Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pocket battleships or U-boats?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Captain Worley View Post
    One thing that always struck me on the XXI and subsequent subs based on that design was why not go to a single diesel and screw. I would think by that point the drivetrains were reliable enough to do without the redundancy and it would free a LOT of design space.
    But the desiel engines weren't - they needed several to handle maintenance and breakdowns.
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #17
      How about going after capital ships with u-boats ?
      the Germans managed to sink some carriers and battleships early in the war .
      J'ai en marre.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Stitch View Post
        Eventually, they did, but it was too late in the War to make a difference; look at the Type XXIII. Basically, a "modern" submarine, but too late and too little to make a difference. Doenitz was ALWAYS complaining about a lack of resources for the U-boot fleet, right up until the end of the War; IMO, if they had taken all of the resources they wasted on the Tirpitz and the Prince Eugen and the Bismark and the Graf Spee and used them on the U-boot fleet, Germany would've won the War of the Atlantic.

        Type XXIII Elektro boats - U-boat Types - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net
        Thats what i've been saying but even with the earlier classes electrical capacity and no snorkel, had they removed the deck guns and gone to a tear drop hull from 39-42 the battle of the Atlantic may have been won by the Germans.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 1979 View Post
          How about going after capital ships with u-boats ?
          the Germans managed to sink some carriers and battleships early in the war .
          But to what end? The Japanese went that route and certainly did score a few spectacular victories against capital ships...while a gargantuan supply train was replenishing the world's largest fleet right under their noses.

          The US and Germany were both contending with a foe located on an island nation (and Russia might as well have been an island). Starve them and they have lost.
          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

          Comment


          • #20
            Invasion of the british islands.

            Irc the British started the war with 15 capital ships and 7 carriers.
            J'ai en marre.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 1979 View Post
              Invasion of the british islands.

              Irc the British started the war with 15 capital ships and 7 carriers.
              The Germans were not invading anything that involved more than a river crossing.

              Sea Lion vs. Overlord
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • #22
                Submarines for sure.

                If there was one thing the German's could have done to win the war it was to have introduce the XXI boats from the start.

                All the technology was there pre-war. 30 XXIs let loose in 1939 would have been devastating. The allies would have countered earlier for sure but the technology for counter measures against a dedicated submarine (as opposed to a diving torpedoe/gun boat) would require vastly more rescourses that were not available early war.

                Germany building capitol ships to fight the British fell straight into the Royal Navy's hands. It let the British do what their fleet was designed for.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Captain Worley View Post
                  If Hitler had deployed the pocket battleships effectively as commerce raiders, would they have been more or less effective than the U-boats. Seems to me the U-boats were better from a benefit of cost effectiveness.
                  *Think logistics. The KM would find it very diffacult refueling the surface ships with the RN chasing them over the globe. The subs operated on batteries while submerged as the snorkel didnt work out as well as they had planned for. It a shorfall, the subs only carried but so many torpedoes.

                  As the USN did to Japan later in the war, find the fuel and destroy their way of refueling, not only does that limit range but also escape ability and keeps them in port.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    The Germans were not invading anything that involved more than a river crossing.

                    Sea Lion vs. Overlord
                    According to the link you posted they executed at least one invasion (Crete) that involved more than a river crossing.
                    J'ai en marre.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                      According to the link you posted they executed at least one invasion (Crete) that involved more than a river crossing.
                      2- Crete and Norway.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                        According to the link you posted they executed at least one invasion (Crete) that involved more than a river crossing.
                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        2- Crete and Norway.
                        I stand corrected but both examples are problematic.

                        Crete was not amphibious and it tore the heart out of the Fallschirmjäger unit that was dropped in. The Luftwaffe also suffered heavily, 284 aircraft destroyed hundreds of crews killed. But for Allied mistakes, Crete could have been an even bigger Pyrrhic victory than it was.

                        Norway's armed forces were only partially mobilized, and the German amphibious force was chopped to pieces.

                        My point is, an invasion of Britain was doomed from the start.
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                          I stand corrected but both examples are problematic.

                          Crete was not amphibious and it tore the heart out of the Fallschirmjäger unit that was dropped in. The Luftwaffe also suffered heavily, 284 aircraft destroyed hundreds of crews killed. But for Allied mistakes, Crete could have been an even bigger Pyrrhic victory than it was.

                          Norway's armed forces were only partially mobilized, and the German amphibious force was chopped to pieces.

                          My point is, an invasion of Britain was doomed from the start.
                          both German efforts were exercises in what not to do, but they both existed, that is all I was pointing out.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            both German efforts were exercises in what not to do, but they both existed, that is all I was pointing out.
                            Oh totally agree. The Germans were incredibly fortunate in both cases and sometimes Napoleon's comment about luck totally comes true.
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              the British could have deployed 27 divisions " theoretically " to defend their home islands
                              I say theoretically because more than half of them would be simply men with rifles.
                              there was a chronically shortage of machine guns, light AAA, antitank guns, artillery .

                              British Equipment losses at Dunkirk and the situation post Dunkirk
                              J'ai en marre.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                                the British could have deployed 27 divisions " theoretically " to defend their home islands
                                I say theoretically because more than half of them would be simply men with rifles.
                                there was a chronically shortage of machine guns, light AAA, antitank guns, artillery .

                                British Equipment losses at Dunkirk and the situation post Dunkirk
                                Had the Winds of Fate, the Fairy Godmother, Lady Luck and Wotan combined to give the German's the ability to land in force the British Army was in no shape to meet them. The veteran formations were shattered and fearful, the command organization was in shambles, a lot of weapons were WWI hand me downs many of the tanks were not capable of real AT warfare (though the Matilda II was). If the RN and RAF had failed Southern England at least to London would likely have been lost at a minimum.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X