Author Topic: Book Review: [i]Hitler's U-Boat War[/i] by Clay Blair (Two volumes)  (Read 10137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dougie47

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 758
Hi gents,

Very interesting thread, gentlemen. No problem whatsoever if the thread moves to other subjects. I'm as interested in aircraft as I am in U-boats - so you'll have plenty of encouragement from me if you want to talk Luftwaffe! 

Ernest, one of your points touched on a subject that I've wanted to explore further. However, I don't have the resources or the knowledge to explore it properly. In recent years I've often pondered two questions -

1 - How many ocean going U-boats (VIIs and IXs) would the U-bootwaffe have required in 1939/1940 to actually win the war (or at least force a ceasefire by British forces)? Let us call this number X.

2 - Could Germany have built X number of boats by 1939/1940 AND enough tanks and aircraft to win their European battles?

Cheers,

Dougie

Offline Greif

  • Admiral2
  • *
  • Posts: 755
  • Gender: Male
Hi Dougie, based upon the average tonnage sunk per uboot in 1939/1940 I think if Germany had had another 90-100 Type VII/IX uboots they had a good chance of forcing a truce on Great Britain.  In my second post on the topic I gave an estimated figure of slightly over 6,180,000 BRT sunk to Ubootwaffe, the Luftwaffe and surface forces if Germany had fielded an additional 100 uboots.  I gave the lower end of the estimated range by the way, which is between 6,000,000 and 7,250,000 BRT.  Great Britain would have been unable to sustain itself suffering such losses to its merchant marine fleet.  Their shipbuilding program would not have been able to replace the losses fast enough to even partially offset them.  As I am sure you know, in the actual battle the Brits were unable to keep up with the rate of sinkings and turned to America.  That led to the Emergency Shipbuilding Program being ordered by FDR in January 1941, which allowed the allies to keep pace at first then outstrip losses.  In addition to the at least 6,000,000 BRT being sunk in 1940,  1941 would also have been a black year.  In closing, I think with those additional 90-100 uboots Germany would have won the "Tonnage War" by mid-41 at the latest. 
To answer your second question, I think had Germany mobilized its industry to a 100% war footing at the beginning of the war they could have just met the requirements.  I base my thesis here on the fact that once Albert Speer took control of the war production, the productivity of the German's heavy industry exploded.  And this at a time when the strategic bombing campaign was forcing the Germans to decentralize production, which negatively impact industrial output.  What would that output have been if Speer, with the full backing of Hitler, had been given that level control in say August 1939, long before heavy bomber fleets ranged widely across German airspace?  The answer is rather chilling.

 I admit the above is pretty short, but internet forums don't lend themselves well to dessertations! :P

Ernest


Hi gents,

Very interesting thread, gentlemen. No problem whatsoever if the thread moves to other subjects. I'm as interested in aircraft as I am in U-boats - so you'll have plenty of encouragement from me if you want to talk Luftwaffe! 

Ernest, one of your points touched on a subject that I've wanted to explore further. However, I don't have the resources or the knowledge to explore it properly. In recent years I've often pondered two questions -

1 - How many ocean going U-boats (VIIs and IXs) would the U-bootwaffe have required in 1939/1940 to actually win the war (or at least force a ceasefire by British forces)? Let us call this number X.

2 - Could Germany have built X number of boats by 1939/1940 AND enough tanks and aircraft to win their European battles?

Cheers,

Dougie

Offline dougie47

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 758
Hi Ernest,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my two questions. VERY interesting! Given the high number of U-boats that Germany actually did build during WWII, another 100 by the turn of 39/40 does not seem a large number.

Another aspect that could have increased sinkings is the torpedo failure rate. If Germany had produced reliable torpedoes by the start of the war, then...well let us just be thankful they did not. For example, U 47 fired 87 torpedoes during patrols 1 to 9. 56 torpedoes were "fehlschu

Offline Rokket

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2,362
  • Gender: Male
  • Submarine Enthusiast
    • AMP - Accurate Model Parts
Interesting! I agree with Dougie about the number. I mean really, that's relatively nothing. But again, the Luftwaffe was pretty well equipped weren't they, wouldn't a little smart management and support have rolled them on to victory (or closer)?

Wouldn't it be interesting to have forgotten the war, and brought the German, Russian, Brit, and US scientists together to advance aviation and nuclear power and such (as in, conquer fission to learn about stuff, and move on to fusion)? I mean, Germany and rockets and jets, pretty cool stuff! More resources and they could have really gone far. But they weren't so hot in the radar dept as mentioned, and Engima, despite it's toughness, was failed enough to hurt! (And the Japanese code got broken 'easily"). But we could have jetpacks and fyling cars by now! (I think Where eagles Dare - fun but flawed- uses a prototype helicopter in once scene...)

Oh well, mixed and alternate history speculation. (Bearing in mind this is soo easy for me in my armchair with my comic book education!)
« Last Edit: 09 Jan , 2010, 16:05 by rokket »
AMP - Accurate Model Parts - http://amp.rokket.biz

Offline Greif

  • Admiral2
  • *
  • Posts: 755
  • Gender: Male
Hi Dougie and Wink, let me build on my thesis a bit.  At the beginning of the war Germany had 57 operational uboats of the following types:  2 Type Ia, 30 Type II's, 18 Type VII's and 7 Type IX's.  Of the most effective types of uboats, only 25 were operational, and though the Type I's and II's gave a good account of themselves they were secondary players in the Tonnage War.  During 1939 Germany commissioned a further 18 uboats, 7 after the war started.  Of the number of commissioned uboats in 1939 5 were Type II's and one was the UA.  Interestingly, Germany only commissioned 4 Type VII's between 1 Sep - 31 Dec 1939!  During the same time period they lost 9 uboats.  Taking new construction vs losses Germany had an average of about 50 operational uboats daily during 1939, 60% of those being the marginal Type II's.

Moving to 1940.  Germany began the year with 55 operational uboats, two less then they started the war with.  During the year they commissioned 55 uboats, 17 being Type II's; therefore they commissioned only 38 uboats of their most effective uboats during all of 1940.  24 uboats were lost during 1940.  Using the same logic of adding commissionings minus sinkings we arrive at the average of around 80 operational uboats during the year.  Figuring the precentage of Type II's is tough as the A&B's were withdraw from frontline duty starting in May, the C's did remain as operational uboats throughout most of the years and a few of the D's also served as frontline uboats.  I good estimate would be 25-30% of the operational uboats in 1940 were Type II's.

I will use Blair's own figures for the total sinkings by the above uboats as statistics vary widely.  Blair states uboats sank 147 ships in 1939 and 520 ships in 1940.  A total of 667 ships for about 3,690,000 BRT.  Given the amount of operational uboats that averages out to about 5 ships sunk for 27,500 BRT per uboat.  Now add 100 uboats of the Type VII/IX variety in say an 80/20 mix -available on 01 September 1939.  As those uboats were larger and more effective then the Type II's which, as I showed above, made up a significant portion on the Ubootwaffe during that time period, it is not unreasonable to add an additional 550 sinkings for 3,025,000 BRT.  Sinkings on that scale would have been decisive.

Really enjoying this,
Ernest          
« Last Edit: 09 Jan , 2010, 02:54 by Greif »

Offline dougie47

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 758
Hi Ernest,

You are making a very plausible argument here. Perhaps an extra 100 VIIs/IXs would have sunk more than an extra 3,025,000 BRT?

I suppose in any counterfactual debate one should explore what the opposite side would have done in response. Let us suppose that Germany had built an additional 100 VIIs/IXs by 3 September 1939. This would certainly have alarmed Britain's Merchant Navy and Royal Navy. What would/could they have done in response? Perhaps they would have speeded up the Flower class corvette programme?

Another question, if you will permit me. How many additional U-boats do you think Germany would have built if they had built U-boats rather than the Bismarck? I know any answer would only be a rough estimate, and open to debate.

Don, hope you don't mind this thread straying in a counterfactual direction. I find counterfactual debates can improve our understanding of the real situation.

Cheers,

Dougie

Don in Cincinnati

  • Guest
Hi Ernest,

Another question, if you will permit me. How many additional U-boats do you think Germany would have built if they had built U-boats rather than the Bismarck? I know any answer would only be a rough estimate, and open to debate.

Don, hope you don't mind this thread straying in a counterfactual direction. I find counterfactual debates can improve our understanding of the real situation.

Cheers,

Dougie

Dougie:

No problem on this end. I had hoped the thread would spark some spirited comment and debate, and had made up my mind before posting the topic that it could take whatever course the participants wanted.

Regarding your Bismark comment, let me add another thought: How many 88's could Germany have produced by foregoing the big siege guns like the Gustav and Dora, not to mention the outsized armour like the Maus and King Tiger tanks?

Don

Don in Cincinnati

  • Guest

Coming back on topic, to Blair's books, I seem to recall one author suggested that the XXIs would not have been as effective as was feared. One of the considerations, if my memory serves me correctly, were the difficulties caused by their method of construction. Did Blair say something along those lines, Don? 

Cheers,

Dougie

This fact was mentioned in his books, Dougie, (as well as the sluggish diving characteristics of the Type IX boats compared to the superior performance of the VIII's.) and, as many critics point out he criticizes the "over engineered" quality of many Germsn military devices. Blair tries to be fair and, in his defense, strives for a middle tone. He does credit the IX's with extended range diue to larger fuek bunkers, but then goes on to talk about improvements along those lines to the Type VII's. He clearly has a warm place in his heart for the VII boat.

BTW: did you see the Top Ten Submarines show on whatever your version of the Military Channel is? The experts rated what they considered to be the best subs of all times based on firepower, range, and a whole variety of other criteria. The overall winner? The Type VIIc U-boat which aced out even the Nuclear subs.

Don

Offline Greif

  • Admiral2
  • *
  • Posts: 755
  • Gender: Male
Hi Dougie, you are correct that an additional 100 Type VII/IX would have greatly alarmed the British, they would have remembered what the Ubootwaffe did in WWI.  Those 100 uboats would have to have been built in the late 1930's and the British would have undoubtly responded somehow.  However, given the mood of the non-German western powers, I don't think a massive ASW construction program could have begun any sooner than 1938 at the soonest.  By then it would have been too late as the Germans would have stolen a march, and I don't think the British could have caught up.  

I think about the second and third order effects of your second question from time to time.  And I'll extend you line of logic a bit further and say that if Germany had foregone the Bismarck class, the Scharnhorst class and the pocket battleships they could have produced close to the 100 uboats we are talking about.  The Germans got very little military return from any of the above ship classes, considering the resources they invested in building them.

I'll continue a bit later with this line of reasoning, and take on Don's point - which I agree with, family is here.

Ernest      
« Last Edit: 01 Jun , 2010, 01:06 by Greif »

Offline Rokket

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2,362
  • Gender: Male
  • Submarine Enthusiast
    • AMP - Accurate Model Parts
Damn family!

OK, now following the no big BBs, what about building more S-boats? I really don't know much about them, but I have this hypothesis (not enough to be a theory) that hundreds of these guys could have been as effective as uboats...just lay in wait near the coast, wham-wham and gone, goodbye precious cargo. ut again, my comic-book education may make this silly.

back to the 00 more boats..would the Yanks have taken it more seriously too? And if so, focused more on the Atlantic, so much more that the Pacif was neglected? I know we should stay focused a bit, and take one thing at a time, but some of these are so inter-related...
AMP - Accurate Model Parts - http://amp.rokket.biz

Offline Greif

  • Admiral2
  • *
  • Posts: 755
  • Gender: Male
Hi Wink, I don't think the S-boats had the range or seaworthiness to operate in the western approaches where the great bulk of the merchant shipping was.  They could have, and in some cases did, operate effectively against coastal convoys on the eastern coast of Britain.  But like the uboats there effectiveness took a big hit once the allies pulled firmly ahead in the technology race.  As to your second question, I think the USA would have diverted some resources to the Atlantic; but it would not have had a hugh impact on Pacific operations.  The ships needed for ASW work, DD's, DE's and such would have been missed in the Pacific, but; especially after late 1943, American shibuilding capacity was such that they could have made up the shortages.

Don - I couldn't agree more with your comments regarding the waste of resources that the super-heavy siege guns, Maus and King Tigers were.  It is the land version of lack of focus in both R&D and unity of effort overall that Doentiz faced trying to expand the Ubootwaffe.  Stupid on the German's part.

Ernest
« Last Edit: 12 Jan , 2010, 09:58 by Greif »

Offline NZSnowman

  • Admiral4
  • *
  • Posts: 2,419
  • Gender: Male
  • U-1308
    • U-1308 - Wikipedia
Greif & Don, I know very little about German Armour but when you guys talked about the 'Maus' are you talking about the Panzer VIII Maus German super-heavy tank design ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

Offline Greif

  • Admiral2
  • *
  • Posts: 755
  • Gender: Male
Hi Simon, that is the one!

Ernest

Greif & Don, I know very little about German Armour but when you guys talked about the 'Maus' are you talking about the Panzer VIII Maus German super-heavy tank design ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

Don in Cincinnati

  • Guest
Hi Wink, I don't think the S-boats had the renge or seaworthiness to operate in the western approaches where the great bulk of the merchant shipping was.  They could have, and in some cases did, operate effectively against coastal convoys on the eastern coast of Britain. 
Ernest

From what little I know I'm inclined to agree about the S Boats, Ernest. While doing research for an American PT Boat model I was about to build, (Which I assume was analgous to the S boat) I learned that these boats, while somewhat effective, had many myths surrounding them which proved to be false or, at best, inaccurate.
Until that point I thought that their speed and handling made them largely invulnerable and highly deadly against surface ships. As it turned out, an enemy destroyer could close on an escaping PT boat over a distance of ground and had guns with far greater range so as to stand off and shell the smaller boat. Added to that a PT boat running at full speed for any length of time burned off so much fuel that it's range was severely limited.

S boats and PT boats are among some of the coolest marine vessels ever designed, but they had their limitations.

We sure have covered a lot of ground on this thread, haven't we? From a submarine book review to Luftwaffe aircraft, to S boats (And PT boats) in a few pages. Keep the good thoughts, speculations and conversation going, my friends. It's good fun at this end.

Don

Offline 42rocker

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Wow - What a Great old thread. I wish that you folks would do a few more books and have threads like this on them.   
Thanks Again. 
 
Later Tim