General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: Claims?
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: October 16, 2001 09:38PM
<HTML>I don't have Superkraut's database, but here are some figures I gleaned from Blair's 'U-boat War' that tell a similar story. These are footnotes from 'The Hunters' listing a variety of Ritterkrauz winners with their credited tonnage at the time of award versus the actual historically verified tonnage they actually sank at that point. All pg numbers are for 'The Hunters'. The '+' indicates that the claims exceeded the threshold necessary for an award, but Blair did not note by exactly how much.
The point is that even the top aces consistently overclaimed their kills, both in terms of number of ships sunk and tonnage of ships. The overclaims are quite large, many tens of percents, even double for some. And this was during 1942, where subs could still operate with some safety against lesser ASW forces.. Many of the kills were against unescorted US merchantmen off the US coast - in other words, about as ideal a condition as a sub will get in war for verifying tonnage. And, as Superkraut's figures for later years showed, the claim accuracy only got worse with time.
Credit: Actual % Overclaim
Pg 469 Hardegen U-123 100,000+ 60,787 64%
Pg 513 Bauer U-126 100,000+ 62,221 61%
Pg 519 Mohr U-124 100,000+ 64,832 54%
Pg 537 Hardegen U-123 200,000+ 132,081 51%
Pg 537 Zapp U-66 100,000+ 80,014 25%
Pg 540 Topp U-532 200,800 163,000 23%
Pg 546 Cremer U-333 56,800 27,641 105%
Pg 573 Schultrze U-432 100,000+ 68,900 45%
Pg 582 Winter U-103 100,000+ 79,300 26%
Pg 612 Rostin U-158 112,000 90,400 23%
Pg 614 Merten U-68 100,000+ 102,234 -2%
Pg 636 Lassen U-160 100,000+ 66,000 52%
Pg 658 Topp U-552 250,000+ 185,000 35%
Pg 668 Schnee U-201 210,000 92,000 128%
Pg 670 Kal U-130 100,000+ 116,500 -14%
Pg 671 BleichrodtU-109 200,000+ 150,000 33%
Pg 672 Thurmann U-553 106,000 80,237 32%
In addition Blair contains the following:
Pg 426 "[Doenitz] almost uncritically accepted U-boat sinking claims, which in some cases were inflated… by as much as 100%"
Doenitz briefed Hitler in meetings during the period April - June 1942 that tonnage sinkings of allied vessels (by all causes - but most were by German subs) was at approximately 700,000 tons/mo (pg 562). The actual average by subs for early 1942 (Jan thru Aug) was actually closer 500,000 tons/mo. But this was higher than normal due to the easy kills off the US coast. The actual monthly average of German sub kills to date for the war thru June 1942 was 240,600 tons /mo. (pg 771 App 18)
It really is not too hard to realize that quick peeks thru a periscope are not the ideal way to identify a target. Many targets were misidentified as larger ships. As new, wartime shipping construction that might not be in recognition manuals hit the waves, the new, unknown ship types were consistently overestimated in size - this was a particularly bad problem in the Pacific sub war. As for the over-estimate of the number of ships that actually sank, again this was common. A boat obtains a hit, but has to submerge before seeing the victim sink. Breaking up noises are heard. The boat surfaces hours later - no ship in sight. Sunk, right! No, many times not. Even when 'definite breaking up noises' were heard, often the ship was only damaged and managed to leave the scene. Or, if near a coast, the ship might beach itself and be repaired at a later date.
The same phenomena was a problem for US boats in the Pacific war. Even with the near perfect intelligence the US subs had against the Japanese merchant marine, overclaims credited by HQ in both size and number of sinkings was endemic. The U-boats were not alone in such troubles.</HTML>
The point is that even the top aces consistently overclaimed their kills, both in terms of number of ships sunk and tonnage of ships. The overclaims are quite large, many tens of percents, even double for some. And this was during 1942, where subs could still operate with some safety against lesser ASW forces.. Many of the kills were against unescorted US merchantmen off the US coast - in other words, about as ideal a condition as a sub will get in war for verifying tonnage. And, as Superkraut's figures for later years showed, the claim accuracy only got worse with time.
Credit: Actual % Overclaim
Pg 469 Hardegen U-123 100,000+ 60,787 64%
Pg 513 Bauer U-126 100,000+ 62,221 61%
Pg 519 Mohr U-124 100,000+ 64,832 54%
Pg 537 Hardegen U-123 200,000+ 132,081 51%
Pg 537 Zapp U-66 100,000+ 80,014 25%
Pg 540 Topp U-532 200,800 163,000 23%
Pg 546 Cremer U-333 56,800 27,641 105%
Pg 573 Schultrze U-432 100,000+ 68,900 45%
Pg 582 Winter U-103 100,000+ 79,300 26%
Pg 612 Rostin U-158 112,000 90,400 23%
Pg 614 Merten U-68 100,000+ 102,234 -2%
Pg 636 Lassen U-160 100,000+ 66,000 52%
Pg 658 Topp U-552 250,000+ 185,000 35%
Pg 668 Schnee U-201 210,000 92,000 128%
Pg 670 Kal U-130 100,000+ 116,500 -14%
Pg 671 BleichrodtU-109 200,000+ 150,000 33%
Pg 672 Thurmann U-553 106,000 80,237 32%
In addition Blair contains the following:
Pg 426 "[Doenitz] almost uncritically accepted U-boat sinking claims, which in some cases were inflated… by as much as 100%"
Doenitz briefed Hitler in meetings during the period April - June 1942 that tonnage sinkings of allied vessels (by all causes - but most were by German subs) was at approximately 700,000 tons/mo (pg 562). The actual average by subs for early 1942 (Jan thru Aug) was actually closer 500,000 tons/mo. But this was higher than normal due to the easy kills off the US coast. The actual monthly average of German sub kills to date for the war thru June 1942 was 240,600 tons /mo. (pg 771 App 18)
It really is not too hard to realize that quick peeks thru a periscope are not the ideal way to identify a target. Many targets were misidentified as larger ships. As new, wartime shipping construction that might not be in recognition manuals hit the waves, the new, unknown ship types were consistently overestimated in size - this was a particularly bad problem in the Pacific sub war. As for the over-estimate of the number of ships that actually sank, again this was common. A boat obtains a hit, but has to submerge before seeing the victim sink. Breaking up noises are heard. The boat surfaces hours later - no ship in sight. Sunk, right! No, many times not. Even when 'definite breaking up noises' were heard, often the ship was only damaged and managed to leave the scene. Or, if near a coast, the ship might beach itself and be repaired at a later date.
The same phenomena was a problem for US boats in the Pacific war. Even with the near perfect intelligence the US subs had against the Japanese merchant marine, overclaims credited by HQ in both size and number of sinkings was endemic. The U-boats were not alone in such troubles.</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Claims?
|
Erik E | 10/15/2001 02:20PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
oliver | 10/15/2001 02:42PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
Rainer Kolbicz | 10/15/2001 08:39PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
kurt | 10/15/2001 03:24PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
oliver | 10/15/2001 07:03PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
Derek | 10/16/2001 03:46PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
oliver | 10/22/2001 04:55AM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
kurt | 10/16/2001 09:38PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
kurt | 10/16/2001 09:39PM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
oliver | 10/22/2001 04:59AM |
|
Re: Claims?
|
SuperKraut | 10/16/2001 03:32PM |