Most air attacks is not all air attacks;So was Fido...most air attacks Vs subs was with 'sticks' of bombs and only useful against surfaced and the 40 seconds of diving....otherwise useless.
On the other hand an attacking ASW vessel could use Fido in conjunction with sonar to attack all subs ....provided the subs were only managing 3-7 knots. Using that as a guide line to catch 12 knot sub you need torpedo of 19-20 knots DASH speed.
type 21 might have been anticipated but don't expect any operational mk 34 before end of decade in peace time or the end of the war in real time.
no idea what that means?
Yet a sane risk taker would arm to defend themselves within treaty limitation. Britain and France could not afford to occupy the Ruhr all the time. This is why it was left demilitarized rather than occupied before. You don't want to build up your defence industries there anyway. Too close to East Anglia, let alone France.
Britain was rearming anyway. The point of the naval treaty with Hitler was to limit and steer German rearmament in ways that made the German fleet less of a threat. They had drawn the line OTL. Keep within that and they are not surprised/alarmed. Permission to build aircraft carriers was an invitation to waste resources. Sensible priorities within agreed limits shouldn't incur wroth, only disappointment.I'd really like to know why the Royal Navy would care, given that a reoccupation of the Rhine leads to a new German government in short order.
If you want a quick British rearmament, build lots of submarines.
Britain was rearming anyway. The point of the naval treaty with Hitler was to limit and steer German rearmament in ways that made the German fleet less of a threat. They had drawn the line OTL. Keep within that and they are not surprised/alarmed. Permission to build aircraft carriers was an invitation to waste resources. Sensible priorities within agreed limits shouldn't incur wroth, only disappointment.
These are lots of small submarine boats, within acceptable tonnage compared to RN submarines. Small boats don't have the range to threaten her empire. It is the type VII that will ring alarm bells.
So was Fido...most air attacks Vs subs was with 'sticks' of bombs and only useful against surfaced and the 40 seconds of diving....otherwise useless.
On the other hand an attacking ASW vessel could use Fido in conjunction with sonar to attack all subs ....provided the subs were only managing 3-7 knots. Using that as a guide line to catch 12 knot sub you need torpedo of 19-20 knots DASH speed.
type 21 might have been anticipated but don't expect any operational mk 34 before end of decade in peace time or the end of the war in real time.
no idea what that means?
Well the type II clearly exceeds the requirement if the range is that high. A Baltic training submarine and coastal defence U-boat need not have such a threatening range and can concentrated more on speed and batteries. The type IIa was almost half that range (1,600 nm) and development need not have gone in that direction. Perhaps the range extension was kept secret on the type IIb? I don't know how much these boats were subject to inspection, but that does seem needlessly provocative.Go look at a map of Europe.
Germany has three potential enemies - France, Russia and Britain.
Two of them have land borders with Germany. One nearly got strangled by a blockade by German submarines in the last war.
A type IIB coastal boat has a range of 3100 nautical miles, which is easily enough to patrol the Irish Sea from Germany.
Again, the RN is very very sensitive to certain sorts of threats. They are the sort of threats that go on, or under, water.
WOW basic tactics , glad the Americans figured it out, - took them long enough.Successful hammer and anvil tactics or Able baker hunts require sonar fences. High Tea (HT) was what the British called the "navigation" sonar buoys they employed that were American invented. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. That was the point of the history lesson. How does one think the Americans knew where to drop FIDO on a submerged boat? Sometimes visual on surface, sometimes radar, sometimes escort pingers or sometimes sonobuoys. It was American ASW doctrine to drive the U-boat down underwater, force it on the battery to slow it, by using depth charges, strafing or bombs; then drop FIDOs (if available) to chase it, fore and aft lead and lag. FIDO was relatively silent. The U-boats thus never knew what killed them.
WOW basic tactics , glad the Americans figured it out, - took them long enough.
Son-buoys were pretty useless and the number of U-Boats sunk by air was ehhhh 213 sunk by air + 36 sunk cooperating with ASW Vessels. So the FIDO accounted for maybe 15-17% of U-Boats sunk. Mostly by bombs and mostly when the subs were on surface or crash diving.
Sonobuoys & ASW torps were post war weapons.
I'd really like to know why the Royal Navy would care, given that a reoccupation of the Rhine leads to a new German government in short order.
If you want a quick British rearmament, build lots of submarines.
Well the type II clearly exceeds the requirement if the range is that high. A Baltic training submarine and coastal defence U-boat need not have such a threatening range and can concentrated more on speed and batteries. The type IIa was almost half that range (1,600 nm) and development need not have gone in that direction. Perhaps the range extension was kept secret on the type IIb? I don't know how much these boats were subject to inspection, but that does seem needlessly provocative.
WOW basic tactics , glad the Americans figured it out, - took them long enough.
Son-buoys were pretty useless and the number of U-Boats sunk by air was ehhhh 213 sunk by air + 36 sunk cooperating with ASW Vessels. So the FIDO accounted for maybe 15-17% of U-Boats sunk. Mostly by bombs and mostly when the subs were on surface or crash diving.
Sonobuoys & ASW torps were post war weapons.
Son-buoys were pretty useless
And you really expect the RN doesnt think the Germans are building a future model with extended range fuel tanks ?
Just how gullible do you think the RN is ?
a quick glance (at 1940) shows the Italians, Japanese, and Soviets with 350 submarines and Germans with 50-odd more, considering the global responsibilities of the RN what difference would 25-odd MORE German submarines make? seriously, and not disputing your view of their diligence.
thought their primary aim (regarding Germany) was to end building of hybrid Panzerschiffe?
In his memoirs, From Sail to Steam, Mahan credited his reading of Theodore Mommsen’s six-volume History of Rome for the insight that sea power was the key to global predominance. In The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, Mahan reviewed the role of sea power in the emergence and growth of the British Empire. In the book’s first chapter, he described the sea as a “great highway” and “wide common” with “well-worn trade routes” over which men pass in all directions. He identified several narrow passages or strategic “chokepoints,” the control of which contributed to Great Britain’s command of the seas. He famously listed six fundamental elements of sea power: geographical position, physical conformation, extent of territory, size of population, character of the people, and character of government. Based largely on those factors, Mahan envisioned the United States as the geopolitical successor to the British Empire.
1. Japan and Italy are German "friends" and allies. Russia is geographically null at sea, and not a factor in RN planning.
The Germans and the Russians have to get past Great Britain to use the Atlantic. The Russians were in a better position pre WW II but lacked the skills. The Germans, who had the skills, lacked the geography until they took Norway and France. However, the Germans could shoot Type II subs through the North and Norwegian Seas, passing the Shetlands, Faeroes, Iceland gap and operate off the Western Approaches and Irish Seas. This is not good.
HUSL (love puns) and before the British did. But for sonabuoys, one must look to Columbia University.
Some history.
As you can see....
pps. 324-330 and specifically pps. 329-330 USS Bogue HK group.
The I-52 was just one example of USN sonobuoy use with FIDO. A classic HAMMER and ANVIL attack.
The sonobuoys were not useless.
The I-52 was not recharging with diesels. It was killed, along with 36 + Germans using the PIM target (PROJECTED INTENDED MOTION) tactics that caught it.
For if the base start position of a sub is known, sonobuoys can isolate the baseline course and put ASW forces into position to corral the submerged sub. That is the whole point of the cloverleaf drops which form the sonar fence.
Your 1946 citation is therefore somewhat misleading as to how sonobuoys are used and what the function of the things is supposed to be. Refer to the 2013 document for better information as to the actual tactical employment.