General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: modern torpedoes and a modern tojnnage war
Posted by:
Yuri IL\'IN
()
Date: August 16, 2001 08:43AM
<HTML>Hi Kurt
1. The sinking of the merchantman or so-called \"tonnage war\" was rather strange if not to tell silly employment in time WW2. Actions of submarines sinking of merchantman practically did not influence in any way outcome of war. The sinking of the merchantman at coast of New Zealand did not influence in any way a course of war in Europe. Sinking of the merchantman of the countries which do not conduct the battle actions especially can not influence a course of war in any way. Great Britain and USA practically do not do not conduct battle actions in Europe before summer 1944. Therefore sinking of the merchantman was not only senselessly, but even is harmful to Germany since reduced resources which could be used with advantage. The battle actions before summer 1844 conducted only the Soviet Union. The submarines could in any measure complicate conducting battle actions if make imposible land-lease delivery of the allies. The land-lease delivery were carried out through Far East, through the Persian Gulf and through Arctic Region (Murmansk). Through Murmansk 10% all land-lease delivery acted. Land-lease delivery was approximately 4% from volume of industrial manufacture in the USSR. Thus through Murmansks delivered 0.4% from volume of the Soviet manufacture. However submarines have broken only small part of deliveries. Let\'s consider 10% (estimation optimistical for Germany). Thus before summer 1944 actions of all underwater fleet of Germany have reduced amount of the weapon at the real opponent on 0.04%. It can be compared to destruction of civilians on the Soviet occupied territory. Having destroyed 1 million or 10 millions of Russian civilian German army only made other Russians malicious but did not approach a victory on a one step. Moreover. The destruction of civilians required to remove armies from front by that it weakened tham.
2. If the destruction of merchantman was nonsense in time WW2, in conditions of the modern intense and transient war it is simply inadmissible. In case of serious war all efforts of the parties will be directed on destruction of command items of an enemy and also it\'s delivery (rocket, bombers, etc.). Nobody will be spend forces and means for destruction of merchantman. For this purpose will not suffice neither time nor limited means which have the parties. The outcome of war should decide in some day after its beginning.
3. If the war will get long character to sunk of modern merchantman is very silly. The armies will carry out a battle task. The battle task can be formulated - don\'t admit arrival of a cargo in purpose point. To execute a battle task there is no necessity to sunk a vessel. It is necessary to deprive a vessel of an opportunity to move and to maneuver. It is better not to damage vessel at all, but to land on she landing party. After end of battle actions it is possible to take advantage of a cargo which transported a vessel. It is much more reasonable than to sunk a vessel together with a cargo.
4. Solving the problem about what state can be a potential aggressor and make landing party on other coast of ocean it is necessary to take into account presence of aircraft carriers. The absence of aircraft carriers practically excludes an opportunity of landing such landing party. The presence of the large number of aircraft carriers is an attribute the state prepares to conduct aggressive war far from the home coast.
5. Some analysts consider, that the ambassador of a beginning of large battle actions all aircraft carriers will be deprived opportunities to carry out a battle task in some hours. Thus large part of tham remain on aflot. However they can not be used for basing aircraft and will lose a course. In view of that, large langing operation in modern conditions is impossible. From here it is possible to conclude, that the aircraft carriers in modern conditions can be used only for intimidation of obviously more weaker opponent at thousand miles from the home coast.
Regards,
Yuri IL\'IN
Moscow Russia
</HTML>
1. The sinking of the merchantman or so-called \"tonnage war\" was rather strange if not to tell silly employment in time WW2. Actions of submarines sinking of merchantman practically did not influence in any way outcome of war. The sinking of the merchantman at coast of New Zealand did not influence in any way a course of war in Europe. Sinking of the merchantman of the countries which do not conduct the battle actions especially can not influence a course of war in any way. Great Britain and USA practically do not do not conduct battle actions in Europe before summer 1944. Therefore sinking of the merchantman was not only senselessly, but even is harmful to Germany since reduced resources which could be used with advantage. The battle actions before summer 1844 conducted only the Soviet Union. The submarines could in any measure complicate conducting battle actions if make imposible land-lease delivery of the allies. The land-lease delivery were carried out through Far East, through the Persian Gulf and through Arctic Region (Murmansk). Through Murmansk 10% all land-lease delivery acted. Land-lease delivery was approximately 4% from volume of industrial manufacture in the USSR. Thus through Murmansks delivered 0.4% from volume of the Soviet manufacture. However submarines have broken only small part of deliveries. Let\'s consider 10% (estimation optimistical for Germany). Thus before summer 1944 actions of all underwater fleet of Germany have reduced amount of the weapon at the real opponent on 0.04%. It can be compared to destruction of civilians on the Soviet occupied territory. Having destroyed 1 million or 10 millions of Russian civilian German army only made other Russians malicious but did not approach a victory on a one step. Moreover. The destruction of civilians required to remove armies from front by that it weakened tham.
2. If the destruction of merchantman was nonsense in time WW2, in conditions of the modern intense and transient war it is simply inadmissible. In case of serious war all efforts of the parties will be directed on destruction of command items of an enemy and also it\'s delivery (rocket, bombers, etc.). Nobody will be spend forces and means for destruction of merchantman. For this purpose will not suffice neither time nor limited means which have the parties. The outcome of war should decide in some day after its beginning.
3. If the war will get long character to sunk of modern merchantman is very silly. The armies will carry out a battle task. The battle task can be formulated - don\'t admit arrival of a cargo in purpose point. To execute a battle task there is no necessity to sunk a vessel. It is necessary to deprive a vessel of an opportunity to move and to maneuver. It is better not to damage vessel at all, but to land on she landing party. After end of battle actions it is possible to take advantage of a cargo which transported a vessel. It is much more reasonable than to sunk a vessel together with a cargo.
4. Solving the problem about what state can be a potential aggressor and make landing party on other coast of ocean it is necessary to take into account presence of aircraft carriers. The absence of aircraft carriers practically excludes an opportunity of landing such landing party. The presence of the large number of aircraft carriers is an attribute the state prepares to conduct aggressive war far from the home coast.
5. Some analysts consider, that the ambassador of a beginning of large battle actions all aircraft carriers will be deprived opportunities to carry out a battle task in some hours. Thus large part of tham remain on aflot. However they can not be used for basing aircraft and will lose a course. In view of that, large langing operation in modern conditions is impossible. From here it is possible to conclude, that the aircraft carriers in modern conditions can be used only for intimidation of obviously more weaker opponent at thousand miles from the home coast.
Regards,
Yuri IL\'IN
Moscow Russia
</HTML>
