on top. Study of it and implementation that is effective isn’t too far out of range of possibilities.
Modular in terms of having engines, torpedo tubes and batteries ready, not modular in terms of having hull sheets pre-prepared for assembly.
It would greatly increase survivability if submarine by serving as a decoy that behaves realistically. Germany already had zig zag pattern torpedos, all they’d need to do is slow them down and make them depth capable.
Submarines suffered something like 75% casualty rate. An army suffering the same would be looking into anything that can prevent it. Unprotected lone ships are ideal targets but supposing that Britain will kee it that way in a war when they have already shown both innovative ness and dedication to ASW is silly.
Making the crew more confident by giving them greater odds of survival would alone pay dividends in more attacks and less missed opportunities due to fear. And that is without factoring in the survival of the ships and valuable veteran crew. While my proposal does require innovation of both technology as well as naval doctrine it’s not impossible for the time period at years of preparation.
Last edited:
WI Barbarossa was postponed until Britain is defeated. Might a LOT more priority have been given to u boats?
Depends. Many times the allies used evasive routing, or bad weather or excessive air cover hindered operations.
Generally long range IXs faced a lot less allied ASW so there was less excuse or reason to fail to act aggressively. But evasive routing could be a problem for them too. After Henke radioed intelligence on allied shipping routes off the African coast the allies, reading his mail, changed them early in '44 so the next boat to arrive in the area, U-123, scored no sinkings despite the competence of von Schroeter, its CO.
How could the boat stalk its prey if using the snort rendered it deaf and blind? They couldn't use either the hydrophones or the periscope.
A better solution IMO would've been radar or at least radar detectors--though in the case of the latter it was hard to keep pace with the allies.
The IX boats were hampered by being much slower diving than the VII's. This becomes a factor when operating close to coasts early in the war and later on when there was pervasive ASW patrols via escort carriers and long range ASW aircraft later on.