Most effective "possible" WWII weapon at sinking merchantmen?

I think that a weapon of that calibre would be too big to fire sideways as the recoil would be contrary to the direction of flight and might it not flip the aircraft, or something like that? I've read of similar large-calibre weapons firing forward having the effect of stopping a plane in mid-air, the crews were scared to fire them. In 1940 the Germans had some success with experimental Me 110's against shipping in the English Channel, equipped with a 30mm cannon firing forward, though the gun was prone to jamming and wasn't liked by its crews.

German submarine torpedoes were faulty until 1942, failing to explode after hitting their target. After the Norwegian campaign, when the data was analyzed back at BdU, it was found that four attacks were launched on the battleship HMS Warsprite, fourteen on cruisers, ten on destroyers, and a further ten on transports – yet only one transport was sunk. Discounting marginal attacks, Donitz concluded that had the torpedoes not failed, the U-boats would have “probable sinkings” of one battleship, seven cruisers, seven destroyers, and five transports. In summary, about twenty enemy warships had escaped certain destruction because of torpedo failures. There was also an attack on HMS Nelson (three torpedoes hit) and the Ark Royal (three torpedoes failed to explode). Gunther Prien got so sick of the problem he refused to attack some British ships when they were in his sights. The torpedo problem was discovered during the Spanish Civil War (November 1936) but the Oskar Wehr, director of the German Torpedo Trials Establishment (TVA) said the problem lay with the users ("inexperienced crews arming detonators and setting running depths"), not with the torpedoes, and the problems were not investigated. When that man was dismissed in December 1939, his successor confirmed that the torpedos were faulty within a week. The problem was caused by the changes in air pressure that occurred when a submarine dived and surfaced again, as well as the changes in the Earth's magnetic field at extreme northern latitudes. The German G7e T3 torpedo was otherwise technically quite advanced - it was electrically powered so it did not leave a bubble wake and was hard to detect. The torpedo had a percussion detonator and a magnetic one, allowing the torpedo to be set to explode when it was underneath its target. There was a tendency for the torpedoes to explode prematurely or not at all. There were also problems with depth keeping. If the attack on the Nelson had succeeded, it might also have killed Churchill, First Sea Lord Dudley Pound, and Home Fleet commander Sir Charles Forbes, who were on the ship at the time. (See pp71-72 "World War II Data Book The Kriegsmarine 1935-1945")

The Luftwaffe did not have the same problems as the U-boats as the Luftwaffe torpedoes were based on the Norwegian Horten-torpedo (LT F5 / LT F5a / LT F5b) or an Italian design (LT F5w). The lufttorpedoes had other challenges though, related to the torpedos being damaged or malfunctioning due to a non-optimal entry in the water (due to the droppspeed and -angle).The norwegian officer and enginer Johan A.Bull made a very successful design around 1930: By means of a wooden air-rudder enabling the aerial torpedo to be dropped with no problems at higher speeds and higher altitudes than any competing designs at that time. Naturally his torpedo design was highly sought after, but the Germans couldn't buy it due to the limitations they had after WW1. It's a long story, but as a result of a successful intelligence-operation (were certain aspects supposedly are still secret) they managed to get hold of 30 Horten-torpedoes by using a swedish firm as a "front", and later copied the design for their own use (LT F5), and further improved it (LT F5a / LT F5b).The wooden air rudder was also the primary success factor for the japanese aerial torpedo attacks in shallow waters at Pearl harbour, and it is suggested their device was based on Bulls original design.

The two Luftwaffe torpedo bombers were initially the He 59, of which 142 were built, and the He 115 . The first was used as a torpedo bomber in 1939 and as a reconnaissance aircraft in 1940. 18 December 1939, North north-west of rattray Head, the British fishing steamer Active (185 GRT) was sunk by an airborne torpedo launched by an He 59 (Ku.Fl.Gr 3./706). Secondly there was the He 115 Floatplane. Germany did have some (He 115 floatplane) torpedo bombers in 1940. The only operational airborne torpedo Staffel ready for action In July 1940 was 3/Ku.Fl.Gr 506 based at Stavanger, to be followed by 1./Ku.Fl.Gr 106 from mid August based at Norderney (on the North Sea coast of Germany) – a total of about 30 aircraft. Between August and December 1940, they used about 160 torpedos sinking about eight ships totalling around 60,000 tonnes.
 
Dont think its going to work very well against an enemy that has coatal radar an airforce and lots of minesweepers
True enough, though aircraft on conventional attack runs would be more vulnerable to those same conditions

Aerial mining has the advantage that you don't need to attack enemy point targets, only a general area, and that it can be conducted by types of aircraft not intended for naval attack

I recognize that subs are possibly better, but I think the OP wanted aircraft in this thread given his first post
That's because the marine arm of the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist, and the U-boat fleet was doing little more than provide target practice to the Allied ASW forces.
My statement was always about planes rather than subs. I recognize that the U-Boats sank more tonnage than mines did, on the other hand 6 months of aerial mining sank more tonnage than the best 8 months of Luftwaffe anti-shipping attacks, there was only one month where the Luftwaffe sunk more tonnage than the average for that 6 month period
 
In this ATL the most effective way to sink allied shipping in a war commencing in 1939 is IMHO to somehow work a miracle and actually have the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine plan and execute a coordinated campaign from day one. This would also need to benefit from prior weapons development, ie torpedoes that worked, both arial and marine. Dedicated search and attack aircraft preferably with radar. More submarines and propositioned supply ships at DOW, suffice not stocks of mines, torpedoes and other ordinance. Preparing and training for all this would need to be kept secret from the Allies an therein lies one of the biggest problems in this ATL, without the Nazi's the inter service cooperation might be there, the technical development of weapons is all practical in line with OTL if the right decisions are made but the allied response if this strategy is detected should go a long way to mitigate its effects. For the purpose of a non Nazi led WW2 sometime after 1939 then a pod at least ten years earlier would be required to develop the technology, tactics and trained personnel required to pursue this strategy from the commencement of hostilities. The knock on effect on other forces and equipment would need to be calculated to ascertain whether this is actually a better strategy and use of resources than others available.
 
This has turned into a cannon vs. bombs vs. torpedoes debate which was not the OP's original intention. The examples provided may have caused this turn of events.
The question was what was the best that could be done. There is even an offer of a 1919 POD and motivated by revenge rather than genocidal insanity so its possible/easy to request competence and cunning on the German side.
I have a very related TL running (Zweites Buch in the signature) where a similar task is being attempted with Hitler in charge (rightfully scrutinized for compatibility with Hitler's personality) and a debate on the most efficient methods for sinking small vessel (yes, for a more confined area;)) where the cannon is relevant.
For merchant ships the torpedo is the clear winner and the submarine is the available long-term delivery platform. However, with a 1919 POD, more can be done and there are options in the timing as well. Imagine a German build-up starting in 1929 in alliance with Italy motivated by a time-frame. What was not known at the time was that government spending could kick-start the economy (within the limits of government being able to obtain loans (domestically)). It seems from 1933 that Schacht had the understanding that the consumers dictate economic growth, which was not prevailing at the time. You might in this time frame see Germany changing 3 years of -10% growth into three years of +5-10% growth and become the economic locomotive of central Europe. With a less radical government you'll see domination of central and eastern europe (no one would mess with the power offering you an economic lifeline) and military preparations at a time where Britain and France would find it very hard to respond (from a financial perspective). Particularly if the German's and Italians seem sane.

Weapons wise, what could you imagine? A lot, but lets say more submarines and raiders and long-range bombers equipped with torpedoes developed for high altitude drops. You could with the right twist in the POD see guided missiles, bombs and torpedoes. Maybe milch cow subs as well.

Probably the weight will be on the naval assets as France needs to fall for the airborne assets will be really effective. The seaborne assets might aid in the defeat of France and then Britain.
 
Yep. The figures you are providing I believe are for the OTL naval version of the weapons, which has some other factor from an airborn weapon.
I did that because you were quoting shell weights for the OTL naval weapon – I’d previously given you the details for the OTL German 37mm cannon, and you claimed that a gun existed firing a far heavier shell. So it does – but it’s a naval gun, and weighs a hell of a lot more.

If I have my numbers rigth, the naval version had a range exceeding 7,000 meters, while I need something just a we bit more than 1,000 meters. The naval version needed to propel it's rounds up, while mine will not.
Doesn’t make much of a difference – cutting muzzle velocity saves you a bit of weight at the cost of a lot of power. If you want a heavy, powerful round you need a heavy and powerful gun.

Can a 40mm autocannon be built, have say 1,200 yard range, with enough hitting power to penetrate a merchantmens hull from 1,000 yards out and 1,000 feet up be developed that fits this weight limit? Off the top of my head, I can say that I can definately get the range, but not sure about the penatrating power, I just plain don't know on this one.
No. To get the range that low (and so the weight down), you’re into the territory of a glorified grenade launcher. Whatever rounds it fires will either explode on impact and scorch the paint, or simply bounce off. The closest to what you want from OTL is the Molins gun, which fired a 6lb shell and could penetrate a U-boat hull through 2 feet of water. I can’t find the OTL weight with the autoloader, but the stripped down version (6lb QF AT gun) was around 1,200 lbs for the gun alone. Recoil was heavy enough that a Mosquito could only carry a single gun, and the gun was replaced as soon as alternatives became available.

First, my attack profile has me moving a say 200 miles an hour, on a paralelle course, and while this will always be a deflection shot, the change in range is going to be slower and much less than a conventional, charge right in attack.
Change in range is irrelevant when you’re firing at relatively short range (i.e. the trajectory is still pretty flat) and it isn’t combined with a change in angle. Important when trying to dodge naval gunfire, for a zero-deflection shot like this it just shifts the fall of shot a few feet up or down. One big difference – the aircraft will be firing contact-fused shot, any AA guns will probably be firing time-fused shells. Errors in range will vastly degrade the effectiveness of the AA fire, but not of the fire aimed at the ship – so keeping the range constant exposes you to much more danger for little benefit.

Secondly, I don't want multiple hits in the same area, but multiple hits well seperated from each other.
You really, really don’t want this weapon to be effective do you? You get a boundary layer effect when water (or indeed any fluid) comes through a hole – splitting a large hole into ten smaller holes of the same area gives you a smaller leak rate.

1) I am forced to aim my plane at the target.
2) I am forcing the fellow flying the plane to double as my gunner. This both distracts him from bringing accurate fire to bear, and reduces the missions effectiveness overall.

Yeah, that’s such a problem. Said no fighter pilot, ever. In both cases, the pilot will be concentrating on flying the plane in such a way as to effectively bring fire onto the target. At least when aiming the aircraft at the target the pilot can clearly see it and the fire going down – not necessarily true otherwise.


3) I am forcing my planes to get much closer to the target than 1,000 yards. All other things being equal, shorter ranges mean more accuracy from the defenders AA.
Firstly, this is an era of timed rather than proximity fuses – errors in range are critical to the effectiveness in AA, so changing the range rapidly is a very effective defence against heavy AA shells. And secondly, shorter ranges mean more accuracy from your own fire.

1) With a turret mounted armament, my plane does not have to be aimed at the target ship, but can attack in a wide varity of attack profiles.
Problem is that none of them do you very much good. There is a place for turrets in attacking ships – in the nose and tail firing rifle-calibre machine guns to suppress AA guns while you go in to drop bombs or torpedoes. That’s it.

2) By allowing my gunner to concentrate on the task at hand, I will achieve better accuracy, and this is needed for the very specific targeting I am attempting, while the 'point at the target' attack profile really cannot deliver this sort of attack at all.
I’m very confused by this – because everybody used the attack profile you’re suggesting won’t work in OTL, and generally with acceptable success (mostly because they followed up the gunfire with bombs or rockets).

3) Maintaing my distance, will have a very drastic effect on the effectiveness of defensive AA fire, far more that most folks would suspect. It isn't simply a matter of being farther away, it is far more than that. An expert defensive AA gunner would have quite a bit harder time hitting a plane using my attack profile that the OTL one, and an inexperienced gunner is going to need a great deal of luck. Can anyone guess why?
No, I can’t. Errors in range are the hardest to allow for in AA fire, and you’re essentially eliminating them.

My posited aircraft will be coming in around say 200 miles per hour (maybe more if we feel the need to waste the fuel), and this will limit the time My gunner has to bring his weapons to bear. Maintaining a constant bearing while on the approach, allows him to adjust in a single dimension, rather than two (range and altitude), which will also serve to increase his accuracy. This is not possible with the fixed mountings.
Keeping a constant bearing can’t be done while also keeping a constant range to target unless you’re a helicopter. The only way to keep a constant bearing is to accept a radical reduction in range, and that essentially boils down to flying straight at the target.

While that is certainly true, what has been repeatedly overlooked, is that the defensive AA fire will also be deflection fire. Why is this such a huge deal, and why does it give an advantage that makes everyghing else more than worth while?
You’re completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of ships sailed in convoy – and when aircraft came over they’d all open fire. That means even if an aircraft is on a zero-deflection path for one ship, 90+% of defensive AA fire will be deflection shooting anyway. You gain next to nothing in the process.

If your target is moving at 20kts, there is very little you need do to adjust your aiming point to hit your target, essentially, you aim where they are, and hit them. And when your target is several hundred feet long, this gives you a target that is hard to miss.
Again, only possible with a helicopter – you’re ignoring the fact that your gunner is on a moving platform. Draw out the velocity triangles – what matters is the vector sum of how the ship is moving relative to the aircraft. Unless you fancy rejecting our laws of physics and inventing your own, the relative movement of the aircraft from the ship must be the same as the relative movement of the ship from the aircraft.
 
The aircraft that sank the greatest tonnage of Axis shipping in WW2 was the Swordfish - perhaps the Germans should have built that, or at least kept their biplane torpedo bomber in service!!
 
The aircraft that sank the greatest tonnage of Axis shipping in WW2 was the Swordfish - perhaps the Germans should have built that, or at least kept their biplane torpedo bomber in service!!

I feel like that must be a statistical anomaly due to the Swordfish's unintentionally prolonged service.
 

Deleted member 1487

Submarines in a walk. Nothing else comes even close.

Had the KM had a reasonable number of boats (the total force was only 57 boats, only 23 were capable of operation into the Atlantic shipping lanes) the Reich could have done vastly more damage. The Reich would not have been able to force a British Surrender, but the issue would have been very close. The U-boats sank 14 MILLION tons of shipping. Still, the KM failed, mainly because the Allies, primarily the U.S., constructed 38 million tons of merchant tonnage, built hundreds of specialized escorts. broke the Reich's codes, and invented a type of warfare that had never before been attempted.

In the Pacific the result was dramatically different. The USN did starve Japan while sinking three of every five merchant ships, of any size, that the Japanese operated during the entire war.

The second best weapon was mining, both submarine deployed and air deployed. the U.S. mining campaign effectively made the Japanese Inland Sea a "no go" zone and made the waters between Japan and Korea a death trap.

Aircraft are a nice addition, especially if you can get them into restricted waters that the enemy has to transit, but they are far less capable in the open sea (too much sea, too few aircraft, limited operational window) and are much more vulnerable to the defensive armament that can reasonably be added to a merchant vessel without compromising its primary function. Among aircraft weapons the best option, by far, is the air dropped torpedo. Unlike warships, which have the speed and maneuverability to often avoid the deployed weapon, merchant ships (in WW II generally possessed with top speeds of 10-12 knots) are unable to dodge a torpedo. One torpedo was sufficient to sink or cripple almost any merchant vessel used by any nation throughout the war.

So what if Hitler instead of going for OTL Plan Z they opted for a Uboat build up in 1939 that saw the first ones laid down in April and the torpedo problem is identified and fixed pre-war? What sort damage would they do then?

Supposedly with working torpedoes the following would have been damaged or sunk:
As expected, the Norwegian seas were filled with Allied ships. Almost immediately, the U-boats began attacking. Every day and every hour, U-boats were attacking warships or were being attacked themselves. Day in, day out, night after night, the U-boats fired their torpedoes one after another, relentlessly against their targets. Not one of them exploded. Their efforts remained completely fruitless. Worse yet, when the data was analyzed back at BdU, it was found that four attacks were launched on the battleship HMS Warsprite, fourteen on cruisers, ten on destroyers, and a further ten on transports – yet only one transport was sunk. Discounting marginal attacks, Donitz concluded that had the torpedoes not failed, the U-boats would have “probable sinkings” of one battleship, seven cruisers, seven destroyers, and five transports. In summary, about twenty enemy warships had escaped certain destruction because of torpedo failures.

And this:
As 1939 drew to a close, at least 25 percent of all shots fired had been torpedo failures.

http://uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm
http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wooden-torpedoes.shtml
http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd

Plus this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Zahn
As commander of U-56 he was able to avoid detection by the destroyers surrounding HMS Nelson and came in close proximity to the British flagship, launching three torpedoes against her whilst she was carrying Winston Churchill and the high military command of the British Navy. Following that incident he became widely known as the "Man who almost killed Churchill" amongst the U-boat submariner corps.[3]
http://books.google.com/books?id=X8...e&q="Man who almost killed Churchill"&f=false
At 10 a.m. on 30 October 1939,[5][6] Zahn was commander of U-56 when he managed to avoid detection by the 10 destroyers and battle cruiser Hood,[7] protecting the Home Fleet west of the Orkneys and came within striking distance of HMS Nelson and Rodney.[5]


Unbeknownst to Zahn,[8] aboard the flagship HMS Nelson were First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill,[6] Admiral of the Fleet Sir Charles Forbes, and admiral Sir Dudley Pound who was the First Sea Lord at the time.[9][10] The reason for the gathering was Winston Churchill's decision to convene a conference with the leadership of the British Navy because of the sinking disaster of HMS Royal Oak caused by a U-boat attack during which 833 servicemen died.[8]


In Zahn's own account of the events, three cruisers were heading straight toward his U-boat's position, making any attack by him almost impossible, when suddenly they veered by twenty to thirty degrees from their previous course opening the field of attack and bringing him into a direct line of fire with HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney.[5][8] Rodney was the lead ship of the convoy and Zahn decided to wait until it passed and concentrated his sights on the Nelson.[5] The U-boat came within the point-blank range of 800 metres of the ship and Zahn's chances of striking and sinking it were high.[6][10]


He fired three torpedoes, from U-56* '​s three torpedo tubes,[12] toward the flagship. All three struck the hull of the Nelson but failed to explode, although the sound of the impact with Nelson* '​s hull was picked up by the sonar operators of U-56.[8][9][10][13] The third torpedo subsequently exploded at sea without causing damage.[9] The incident has been described as the "most important non-sinking" of the conflict.[6] After the attack Zahn became widely known as the "Man who almost killed Churchill" amongst the U-boat submariner corps.[3]


After the attack, Zahn ordered the U-boat to descend to a deeper level to avoid depth charges since the destroyers had by now detected its presence. In the evening Zahn ordered U-56 to surface and subsequently sent a radio report to Berlin listing the targets in the group including HMS Rodney. The delay in the transmission of the information was caused by Zahn's depression caused by missing his target. Had this delay in Zahn's report not happened, the German command could have sent U-58, which was in the area at the time, to renew the attack on the British targets.[5]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what if Hitler instead of going for OTL Plan Z they opted for a Uboat build up in 1939 that saw the first ones laid down in April and the torpedo problem is identified and fixed pre-war? What sort damage would they do then?

But what would trigger this improvement? Germans hardly could rely on combat experience to point them that the torpedoes were not working as advertised. Even the combat experience was first rejected as the fault of submariners, not the torpedoes..

However if they made it, it would take more effort to defeat the U-Boats than it eventually took. Could the Allies do it? I think so. Would it prolong the war? Maybe.
 
The aircraft that sank the greatest tonnage of Axis shipping in WW2 was the Swordfish - perhaps the Germans should have built that, or at least kept their biplane torpedo bomber in service!!

Still they are going to have to do better than the 8 ships sunk for 160 torpedos example that you give above.

Still IMO its the best weapon to sink a ship

Bombs are the best way to damage / mission kill a ship - particularly Cruisers and Destroyers

And later in the war Rockets with increasingly larger warheads become a better way of attacking smaller ships - Small Merchant ships, Minelayers and smaller destroyers. Especially as the attack can be made from a more forgiving 'Envelope' than either Torpedo or bomb attacks that both required much more in the way of 'preperation' in the attack run.

Cannon / MG fire from what I can tell from the various accounts where useful for 'Suppressing the AAA crews' on the target vessel rather than actually damaging them. This seems to be bourn out by videos Ive found of such air attacks.

Also having been trained in ship board damage control during my tenure in the Royal Navy Reserve - simulated rocket and shrapnal damage was more serious than cannon fire (we left them till we had plugged the larger holes) - the ingress of water from the smaller holes was more easily dealt with than the much larger holes of rocket attacks.

As for larger guns such as the Molins 6 pounder / 57mm - my problem with such weapons is the time it would take to deliver its potential pay load would greatly increase the time the attacking aircraft is exposed to AAA fire compared to a relative handful of seconds that the aircraft would have to be lined up with the target if using rockets.

I think this is why Rockets became very common later in the war and weapons such as the Molins 6 pounder as an aircraft weapon remained a rarity.
 

Deleted member 1487

But what would trigger this improvement? Germans hardly could rely on combat experience to point them that the torpedoes were not working as advertised. Even the combat experience was first rejected as the fault of submariners, not the torpedoes..

However if they made it, it would take more effort to defeat the U-Boats than it eventually took. Could the Allies do it? I think so. Would it prolong the war? Maybe.

Maybe greater effort in developing an aerial torpedo exposes the flaws of the design and causes an audit of the Torpedo Department, thus revealing the problems with the regular torpedoes. The prime time for that would be March of 1939 when the Condor Legion returns and there is a kernel of naval bombing combat experience in elements of the returning flyers that could have been set up as a dedicated LW naval bombing force that would have need of an aerial torpedo.

Interestingly enough I discovered that the Italians didn't set up an aerial torpedo squadron until 1940.
 
Maybe greater effort in developing an aerial torpedo exposes the flaws of the design and causes an audit of the Torpedo Department, thus revealing the problems with the regular torpedoes. The prime time for that would be March of 1939 when the Condor Legion returns and there is a kernel of naval bombing combat experience in elements of the returning flyers that could have been set up as a dedicated LW naval bombing force that would have need of an aerial torpedo.

Interestingly enough I discovered that the Italians didn't set up an aerial torpedo squadron until 1940.

Frankly, I do not see the Spanish involvement as being an experience that would prompt this development. Admittedly, I base my opinion on wiki article on Condor Legion maritime operations, where it is claimed they used Norwegian torpedoes which were found ineffective.

However, problems with magnetic detonator were numerous and they could not be spotted that easily in peacetime testing. And again, when they were finally acknowledged it took two to three years to devise a solution. Besides which, there is actually no solution if the British degauss their ships regularly, as they tended to do...
 
Maybe greater effort in developing an aerial torpedo exposes the flaws of the design and causes an audit of the Torpedo Department, thus revealing the problems with the regular torpedoes. The prime time for that would be March of 1939 when the Condor Legion returns and there is a kernel of naval bombing combat experience in elements of the returning flyers that could have been set up as a dedicated LW naval bombing force that would have need of an aerial torpedo.

Interestingly enough I discovered that the Italians didn't set up an aerial torpedo squadron until 1940.

One of the things you need to consider is the relative complexity of torpedos and their cost.

They were the Cruise missiles of their day and far more complicated and difficult to maintain than other weapon systems at the time.

Also these weapons increased in complexity over a very short time during the late 30s and 40s.

This is part of the problem - during peace time - particularly during the 1930s live testing of torpedo's was an expensive undertaking and the weapon used was probably well serviced prior to the test when it happened.

Also the Majority of 'testing' would be conducted with a weapon containing a dummy warhead.

Therefore its easy to understand why Navys such as the US Navy went to war with a defective weapon system.

Not having a large torpedo programme in the 30s Germany is in a far worse position than the US Navy was regarding identifying operational problems with their weapons in having fewer opportunities in discovering them.
 

Deleted member 1487

Frankly, I do not see the Spanish involvement as being an experience that would prompt this development. Admittedly, I base my opinion on wiki article on Condor Legion maritime operations, where it is claimed they used Norwegian torpedoes which were found ineffective.

However, problems with magnetic detonator were numerous and they could not be spotted that easily in peacetime testing. And again, when they were finally acknowledged it took two to three years to devise a solution. Besides which, there is actually no solution if the British degauss their ships regularly, as they tended to do...

That only helped against magnetic mines and you're forgetting the contact fuses.
 
Unless you're prepared to build more, bigger U-boats sooner, you're really just changing the comparative size of the OTL scores, not raising any of them.:rolleyes: That's the biggie. If you insist on a weapon-only change, a torpedo with a bigger warhead & working magnetic influence feature is the choice to make (which is why the Mark XIV had both and the Mark X didn't; that the Mark XIV's didn't work...:rolleyes:)

Faster torpedoes would be good. Pattern-running would be good, too. A homer to shoot destroyers with wouldn't hurt, but that seems to require war experience.

What about better sonars for U-boats (akin to PUFFS), to allow accurate submerged attacks?
 
That only helped against magnetic mines and you're forgetting the contact fuses.

But with contact fuses they need more eels per target and efficiency suffers. With magnetic it is very likely to be one hit one kill...
 

Deleted member 1487

But with contact fuses they need more eels per target and efficiency suffers. With magnetic it is very likely to be one hit one kill...
Better than not working at all. As it was the Germans didn't have a working magnetic fuze in combat usage until 1942. So they fought most of 1940-42 with contact fuzes and did just fine.
 
Better than not working at all. As it was the Germans didn't have a working magnetic fuze in combat usage until 1942. So they fought most of 1940-42 with contact fuzes and did just fine.

They did fine in 1940. Then had a lot of trouble in 1941 and then US went to war, thanks to King horribly underprepared to face U-boat onslaught. By mid '42 the situation was rectified and the U-boats once more had to work really hard for results. By 1943 the Allies have by all means won the battle.

Before I go OT deeper, I will opine that, on the whole, torpedo is the most effective and efficient way to dispose of enemy shipping.
 

takerma

Banned
So in general who had the best torpedoes at the start of the war?

Japanese had excellent surface launched torpedoes. Clearly their air launched torpedoes worked at Pearl. What about submarine torpedoes?

So for best weapon, is possible to develop a oxygen powered air launched torpedo in Germany? Japanese did not use oxygen for air launched torpedoes, is this because of the explosion hazard?
 
Top