RE: Oil Targets
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: December 05, 2000 05:41PM
<HTML>While it may have been a missed chance, I don\'t think it was a major one.
The reason is that a U-boat, with only one small caliber deck gun, could do little damage, and only at great risk to itself.
There are numerous incidents of submarine shelling, and commando raids, from subs by both the US and the Japanese in the Pacific (neither of these actions occured to any great degree in the Atlantic sub war), and the results were mostly mediocre. The small shells, from only one or two guns, would cause only slight and scattered damage. Commando raids would lead to some minor damage, but usually to heavy casulties on the part of the raiders (like the Makin raid).
Note that these raids often used much more powerful deck guns and larger commando raids than a U-boat.
While we might think that a few shells into an oil refinery would put it out of business, in fact a great deal more damage is necessary. allied bombing of Germany showed that it took many times the damage originally thought necessary, really massive damage from thousands of bombs (with each bomb many times more powerful than the shells of a U-boat deck gun) to even put a dent in German war production, including oil. Even what we might think as massive damage were repeatedly repaired with amazing speed, taking only weeks instead of months.
A U-boat shelling a refinery would lead to minor damage, temporary interuptions, and a massive buildup of shore defences: the second wave of U-boats to try this trick would meet thorough blackout conditions, heavy air patrols, and alert and heavy shore defence batteries, and probable damage or destruction.
I think Doenitz was right: the mid-Atlantic runs were where the crucial damage to the Allied war effort was going to, or not going to, happen.</HTML>
The reason is that a U-boat, with only one small caliber deck gun, could do little damage, and only at great risk to itself.
There are numerous incidents of submarine shelling, and commando raids, from subs by both the US and the Japanese in the Pacific (neither of these actions occured to any great degree in the Atlantic sub war), and the results were mostly mediocre. The small shells, from only one or two guns, would cause only slight and scattered damage. Commando raids would lead to some minor damage, but usually to heavy casulties on the part of the raiders (like the Makin raid).
Note that these raids often used much more powerful deck guns and larger commando raids than a U-boat.
While we might think that a few shells into an oil refinery would put it out of business, in fact a great deal more damage is necessary. allied bombing of Germany showed that it took many times the damage originally thought necessary, really massive damage from thousands of bombs (with each bomb many times more powerful than the shells of a U-boat deck gun) to even put a dent in German war production, including oil. Even what we might think as massive damage were repeatedly repaired with amazing speed, taking only weeks instead of months.
A U-boat shelling a refinery would lead to minor damage, temporary interuptions, and a massive buildup of shore defences: the second wave of U-boats to try this trick would meet thorough blackout conditions, heavy air patrols, and alert and heavy shore defence batteries, and probable damage or destruction.
I think Doenitz was right: the mid-Atlantic runs were where the crucial damage to the Allied war effort was going to, or not going to, happen.</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
Oil Targets | Craig McLean | 12/05/2000 02:06PM |
RE: Oil Targets | Anders Wingren | 12/05/2000 02:35PM |
RE: Oil Targets | Fin Bonset | 12/05/2000 02:49PM |
RE: Oil Targets | Fin Bonset | 12/05/2000 02:46PM |
RE: Oil Targets | TL | 12/05/2000 03:14PM |
RE: Oil Targets | kurt | 12/05/2000 05:41PM |
RE: Oil Targets | TL | 12/06/2000 01:27PM |
RE: Oil Targets | kurt | 12/06/2000 11:49PM |
RE: Oil Targets | Rich Mickle | 12/05/2000 11:15PM |
RE: Oil Targets | Fin Bonset | 12/06/2000 12:25PM |
RE: Oil Targets | Capt. George W. Duffy | 12/06/2000 12:17AM |
RE: Oil Targets | Romulo Figueiredo | 12/06/2000 02:03AM |