WI: No WWII U-boat campaign

Darksoul

Banned
I was wondering how WWII would go if the Nazi leadership made the strategic decision to not try and strangle Britain through a U-boat campaign. It seems to be a plausible point of divergence to me because there wasn't a specific high-ranking Nazi pushing for it. (For instance how Goering was the advocate of the Luftwaffe) Also, Germany had tried to use a U-boat campaign in the last war and it ultimately failed.

So what are the strategic butterflies of this? I believe a pretty good chunk of Nazi warmaking potential was tied up in the Battle of the Atlantic, and fewer U-boats means more planes and panzers. Also, there would be less direct conflict between the U.S.A. and Nazi Germany. Assume the rest of the Kreigsmarine stays basically the same, the Bismarks still get built for prestige, etc.
 
Eventually some 20-30% of the war effort goes into a stronger Army and Luftwaffe. Expect more problems for Russia. Perhaps Leningrad and Stalingrad fall. Perhaps Kursk ia a draw. The biggest difference is the US may be in a position to support a robust Operation Roundup.

Italy is driven out of North Africa by 1942 I suspect. However, a stronger Luftwaffe can mean that the Allies are stuck in the UK and North Africa in the face of enemy air superiority, then parity until 1943. Still, a much more robust British Army, RAF, Royal Navy, and economy. A re-opened Burma Road in 1944? British support for the Southwest Pacific? Naval construction is more quickened for both the US and British? Operation Dracula in late 1944?

Opinions?:confused:
 
The trouble is that you can't just transfer production around like that.

Yes no subs means more steel, but it does not mean more factories unless they build them.

When do the Germans decide not to build subs/train sub crews? Do they decide that more Destroyers is a better trade off? Do they decide to build more Tank factories? More Rail lines, locomotives and rolling stock? More barges?

What do the British and the French do in response, the UK built a large number of escorts and specialized Aircraft in response to the Submarine threat. Without that threat what do they build? More Fighters? More bombers? More factories to build more Fighters/Bombers? More tanks?

Without subs sinking the British transports they suddenly have a large number of ships they were missing in OTL, and they don't have to build as many new transports to replace the existing ones that got sank. What do they do with this "new" productivity? Build more Tanks? More AC? More factories to build more Tanks and AC?

There is no simple answer to the original question, it depends on what the Germans replace the Uboats with and what the British/French/USSRs response is.
 
This also means Britain does not need to worry about the Battle of the Atlantic. It means secure supply lines. FDR may even authorize US ships to deliver goods directly to British ports. UK does not need to build all the replacement freighters sunk by U-Boats, and can divert that into other war materials.

A larger German surface fleet would consume even more war production than the U-Boats, so Germany is basically deciding not to challenge the Royal Navy. That makes the home islands more secure.

We may see a more aggressive policy in the Mediterranean as ships can be sent there to fight the Italians. Rommel may never get a chance to rout the 8th Army. British troops might have all of North Africa in 1941. They probably are able to hold onto Crete. They might even be able to seize some islands from the islanes such as Rhodes, maybe even some more of the Aegean, even Sardinia or Sicily in 1942. With British control of the Mediterranean, DeGaulle might be able to convince French North Africa to defect to the Free French cause, although this is doubtful.

If Japan still attacks in late 1941 or 1942, the British should be able to send a much more formdiable fleet to defend Singapore. The Japanese are likely still to drive them out of that, but Japanese operations in the Indian Ocean are likely to be more constrained. Britain might be able to hold onto Burma and keep the Burma Road open.

I think the German U-Boat campaign was justified up to 1943. More support earlier on would probably be justified. But starting in 1943, it would have made better choice to scrap it. But not before.
 
There is no simple answer to the original question, it depends on what the Germans replace the Uboats with and what the British/French/USSRs response is.

I would agree with this. The best decision would be to sack Dönitz or at least complete the original naval mobilization plan for 1939-1942 instead of Dönitz's larger U-boat expansion plan. This would give larger naval threat towards Britain when it would have had some effect while saving many precious resources for other industrial sector. The increased U-boat production came online only when the war was effectively lost anyway.
 

Cook

Banned
Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz was the advocate of submarine warfare.

While the German U-boat campaign of World War One was ultimately unsuccessful it was the most successful effort of the German navy and proved the great value of such cheap weapons. The early stages of World War Two also demonstrated that, for Germany, U-boats were of more worth than surface ships.

The problem with a scenario such as this is just how do you, as the German leader, come to grips with Britain instead if you don’t chose to use U-boats?
 
This amounts to asking, "How much sooner would Germany & Japan be defeated if those 14 million tons of supplies & ships hadn't ended up on the bottom of the ocean?" How many more DDs, cruisers, battleships would the Brits & U.S. have? How many more LCs?

It means Rommel is screwed. The Brits can build more DDs & subs (with the steel they don't use replacing merchies) to sink transports. The Brits have more aircraft, since fewer are lost in transit, & build more, since less materiel is lost in transit.

It's likely there would have been no "LC crisis" before D-day. It's likely Neptune & Anvil would go off simultaneously. It's also likely it would be in 1943, if not 1942, since buildup of troops & supplies in Britain would be much faster.

It means there's no Bengal Famine, since the shipping problems ("crisis" may be too strong a word) which compelled Britain to stop sending food never happens.

It may also mean Japan's Malaysian excursion is in trouble: more new aircraft in Britain means more are available for SEA, & more ships means more transport. (Manpower is still a bottleneck.) It likely means the Oz Sentinel tank project never happens. Good chance the Boomerang never does, either. Holding Burma shouldn't be a problem; more weapons should arrive readily. Reopening the Burma Road, & supplying China, shouldn't be too hard, either. This means B-29s could begin bombing Japan as early as 1943 (if the USN Sub Force hasn't brought Japan's economy to the brink of collapse by then:rolleyes:).

It also means the CVE is never developed, & the U.S. doesn't build hundreds of them for fighting Japan... And it means the steel crisis doesn't lead to the cancellation of the Alaskas. Whether the U.S. builds more subs to choke Japan with IDK. Probably moving troops & supplies in PTO is never a headache, which suggests, frex, the Guadalcanal op isn't called "shoestring", & supply of a/c there is less a problem.

It also means the Sovs get more trucks, fuel, boots, & other needs. (Aren't the Germans screwed enough already?:eek:)

OTOH, it likely means the corvette never appears (so Chevy has to call it somethng else:p), & means a/c & ship construction in Canada is drastically reduced. This also means more men available for military service (Britain, too, BTW), so Canada doesn't have another conscription crisis. (What that means for the separatistas, IDK.:rolleyes:)
 
It means the isolationists in the United States will be stronger. Roosevelt will have less support for aiding the British with no Battle of the Atlantic. I would think that Hitler will be less likely to declare war on the US as the relations between the US and Germany will not be as strained.
 
Lower production of submarines directly means higher production of other military equipment, because the construction of sub components factories tied up labor, steel, concrete, and machine tools that could have been used to produce tank component factories, if you stop building submarine component factories in 1939 and just keep pumping out fewer submarines using the ones you have.
You don't sink as many ships but you still keep the pressure on the Brits to a lesser extent. You have more highly trained crews without the necessity of making up crews for new subs, you force the British to keep doing antisub patrols, you keep forcing the Brits to delay sailings until a convoy is built up, etc.
But more supplies get through so more bombers are made, so you have to build more aircraft to shoot down the bombers. Russia loses, but Germany loses too. Figure on the war ending with the Allies on the Eastern border of Germany, instead of the Western.
 
Top