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:
kurt
()
Date: April 25, 2001 04:02PM
<HTML>Ahh. Now your meaning is clearer. Again, another 2 cents...
As for WWI vs WWII usage of U-boats, there is probably less difference than some may think. In both wars U-boats were really submersible torpedo boat, not a true submarine. On the surface they were fast and long ranged ocean going torpedo boats. Underwater performance and endurance was very limited. A submerged submarine was so slow (only a few knots) that they could not catch up with a surface convoy. Basically a submerged sub like a torpedo firing mine - hard to detect, but also immobile. Finding targets is a matter of luck, not hunting - the target literally has to run you over, because sumberged you can\'t chase after a target. Surface operation was vital for U-boats to have enough speed to find and engage targets.
In the first phase of WWII, U-boats operated on the surface much of the time, usuing high surface speed to hunt for, and hunt down, prey. As the war progressed allied air kept U-boats underwater more and more of the time, till finally they were fully submerged all the time, using schnorkels for air. But their effectiveness also dropped off. The vast majority of ships sunk by U-boats were sunk in the first half of the war. Allied shipping losses after the summer of 1943 were small and not significant to the Allied cause. A true submarine really had to await nuclear power in the postwar navies.
You state the thesis that U-boats helped hinder/delay the Allied invasion of Europe, therby helping the German attack in the East.
Again, I feel this is an overstatement. U-boat losses certainly had their effect on the allied buildup in England. But even without any U-boat interference an allied invasion before the summer of 1943, and possibly 1944, was impossible. It took time to mobilize the vast US economy, raise an army, train and equip it, and ship it to England. England by itself was overmatched by Germany, even with the Russian front. An invasion of France by England alone was not credible. It had to await the mobilized US armed forces. By 1943, when the full buildup of US troops and equipment in England was taking place, the U-boat menace was effectively over. Also note that convoys carrying allied troops were very heavily escorted or on very fast liners, and suffered very few losses to U-boats. Basically U-boats did not significantly impede the allied buildup in England. It just took time to get ready. At best the U-boats may have been a factor delaying the allied invasion of France from 1943 to 1944.
As for forestalling an invasion, U-boats were again not a major factor. Submarines, be they British ones off Norway, US subs off the Philipines, or German ones off of France, were uniformly ineffective in hindering heavily escorted invasions fleets. The Allies were deterred from invading France before 1944 by the large and powerfull German army, and its potent air force, not interdiction by U-boats. Once control of the air was obtained, and a large army could be thrown across the ocean to Normandy, only then were the allies ready. This took 2/ 1/2 years (not long when you think of it).
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.
</HTML>
As for WWI vs WWII usage of U-boats, there is probably less difference than some may think. In both wars U-boats were really submersible torpedo boat, not a true submarine. On the surface they were fast and long ranged ocean going torpedo boats. Underwater performance and endurance was very limited. A submerged submarine was so slow (only a few knots) that they could not catch up with a surface convoy. Basically a submerged sub like a torpedo firing mine - hard to detect, but also immobile. Finding targets is a matter of luck, not hunting - the target literally has to run you over, because sumberged you can\'t chase after a target. Surface operation was vital for U-boats to have enough speed to find and engage targets.
In the first phase of WWII, U-boats operated on the surface much of the time, usuing high surface speed to hunt for, and hunt down, prey. As the war progressed allied air kept U-boats underwater more and more of the time, till finally they were fully submerged all the time, using schnorkels for air. But their effectiveness also dropped off. The vast majority of ships sunk by U-boats were sunk in the first half of the war. Allied shipping losses after the summer of 1943 were small and not significant to the Allied cause. A true submarine really had to await nuclear power in the postwar navies.
You state the thesis that U-boats helped hinder/delay the Allied invasion of Europe, therby helping the German attack in the East.
Again, I feel this is an overstatement. U-boat losses certainly had their effect on the allied buildup in England. But even without any U-boat interference an allied invasion before the summer of 1943, and possibly 1944, was impossible. It took time to mobilize the vast US economy, raise an army, train and equip it, and ship it to England. England by itself was overmatched by Germany, even with the Russian front. An invasion of France by England alone was not credible. It had to await the mobilized US armed forces. By 1943, when the full buildup of US troops and equipment in England was taking place, the U-boat menace was effectively over. Also note that convoys carrying allied troops were very heavily escorted or on very fast liners, and suffered very few losses to U-boats. Basically U-boats did not significantly impede the allied buildup in England. It just took time to get ready. At best the U-boats may have been a factor delaying the allied invasion of France from 1943 to 1944.
As for forestalling an invasion, U-boats were again not a major factor. Submarines, be they British ones off Norway, US subs off the Philipines, or German ones off of France, were uniformly ineffective in hindering heavily escorted invasions fleets. The Allies were deterred from invading France before 1944 by the large and powerfull German army, and its potent air force, not interdiction by U-boats. Once control of the air was obtained, and a large army could be thrown across the ocean to Normandy, only then were the allies ready. This took 2/ 1/2 years (not long when you think of it).
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.
</HTML>
