\">Most (but not all) wartime tech advances are reactive \"here is a problem, now we must solve it\"<\" That is being reactive and basically a sign of mediocrity. Good strategy is proactive and hence revolutionary. You try to anticipate what the opposition is going to do and take appropriate steps or you try to get ahead by developing something new. That is what Guderian did for air/land warfare. The days of the surfaced U-boat were numbered the moment radar was developed in the mid 1930s. A good theoretical analysis of U-boat warfare in the 1936 - 1938 timeframe should have taken radar into account and come to such a conclusion. The remedy was to start developing real submarines and the electroboat was the obvious solution available within the technological constraints of the times.

When you consider that closing the western flank, the Atlantic, was vital to German success, it is astounding that not more was done to achieve this. The failure to develop electoboats early was a failure of technology assessment and leadership. Not surprising considering the hidebound bunch who ran the Kriegsmarine and the total ignorance of the political leadership in naval matters. There was no naval Guderian. Being reactive in naval warfare takes too much time when one considers how long it takes to build vessels and get them into service, therefore the navy has to be at the cutting edge of technology. One has to be proactive to at least have the development work done for new weapons when war comes, much as the US has done since the end of WWII.

Regards,
SuperKraut