General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: the submarine role...- help! (and thanks!)
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: April 27, 2001 01:10PM
<HTML>Kurt,
>>WWII subs, like the U-boats, were there most potent in the attacking of the economic lifeblood of a maritime enemy, an island country dependent on imports, like England or Japan. Attempts to use them in direct military support roles ended in the subs achieving little. Once U-boats failed to choke england in the war\'s opening years, their ability to do more than impede the allied war effort through diverted resources was very small. <<
I read your entry with interest. However, I might just disagree with one piece, if I may?
I agree with the majority of what you have said but would hasten to say you have used the expression military support role - in which there is a certain ambiguity! In terms of military action, the use of U-boats was expressly to bring Britain to its knees. The economic lifeline - the ships - were severely affected by U-boats so they did actually fulfil a direct military role.
I also would not say their role in terms of military action was of litle achievement!
U-boats sunk HMS Eagle, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Audacity, an escort carrier, each valuable assets in sea warfare. At a time when the RN sorely needed this type of vessel, their losses were felt critically. They proved murderous against convoys, in tying up escorts - so their psychological advantage added to the lack of enthusiasm for any invasion at that stage of the war. They may have been sparse - but the knowledge they were \'out there\' must have weighed heavily on many an allied mind during the first three years of the war.
I would say that submarines - in all theatres - proved their worth. In the case of the U-boats, they very nearly brought England to her knees. That is something well known and recognised, thereby somewhat diluting your statement that they merely \'impeded\' the war effort!
No disrespect, Kurt - just an observation.
Aye,
John
</HTML>
>>WWII subs, like the U-boats, were there most potent in the attacking of the economic lifeblood of a maritime enemy, an island country dependent on imports, like England or Japan. Attempts to use them in direct military support roles ended in the subs achieving little. Once U-boats failed to choke england in the war\'s opening years, their ability to do more than impede the allied war effort through diverted resources was very small. <<
I read your entry with interest. However, I might just disagree with one piece, if I may?
I agree with the majority of what you have said but would hasten to say you have used the expression military support role - in which there is a certain ambiguity! In terms of military action, the use of U-boats was expressly to bring Britain to its knees. The economic lifeline - the ships - were severely affected by U-boats so they did actually fulfil a direct military role.
I also would not say their role in terms of military action was of litle achievement!
U-boats sunk HMS Eagle, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Audacity, an escort carrier, each valuable assets in sea warfare. At a time when the RN sorely needed this type of vessel, their losses were felt critically. They proved murderous against convoys, in tying up escorts - so their psychological advantage added to the lack of enthusiasm for any invasion at that stage of the war. They may have been sparse - but the knowledge they were \'out there\' must have weighed heavily on many an allied mind during the first three years of the war.
I would say that submarines - in all theatres - proved their worth. In the case of the U-boats, they very nearly brought England to her knees. That is something well known and recognised, thereby somewhat diluting your statement that they merely \'impeded\' the war effort!
No disrespect, Kurt - just an observation.
Aye,
John
</HTML>
