Another post about U boats

[Flibble]

With the benefit of hindsight, I think that the German U boat fleet was probably the most cost effective element of the German war effort. They had great success until 1943, when the allies developed radar technology to enable aircraft to catch subs on the surface. The German subs had to travel on the surface because they were simply too slow under the water. Instead of getting their new, faster underwater designs into production, they carried on building the same subs they had started the war with. The design of these U boats was virtually unchanged from those that put to sea in WW1, which I find amazing. :confused:

These creaky old tubs managed to sink ships faster than the UK and USA could build them for a while, and the UK's strategic reserves were shrinking by the month. A real missed opportunity for the Germans. I dont intend to make the same mistake. Invest, invest, invest!

[Von_Manteuffel]

I'll stick to the land war and make sure I beat the Russians and control North Africa and the balkans.

If Russia falls there is no way in hell that the tommies or yanks will ever set foot on the continent again.

[Briggs]

Which is exactly what good old Mister Hitler said, and didn't THAT get him places. (Mainly, in a roadside Berlin ditch doused in gasoline, on fire.)

[Guest Mike]

Fibble they made considerable improvements in the Type VII between WW1 and WW2, adn teh argumetn about keeping old types in production merely reflects the reality of war.

All nations did it.

The Brits kept the 2 pdr AT gun in 1940 because they needed ANY AT gun rather than having a gap in production caused by waiting for the 6 pdr.

The Americans were happy with the Sherman, the russians with the T34/76 until both designs were a bit obsolete.

In 1940 the British outproduced Germany in fighter aircraft, but making Spitfire II's meant teh much better V's and IX's were kept off production lines for many months. The Germans kept the Me-109 in production well after it should have been replaced.

etc., etc.

that's the sort of decision that has to be made when the survival of a country is at stake.

[Von_Manteuffel]

Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

Which is exactly what good old Mister Hitler said, and didn't THAT get him places. (Mainly, in a roadside Berlin ditch doused in gasoline, on fire.)

That's only because strength was dissipated in the Battle of Britain and Atlantic. Germany wasted resources fighting a useless sea and air war, which ultimately led to her defeat.

[Straha]

Originally posted by Von_Manteuffel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

Which is exactly what good old Mister Hitler said, and didn't THAT get him places. (Mainly, in a roadside Berlin ditch doused in gasoline, on fire.)

That's only because strength was dissipated in the Battle of Britain and Atlantic. Germany wasted resources fighting a useless sea and air war, which ultimately led to her defeat.</font>

[Rediroc]

Remember the Germans were prevented, for the most part, from designing and testing tanks, airplanes and uboats during the pre-WWII years. Thats probably what cost them the war.

[KevGaming]

For any that are interested in just how far advanced Germany's, development of U-Boots was check out Uboot.net and the Type XXI in particular. This could have been a war winning design if it had been produced early enough and in numbers.

[Briggs]

Ah...Good ol' uboat.net. A fine site indeed.

To be honest, I'm not planning on executing any sort of Sealion. The Germans had no method of getting their forces across, and I plan on reflecting that. Instead, I'm going to secure the Atlantic with a nice big U-Boot fleet, and turn my attention on Russia.

[Camicie Nere]

Over the last two years of the sea war the act of going out in a U-boat was pretty much tantamount to suicide for the crews; Allied tactics and technology had decisively gotten the best of the U-boat fleet. But then came those advanced U-Boats (XXI and smaller version, the XXIII) at the very very end.

On 8 May 1945 the U-2511 - one of those type XXI monsters - ran into a RN cruiser flotilla in the North Sea. Though the war was officially over, U-2511's captain decided to try a dummy attack and see if the boat was as good as advertised. It was; 2511 got into position where it would have wiped out the cruiser and a number of other vessels and then slipped away.

(Sniff) 'tis enough to make you want to put 5 research points into "advanced subs" ASAP....

[Guest Mike]

CN IMO the action you note is meaningless.

One "successful" dummy run proves exactly nothing.

[Camicie Nere]

But the fact that the Americans and Soviets did their absolute utmost to copy the type XXI boat in the postwar years would perhaps be less meaningless.

[David Brown]

I think that Richard Overy puts it nicely in "Why the Allies Won":

"When the war came they [Germany] tried to speed the process of development up, to win the war with the weapons of the 1950s. The result was a technical disaster... The Allies - except for the Manhattan atomic project - stuck with the weapons of the late 1930s, and pushed them successfully to their limits, in most cases overtaking the performance of Germany's move conventional weaponry."

Advanced subs and whatnot are only useful if you can produce them in quantities large enough to be useful. As well, prioritizing your weaponry is important. It is possible that pushing the development and mass-production of the Wasserfall ground-to-air missile could have taken much of the sting out of the Allies bomber offensive, but Hitler preferred the (significantly less useful from a military point of view) V-weapons, and the program languished.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote a nice little science fiction story back in the Fifties called, I believe, 'Superiority', which was based upon the idea that merely striving for technical superiority could cripple a war effort.

[Gregory Barnard]

It's the grunts, after all, that win the city.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

To be honest, I'm not planning on executing any sort of Sealion. The Germans had no method of getting their forces across, and I plan on reflecting that. Instead, I'm going to secure the Atlantic with a nice big U-Boot fleet, and turn my attention on Russia.

Thats fair enough as a personal 'house rule', but you have to remember that spending MPPs to transport units reflects building that capability to get the troops across rather than building something else.

In reality its hard to pick what the Germans could have 'not built' to build invasion craft but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done then and should be ruled out in SC.

[husky65]

Originally posted by David Brown:

I think that Richard Overy puts it nicely in "Why the Allies Won":

John Ellis in "Brute Force" covers it best, basically we outproduced the axis and swaped them with little finesse.

[Marc]

One thing that has always bothered me is that one of the great "myths" seems to be accepted as fact, and that is that the allies, especially the US won by out producing the Axis and had little, if any "finess". For those who still subscribe to this "myth" I highly suggest "Closing with the Enemy: How GIs fought the war in Europe, 1944-1945", Michael D. Doubler, University Press of Kansas, 1994.

Cheers

Marc

[Straha]

We must keep in mind that there was not *the* war, but rather very different constellations.

The Germans could have "won" in terms of having a favorable peace if they would have pressed for serious negotiations after Poland, and after France. As the Nazis they were it just didn't enter their mind that even after the victory in France, they would nevertheless have to give back everything except Austria, Sudeten, and some territory along the line of the 1914 borders in the East to get a peace treaty.

Once we come to Barbarossa, the Germans could have won if they would have beaten the USSR in 1941 *without* declaring war against the US. If they would have managed to keep the US out of the war, they still would have had a last chance in spring/summer 1942.

But once the US enters the game while Russia is still alive and kicking, I think the "outproducing" theory is true, even if I would not add the "no finesse" part simply because it has a ring to it which tends to make people somewhat recalcitrant to accept the facts. There were no "brilliant" campaigns on the side of the Allies, but that doesn't mean their generals were morons either.

Straha

[Straha]

Originally posted by husky65:

Thats fair enough as a personal 'house rule', but you have to remember that spending MPPs to transport units reflects building that capability to get the troops across rather than building something else.

In reality its hard to pick what the Germans could have 'not built' to build invasion craft but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done then and should be ruled out in SC.

That's one thing we shouldn't forget, indeed. SC is not a game where you are just a general fighting given campaigns, and even not just a theater commander. You are also in charge of the whole national industry and research from 1939 onwards. This gives you the opportunity to try very different overall grand strategical approaches. So just because some things were not possible given the *historical situation* in say 1942, does not mean that it should not be possible for you if you began the game appropriately earlier and went down alternative roads in production and research preferences etc. In fact, trying out the possibilities is exactly what makes the game so much fun. (If I just wanted to play given campaigns with given material, I would play an operational game.) Of course, these "what-if" aspects should still be based on sensible formulas, but that's another issue.

Straha

[husky65]

Originally posted by Marc:

One thing that has always bothered me is that one of the great "myths" seems to be accepted as fact, and that is that the allies, especially the US won by out producing the Axis and had little, if any "finess". For those who still subscribe to this "myth" I highly suggest "Closing with the Enemy: How GIs fought the war in Europe, 1944-1945", Michael D. Doubler, University Press of Kansas, 1994.

Its not a myth, its fact, we swamped them, in the air, on land and at sea - the bomber offensive was just attritional warfare (BC aircrew had less chance of surviving the war than WW1 Tommies did), the 8th AF was used as clay pigeons to draw the luftwaffe up to be attrited by 'escorting' fighters (whose orders were to hunt the Luftwaffe, not protect the bombers).

On land almost every opportunity to exploit was lost by the western allies whilst they waited for massive stocks of supplies to arrive, the Soviets were no better and simply bled the Germans white through attrition.

A classic example is the 88 battery commander who was captured and when asked why, he stated that the Americans would drive a tank up the road towards his battery, he would blow it up and they would send another - he ran out of rounds before they ran out of tanks.

At sea the U-boat offensive was ineffective because we built/procured shipping faster than the Germans could sink it.

Its even more pronounced in the Pacific.

[Briggs]

Originally posted by Straha:

That's one thing we shouldn't forget, indeed. SC is not a game where you are just a general fighting given campaigns, and even not just a theater commander. You are also in charge of the whole national industry and research from 1939 onwards. This gives you the opportunity to try very different overall grand strategical approaches. So just because some things were not possible given the *historical situation* in say 1942, does not mean that it should not be possible for you if you began the game appropriately earlier and went down alternative roads in production and research preferences etc. In fact, trying out the possibilities is exactly what makes the game so much fun. (If I just wanted to play given campaigns with given material, I would play an operational game.) Of course, these "what-if" aspects should still be based on sensible formulas, but that's another issue.

Straha

Too true, and well said. One doesn't have to repeat the follies of Hitler. Another reason I have, however is that Brit partisans are not in the game. I highly doubt the young (And old WW1 vets) would stand idly about and let Fritz pinch his country without a fight. Brit partisans would be fun.

[Guest Mike]

the Germans had plenty of capability to carry troops across the channel - just not quickly and not well protected!!

they were going to use hundreds of Rhine Barges, coastal shipping, port-bound passenger ships and ferries, etc. They even jimmied up a few "specialised" landing ships IIRC.

What they would have lost (in fact what they DID loose) was the capacity of the barges on the rhine, and this proved a considerable impediment to Eurpoean commerce for several months while they were out of action!!

IMO the MPP's spent on transport for the Germans represent this loss - it was very real.

That said I tried someone else's tactic of invading GB on turn 2 last night, and got my arse handed to me on a platter toute suite!! lol

1 corps, 1 army, 1 tank group and 1 HQ all from Kiel/Norway - I had no southern flank guard because the ships from Liverpool couldn't reach that far around the channel.

The Brit counterattacks on T3 were phenominal and crushed me in 2 turns!!

Of course I captured Paris while all that was going on, but it was a salutary lesson in not taking the AI for granted!

Must try improved sub tech next!!

[Marc]

Originally posted by husky65:

[.

[/qb]

Its not a myth, its fact, we swamped them, in the air, on land and at sea - the bomber offensive was just attritional warfare (BC aircrew had less chance of surviving the war than WW1 Tommies did), the 8th AF was used as clay pigeons to draw the luftwaffe up to be attrited by 'escorting' fighters (whose orders were to hunt the Luftwaffe, not protect the bombers).

On land almost every opportunity to exploit was lost by the western allies whilst they waited for massive stocks of supplies to arrive, the Soviets were no better and simply bled the Germans white through attrition.

I didnt say production played no part. But the myth that it was just sheer numbers which prevailed is not only false but an insult to the western allies who fought in Europe. Once again, I humbly suggest the book by Doubler that I listed for insight into just how much finesse the US could manage.

Marc

[husky65]

Originally posted by Marc:

"I didnt say production played no part."

Production was the key factor.

" But the myth that it was just sheer numbers which prevailed is not only false but an insult to the western allies who fought in Europe. "

Oh, dear the tired old defence that the truth is an insult to etc..

Fail.

I have great respect for the poor bastards who were sent up in B17s to be clay pigeons and later decoy ducks for the luftwaffe, I'd have diverted to Sweden and sat the war out, I have great respect for men sent up against Panthers in Shermans - no matter how many Shermans we had, and led by people like Patton (for whom I have no respect at all) against people like Rommel and Rundstedt - but pretending that the allies did it with finesse is simply untrue.

"Once again, I humbly suggest the book by Doubler that I listed for insight into just how much finesse the US could manage."

I've already seen how much finesse the US could manage, it was done in factories on a vast scale.

[Marc]

I wish to apologize for wasting everyone's time. It is very evident Husky doesnt wish to discuss facts. I sited but one of many sources. Another is Weinberg's A World at Arms. I will know better in the future then to try to discuss with Husky or be baited by his posts. Once again my apologies to the rest of the list

Cheers

Marc