General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: sink
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: November 27, 2000 12:00AM
<HTML>Major capital warships (carriers, battleships) were the highest priority for U-boats.
These usually travelled at high speed and in heavily protected convoys, so few were actually sunk by U-boats, but they were the number 1 priority.
Small escort vessels, like destroyer escorts and corvettes, were accorded various priorities during the war. At one point Doenitz even forbid U-boats to attack escorting destroyers! (to avoid accidentally sinking an American ship prior to the US entry into WWII). In general escort vessels were to be avoided because of the difficulty of sinking such a shallow draft vessel, and the danger of messing with a dedicated ASW vessel.
An ocean liner per se was not accorded a high priority (in the early phase of WWII, Hitler forbade attacking pure passenger liners - again to avoid angering the US), but most liners were thought to be (and were) used as troop transports. Graduallly no one tried to make a distinction, and all liners were thought of as troopships.
Obviously a troop transport bringing in thousands of troops to fight your own soldiers is an important target. And, for military and domestic political reasons, allied troop convoys were very heavily protected. Losses of allied transports to U-boats was very light during WWII for this reason.
The U-boats did not usually know where allied troop convoys were. When found, they were often so heavily protected that attacks were costlier than they were worth, and Doenitz would call of the attackers.
The exception was for attacking the troopships engaged in the D-day invasion. Sinking these in direct support of foiling the allied invasion was the highest priority, though in fact the U-boats accomplished nothing against the allied invasion.
This is the long was of saying that capital warships were the no. 1 priority, but troopships would also be considered a juicy target, though U-boats rarely got either. Smaller escort vessels were in general avoided, not sought out for sinking.
</HTML>
These usually travelled at high speed and in heavily protected convoys, so few were actually sunk by U-boats, but they were the number 1 priority.
Small escort vessels, like destroyer escorts and corvettes, were accorded various priorities during the war. At one point Doenitz even forbid U-boats to attack escorting destroyers! (to avoid accidentally sinking an American ship prior to the US entry into WWII). In general escort vessels were to be avoided because of the difficulty of sinking such a shallow draft vessel, and the danger of messing with a dedicated ASW vessel.
An ocean liner per se was not accorded a high priority (in the early phase of WWII, Hitler forbade attacking pure passenger liners - again to avoid angering the US), but most liners were thought to be (and were) used as troop transports. Graduallly no one tried to make a distinction, and all liners were thought of as troopships.
Obviously a troop transport bringing in thousands of troops to fight your own soldiers is an important target. And, for military and domestic political reasons, allied troop convoys were very heavily protected. Losses of allied transports to U-boats was very light during WWII for this reason.
The U-boats did not usually know where allied troop convoys were. When found, they were often so heavily protected that attacks were costlier than they were worth, and Doenitz would call of the attackers.
The exception was for attacking the troopships engaged in the D-day invasion. Sinking these in direct support of foiling the allied invasion was the highest priority, though in fact the U-boats accomplished nothing against the allied invasion.
This is the long was of saying that capital warships were the no. 1 priority, but troopships would also be considered a juicy target, though U-boats rarely got either. Smaller escort vessels were in general avoided, not sought out for sinking.
</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
sink
|
tony | 11/25/2000 03:37PM |
|
RE: sink.?
|
Joe | 11/25/2000 08:38PM |
|
RE: sink.?
|
joe brandt | 11/25/2000 08:57PM |
|
RE: sink.?
|
Ted Armstrong | 11/26/2000 02:16AM |
|
RE: warships vs liners
|
AL Wellman | 11/26/2000 12:06AM |
|
RE: sink
|
Peter Titan | 11/26/2000 03:03AM |
|
RE: sink
|
kurt | 11/27/2000 12:00AM |