All the weapons you mention were either already developed or developed for something else(radar, Liberator) or were of a type which could be developed quickly (Leigh light, hedgehog, tactics) and they were used against U-boats which were in concept not much different than WWI technology. Developing, fielding and perfecting a whole new class of U-boats is a long term proposition. It was mediocre weapons against mediocre weapons and the man with the most weapons wins.

We can also have a discussion why the electroboat project was not started in 1941 when it became obvious to the men in the field that the U-boat had to disappear from the surface. Doenitz wasted two years playing with band aids. You forget that it was shipborne radar which inflicted the first casualties at night. Doenit\'z favorite tactic, the night surface attack, was suicidal by 1941. The handwriting was on the wall in 1941 for those who bothered to look. Airborne radar is a later and different aspect of the campaign.

\">The Germans did not need electroboats to win the Western conflict, they could have won in 1940 by forcing the British into the sea at Dunkirk and prosecuting the airwar against the RAF, airbases and radar stations without diverting to London (going off topic?).<\" Not necessarily. There is a real chance Parliament fires Churchill and negotiates, but it is far from certain.

\">The Germans could have won any time up to late 1942….<\" That is a real no, no here, but you know where this discussion is being or can be carried out.

\">Your comments re: US tech are wildly off topic (and all the better for that!).<\" Not at all. I was llustrating that it is possible to do good proactive technical assessment in the military sector. What did the think tanks do in the Cold War? Think up new weapons as soon as a new scientific principle or technical development became available. They did not wait until the Soviets developed something.

\">US tech did not win in Vietnam, the Gulf (Saddam is still in power) or the Balkans (only the threat of a land attack produced a result of sorts). The most effective delivery system for tactical and strategic conventional weapons used by the US is the 50 year old B52, so much for technology.<\" The US was never involved in a high tech war in the style of WWII after it as over. None of your examples apply because they involve lack of political leadership and lack of a high tech opponent. There was only one high tech war possible, it was called WWIII, and since we are all still sitting here, it did not happen. As for the B-52, no more was needed. It is a very efficient airplane when it comes to transporting ordinance and it gets much better gas mileage than a B-1.

Regards,
SuperKraut