hipper

Banned
We had very informative discussions about the relevance of the convoys. Mostly @BlondieBC agrued that the convoy in itself is a victory for the U-Boots as it introduces inefficiencies to the system...
Also what "Air patrols" are you talking about? This is the Great War and not WWII. So air cover is much more in its infancy and less reliable. Also may ships did not have a wireless so the work for the subs is much easier.

We Did have a very interesting argument about U boats with BlondieBC

The figure he was discussing was that Convoys imply a 33% reduction in carrying capacity vs Peace time sailing efficiencies, However this reduces to 13% if you compare the efficiencies of independently routed merchant ships to Convoys in wartime. The reason being that ships would delay sailing if sinkings indicated presence of U boats.

However both ineffficencies are minor compared to the shiping capacity loss when a ship is sunk (it never carries any cargo again ever)
Thus the efficient thing to do is to reduce losses for which Convoy is by far the best means ships in convoy were safer than independently routes ships by one or two orders of magnitude.

It takes between 3 to 6 months for the reduction in losses to make up for the loss in efficency caused by Convoys



In WW1 only five ships were sunk in convoy when air escort and sea escort were present. About 600 aitcraft were in use-by the end of the war on ASW duties. Interestingly they could be more effective because german submarines were forced to attack near the Coast as they could not find merchant shipping in the Atlantic. The point being that the U boat would fear being spotted by the aircraft and refuse to attack

All you ever wanted to know about the U boat wars is online

,http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/NewPDFs/UK/UK, Defeat-of-Enemy-Attack-on-Shipping1939-1945.pdf
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
Whatever the USA or Germany Do the UK will introduce Convoy once losses reach a critical level. Even without any Escorts Convoy will reduce the number of encounters between U boats and British Ships. escorts and Air parols make the U boats job harder. Once Convoy is introduced Shipping losses will drop substantially. Coal fuelled Converted trawlers were effective as costal escorts and the U boats were compelled to hunt in Coastal waters as they could not find merchant shipping in the western approaches.
Hmmm, these maps clearly shows, that german subs were unable to hunt outside coastal waters ...

Englands Not 1917.jpg


u-boat sinkings WW 1.jpg



IMHO the adoption of a convoy system without escorts might reduce the number of encounters, ...
but would considerably increase the effectiveness of such an encounter for the subs (having several targets instead of only one.)

Other than that :
I can agree with you, that the UK may start a convoy system, when losses reach 'critical levels'.

But I assume, that without US hels due to non-USW ther germans would be able to reach such 'critical levels' even without USW.
 

NoMommsen

Donor

NoMommsen

Donor
Found something on searching the web. From the intro to :
Anti-Submarine Warfare
in World War I
British naval aviation and the defeat of the
U-Boats

John J. Abbatiello​
The engagement of 22 September 1917 – one of over 200 air attacks against German submarines in Home Waters – was the only confirmed case of a British aircraft destroying a U-boat without the aid of surface vessels during the First World War. There were five probable successes where aircraft working with destroyers or patrol vessels sank U-boats.
Dunno ... if this could really be called a 'story of succerss'. Esp. ITTL if it's taken into account, that large parts of the RNAS anti-submarine activities IOTL relied on US materiell help ...
 
There's one issue that's not been raised yet:
What about other neutrals? With US entry jumping onto the CP bandwagon was hardly an attractive option. However as has been mentioned, 1917 was in many ways a disaster for the Entente in OTL. With a neutral US, then after Brest-Litovsk, with word about the British Empire feeling the financial squeeze getting around joining the CP might look very attractive for some.
 

hipper

Banned
Some source for your numbers regarding World War 1 ?

As your linked source is about World War 2 ...

If you read the source you’ll find the first chapter has the title lessons from the First World War. Lots of tables and numbers and everything.
 

hipper

Banned
Found something on searching the web. From the intro to :
Anti-Submarine Warfare
in World War I
British naval aviation and the defeat of the
U-Boats

John J. Abbatiello​
Dunno ... if this could really be called a 'story of succerss'. Esp. ITTL if it's taken into account, that large parts of the RNAS anti-submarine activities IOTL relied on US materiell help ...


Your making the common mistake, success is not sinking U boats, it’s preventing the sinking of Merchant shipping, at which air escorts of Convoy was hugely succesfull
 

hipper

Banned
There's one issue that's not been raised yet:
What about other neutrals? With US entry jumping onto the CP bandwagon was hardly an attractive option. However as has been mentioned, 1917 was in many ways a disaster for the Entente in OTL. With a neutral US, then after Brest-Litovsk, with word about the British Empire feeling the financial squeeze getting around joining the CP might look very attractive for some.

Who was left to join in? The South Americans?
 
Who was left to join in? The South Americans?

It's possible if they start trying to seize assets the British were using as collateral for their loans if for some bone-headed, obsession with strict hard money policy reason the Exchequer decides to start deflaulting rather than doing any wartime measures to "massage" the books and stretch the Sterling, instead depending on gunboat diplomacy to try to bully them into "loan renegotiation" in a historically ironic turn on the practice. Not that it'd make much of a difference, militarily speaking.
 

hipper

Banned
IMHO the adoption of a convoy system without escorts might reduce the number of encounters, ...
but would considerably increase the effectiveness of such an encounter for the subs (having several targets instead of only one.)
.

Submerged submarines are basically stationary they only get one attack before the convoy is past
if you surface you are in danger of being attacked by any armed ships in the convoy.
 
At the time of the armistice, there were somewhere over a million US troops in Europe, and the plan was for another million to be there by the planned spring, 1919 Entente offensive. That is 2 million nice fresh troops with more on the way. One reason the USA used the draft was to control intake of recruits to the level that could be trained, there was a huge wave of volunteering. Given how everyone else in the war was drained dry for manpower by 1917/18, this represented an incredible advantage for the Entente. At the same time US industry was going from assisting the Entente with production to full out war economy essentially untouched and untouchable by the CP. This is on top of basically unlimited financing made available to the Entente countries.

Even if the USA does everything the same up until April, 1917, loans, production, etc but does not enter the war as a combatant, the Entente and the CP are both going to run out of steam. Both have manpower issues, and both are financially exhausted and without the DoW US financing will slow down as the UK runs out of collateral absent inflationary jiggery-pokery. Most likely a compromise or white peace in the west. The promise of the American troops coming was an very important factor in maintaining French morale, no fresh troops on the horizon, les poilus see themselves in an endless sausage grinder. If the USA is more neutral, fewer loans, more demands for cash on the barrelhead, life gets worse for the Entente.

Absent the US tilt pre-DoW, and the entrance in to the war after April, 1917 the most likely outcome is some sort of return to status quo antebellum in the west, perhaps Luxembourg gets absorbed and some minor territorial adjustments, and Germany and A-H end up with a free hand in the east and in the Balkans. I expect the Ottomans and the Entente grind to a halt, probably with some new lines based on where forces are when the shooting stops.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
We had very informative discussions about the relevance of the convoys. Mostly @BlondieBC agrued that the convoy in itself is a victory for the U-Boots as it introduces inefficiencies to the system...
Also what "Air patrols" are you talking about? This is the Great War and not WWII. So air cover is much more in its infancy and less reliable. Also may ships did not have a wireless so the work for the subs is much easier.


Imo the worse economic situation in late 17/18 is more a function of USA entry then RN success. As they, the Entente, could block the materials at the source.

Forcing convoying reduces the capacity of the merchant fleet by 1/3, roughly speaking. It mostly comes from two items, you have to travel at the speed of the slowest merchant ship and all ship have to be loaded before any ship leaves port. You end up with a lot of loaded ships sitting around in ports either waiting to be unloaded/loaded.

I probably criticize the Royal Navy more than any other poster on this board, but the Royal Navy slowness in introducing convoying in both wars is both understandable and partially justified.
 
I remember reading in a History of the Great War (8 Vols )That the French High Command ordered its officers To treat US Brigade officers as Division officers and Division officers as Corps commanders due to the size of the square Division order of Battle the US used . Each Brigade was almost as large as French Division .
 
I remember reading in a History of the Great War (8 Vols )That the French High Command ordered its officers To treat US Brigade officers as Division officers and Division officers as Corps commanders due to the size of the square Division order of Battle the US used . Each Brigade was almost as large as French Division .

A US Army or Marine brigade then had six infantry battalions, a MG battalion, two regiment & one Brigade HQ. the total was slightly over 7,000 men on paper. The brigade possessed no artillery or other major support units. This is not far off from a French or German brigade of 1914, tho the MG component was small & part of the infantry regiment.

The US division of 1918 was designed for what Pershing thought would be a maneuver battle & was heavily weighted with larger support units and robust HQ. I don't have a ready reference for the TO/TE but in terms of men it weighed in at over 20,000. The 1914 French 'square' inf division had a lot less for admin and support groups. Most of that was at the corps or army level. ie: the German and French inf div possessed only company size medical, engineer, recon/cavalry, or transportation units. The French ID of 1914 had on paper 18,000 men, the German 17,500. The standard German "Active" corps of two divisions had another 9,000 men in its support echelon & the similar French corps about the same.

Battle experience & other considerations caused both the Germans and French to reorganize their inf div to a triangular formation shedding a infantry regiment and brigade HQ & boosting the support its somewhat. That knocked the paper strength down to 14,000 - 15,000. Disease and the occasional bloodletting in battle of course reduced the standing strength. It was not unusual to find either nation with inf div down around 10,000, However since the number of MG or artillery did not decline much it meant the firepower per infantry man was greater than in the 'fresh' US inf div.
 
Top