The Germans had a arguably successful sub war during WWI, at least until the Americans joined in. It really kicked into gear after the Germans were beaten at Jutland. However, what if the Germans allowed a concentrated, restrictions free U-Boat campaign to be waged from the opening days of the War? Could that have brought the US in earlier? What effects would it have on the British who were so dependent on imports?
WI: More extensive U-boat campaign in WW1?
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
SsgtC
Banned
It would definitely have brought the US in earlier, as the resumption of USW was one of the key reasons given for declaring war. As for what it would do to the British supply situation, I'm not so sure. With an earlier American entry to the war, it's likely a wash. More loses, but more capacity compensating for it.
Probably didn't have the number of boats until 1916. Perhaps should have delayed the first 1915 campaign until then.
Then rolled it out in phases. Expanding as they go.
1) North Sea.
2) Western channel
3) The Med
4 ) Eastern channel
5) Everywhere else.
Of course avoid the Zimmerman telegram, thus avoiding overt war with the USA.
Then rolled it out in phases. Expanding as they go.
1) North Sea.
2) Western channel
3) The Med
4 ) Eastern channel
5) Everywhere else.
Of course avoid the Zimmerman telegram, thus avoiding overt war with the USA.
SsgtC
Banned
No, but it was seen as "ungentlemanly" and "not the way wars are fought." At that time, it was also considered to be a violation of international law as it failed to adhere to Cruiser Rules for prizes. In that regard, it could be seen as a demonstration of Germany's will to win at all costs. USW was as much psychological as it was about sinking ships.
BlondieBC
Banned
USW was all about trying to intimidate ships not even to sail for British ports. USW had little to nothing to do with sink rates.
I will defer to the naval experts here but I have wondered in either war if submarine warfare against commerce without conventional naval dominance is really a war winning idea even if done perfectly with all the hind sight possible. The British will always protect the most important convoys and not sail the others until countermeasures are available. A determined people can starve a little bit. You might lower production a bit of the lesser essential war industries but the most essential will be prioritized.
Cheap countermeasures are available (might take a year to bring them online). Small destroyers, corvettes, etc.
Even in the Pacific the submarine warfare didn't become decisive until the USA had won the naval war conventionally.
Cheap countermeasures are available (might take a year to bring them online). Small destroyers, corvettes, etc.
Even in the Pacific the submarine warfare didn't become decisive until the USA had won the naval war conventionally.
Honest question. Why not? It seems like if you don't need to stop, search, get people into boats etc you could sink more ships.
(Perhaps the limitations are really the numbers of torpedoes you can carry, fuel supplies and just finding the ships so that USW just doesn't help that much if the ships aren't scared into port)
BlondieBC
Banned
Because unescorted merchant ships almost never escape a U-boat once in firing position. The average Royal Navy response time IF a distress call was sent out was 12 hours. So to a typical scenario.
The Torpedoes were fired from under 1000 yards in this war, often much less. So the U-boat has spent the time to get into a firing position. The U-boat is 400 yards away on the surface. The freighter is heading at 7 knots on a straight course. The tubes are load and ready to fire. The guns are loaded and man. A warning shot or flare is fired over the bow of the ship. The merchant captain has two choices. One is to keep going, in which case the U-boat either fires the torpedo, and the freighter will sink. The merchant crew is likely to die since if you do not stop, the U-boat is not required to help. Or, the merchant captain stops the boat. The U-boat has even a better firing positions. The crew is allowed to exit the boat into the lifeboats, and has time to load the boats with supplies under supervision of the boarding party. Which do you think the average captain chooses? So the number of unescorted ships that escaped a U-boat who was attempting to board is very, very small. And also, there is a strong selection bias. The much faster ships such as refrigerator ships are much less likely to be stopped.
If you go look at patrol reports (Uboats.net for example), you will see that the most common result of a daily patrol was to encounter 0-1 ships. This is not WW2 where the U-boats are fighting the Royal Navy that has a real ASW plan.
Most ships were sunk by guns. Most patrols returned with unfired torpedoes. The limiting factor is just search time. It is a big ocean out there.
trurle
Banned
US had a problems building a war equipment in 1914-1915, because US army before WWI was small and poorly equipped (besides may be small arms). Many technologies (artillery and vehicles in particular) were received from France, but it took a time to adapt production lines. Also, army was small (100,000 men) and National Guards equipment&training was trash even compared with Army. Therefore, early US entry to WWI would be nearly nominal. Committing may be as small as 1-2 army divisions in 1915.
BlondieBC
Banned
Yes. I wrote a ATL to explore this possibility. The key is understand the supply situation. There is an old adage, artillery does the killing, infantry does the dying. As the Entente supply situation worsens compared to OTL, the Germans will take fewer casualties. As these "extra" regiments begin to pile up, the Germans will launch more offensives. The butterflies can go a lot of different ways, but as these "extra" units become divisions, then corps, then armies, the Entente will lose. Think of OTL but the Germans launch another Army size attack every 3 months, somewhere. But they take no extra casualties since it the losses from the attacks net out with the save losses from less Entente material. Many of these offensives will be ineffective, but some will make gains. The Entente will take the extra casualties. So to give some possibilities.
- In the Race to the Sea, the Germans will have a few extra regiment to use in the east or the west.
- In May 1915, the Germans will attack east. They have enough extra troops to add a second prong to this offensive and to try to envelop the Congress of Poland. OR. They can keep doing some attacks in the west. OR Maybe they use these extra divisions to knock Serbia out of the war and get the link to the Ottomans months before OTL.
- In about August 1915, the Germans may not have to stop the attack in the east since there are enough extra forces to hold the west without the major force transfer. The Russians may have to keep retreating until the snow falls.
- 1916 looks nothing like OTL, but we know the Russians are weaker in the east by a good bit. The Austrians are stronger. The Germans are stronger. Falkenhayn has a much better menu of choices for 1916.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/prince-henry-of-prussia-the-rise-of-u-boat.225455/
hipper
Banned
Convoy and defensive armament of merchant ships destroyed the U boat offensive. It took a crisis to get the admiralty to introduce Convoy. Making a earlier u Boat offensive will make the crisis earlier and the U boats will be defeated earlier. The RN history is online with all the details.
[
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/USN/Defeat-of-Enemy-Attack-on-Shipping.pdf
hipper
Banned
If you look at what actually happened during the U boat offensive. import substitution (military goods were prioritised over civilian goods) eliminated any supply shortage with the army. until efficient counter measures eliminated the U boat threat.
In WW1 by 1918 the UK had very efficent anti u boat measures the British WW2 campaign was very much based on WW1 practise.
Deleted member 94680
I think having extra troops in time for the Race to the Sea on the back of an upgraded U-boat offensive is a bit optimistic. That would require USW from the declaration of War, immediate success, continued success (particularly in the Channel), some sort of supply crisis in Britain prior to the War starting.
Basically a U-boat wank.
The other options from August 1915 onwards are possibilities, but hardly probable. They also require the RN to never figure out anti-sub measures properly.
Also, wouldn't the resources required by the Germans to build and maintain this uber u-boat fleet (both pre-War, to have them in place for the DoW and during the War to maintain the effort) take away from their other areas? More subs mean less artillery for the Germans themselves?
Basically a U-boat wank.
The other options from August 1915 onwards are possibilities, but hardly probable. They also require the RN to never figure out anti-sub measures properly.
Also, wouldn't the resources required by the Germans to build and maintain this uber u-boat fleet (both pre-War, to have them in place for the DoW and during the War to maintain the effort) take away from their other areas? More subs mean less artillery for the Germans themselves?
BlondieBC
Banned
By 1918, the war will be two years lost.
I have looked at the trade figures and production figures in detail. The UK did make adjustments, and production was still depressed. You make it sound like there was unlimited artillery rounds available. And unlimited artillery. But there was clearly always a demand for more ammo. More gun tubes. More machine guns. You can look the Indian Corp on the western front as an example of a unit that lacked equipment. Or the 8000 men captured in East Africa who only received the machine guns on the ship as traveling towards east Africa.
Quite frankly, the concept that in an industrial war such as WW1, that any nation had no material shortage in their army is absurd. So is the concept of losing war material at sea along with raw goods for production not making the shortage worse.
hipper
Banned
We have discussed this matter before, you would not take the official figures on shipping losses as factual so it's difficult to debate with you. All I would ask is that you consider how the German U boat offensive was in fact defeated in WW1
BlondieBC
Banned
No, that is not correct. I provided multiple detail sources that you rejected. You instead had a single source of lower quality.
Logically, here is what you are saying. A ship coming over with enough ammo for a corp for a couple of weeks of combat is sunk. To say there is no impact on supplies on the war is to say that the British had 3000 tons of ammo production that they planned to have sitting idle. Then after the Admiralty learns of the sinking, the Admiralty orders the idle workers and equipment to produce the product.. This would mean the British Admiralty intentionally and repeatedly committed high treason.
OR
One has to believe the corp is notified of the ammo loss. The corp then reshuffles ammo withing the Army, and reduces the fire plans for the next few weeks. This reduction in artillery support has no impact on UK or German casualties. This would mean that the extra 15K or so shells that would have been fired would have wounded no Germans. Yet we know that ammo consumption at the high end produces casualties at a reasonably predictable pattern. i.e. XX dead per YY shells fired.
You have repeatedly confused two items.
A) Was the available UK production reduced by the U-boat merchant warfare campaign. This is clearly true. This is what I have repeatedly stated and went to exhausted lengths explaining and citing. Including writing a 60 page ATL if one includes the discussion
B) Did UK available resource increase as a result of the war effort? This is roughly what you argue. And this point is true, but it does not contradict the point A above on which I write ATLs. Sure, the conversion of civilian to military production line helped. Sure, the limiting or at least deprioritization of luxury goods helped. Sure, the army commanders did try to optimize ammo consumption. Sure, at times the extra rounds generate low casualties. But none of this has any bearing on my point above.
So for two final examples. There was a ship that stayed in port a extra few weeks in India because of the SMS Emden. Because this ship was late, the wool harvest in Australia was messed up. Because of this bottleneck, there was less wool, and less uniforms than planned. Second, take the example of the USA entering the war. While our troops took a while to arrive in quantity, it is clear the extra material support in 1917 helped Entente performance in the war. Beside possibly you, no one disputes this point. And quite frankly, besides British enthusiast in relation to WW1 and WW2, I have never seen anyone argue that losing supply convoy at sea or land or air bombardment has no impact on casualties or who wins the war.
OK, now to your convoy point. I went through the data month by month. While there are boat loads of British Admirals that like to talk how the convoys work and there are enthusiast who love to talk about how it works, it is just not supported by the data. Among the flaws.
- If the Germans go with merchant warfare sooner, the counter technology just had not been developed. It would not be like turning a switch and the losses go down. And the data shows this to be true.
- Most of the gains come after the Americans join the war in force. Many of the gains relate to things like seizing interned German merchant shipping in neutral and formerly neutral ports. This effect is not due to the convoy system. It is due to more shipping. Some of the benefits are due to the USA enforcing restrictions on exports to Germany after joining the war. Some effects are due to the USA organizing the economy.
- You like to look at stats of ships protected by convoys. These stats don't matter since the Entente never had enough DD to protect all the merchant shipping. It only matters to the extend the UK has enough warships to protect enough freighters to impact the sinkings per day per U-boat.
- Finally, you ignore that convoying reduces the ability to ship by 1/3 due to lower speed and port inefficiencies. Even if an ASB gives the UK enough warships and fuel to protect all merchant shipping, the Entente loses the war faster. This 1/3 loss is actually much higher than the losses from my ATL which take many months to even begin to get close to this level. So even I am wrong on every single point above, if the UK convoys earlier and the USA does not enter the war earlier, the Entente have a severely impacted peformance.
"Yes. I wrote a ATL to explore this possibility."
Yes, the Prince Hentry TL one of my favorite TLs. Of course in this case the Germans change their strategy pre-war and get some luck which allows them to change their way of thinking. Since the margin between victory and defeat in WW1 was pretty narrow, the change as a war winning idea seems plausible.
Yes, the Prince Hentry TL one of my favorite TLs. Of course in this case the Germans change their strategy pre-war and get some luck which allows them to change their way of thinking. Since the margin between victory and defeat in WW1 was pretty narrow, the change as a war winning idea seems plausible.
I agree without a pre war time line change and major way of thinking change like Prince Henry TL, just making practical changes to uboat tactics or marginal increases in the number of uboats doesn't really help "win" the war. German changes force British reactions and etc. The big effects are diplomatic and potentially keeping the USA out of the war (which require minimizing the uboat campaign not increasing it).
Ok, lets run with this.
The change is the Germans just do "restricted" submarine warfare starting in 1915 and don't stop to do surface raids because Scheer is mad not getting to do USW as in OTL. So "more intensive" as per the OP. (Presumably this butterflies away Jutland since the uboats are still engaged in commerce war throughout).
The effect would be incremental increase in British shipping losses (due to no time periods of no submarine warfare) and no USA entry.
Possible British countermeasures:
Convoy earlier, perhaps in 1916 when the number of U-Boats really starts to increase.
Increase number of Q ships
Just arm all British merchants (or just the most important)(perhaps with guns hidden from view)
Strategically just don't do the Salonika campaign and save a whole bunch of shipping need.
Obviously the big change is no USA entry which means all sorts of things: (probably war winning for Germany or worst case a compromise peace)
a) No seized German merchants.
b) Loss of Allied financial credits vs OTL, etc.
c) Continued Belgian relief
d) Blockade running can continue to Germany (a trickle but still important)
e) Other countries in Latin America remain neutral.
f) etc.
Last edited: