Pocket battleships or U-boats?

**USSWisconsin** · 15 May 12,, 16:56

Originally Posted by Captain Worley

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.

**1979** · 15 May 12,, 17:33

How about going after capital ships with u-boats ?
the Germans managed to sink some carriers and battleships early in the war .

**zraver** · 15 May 12,, 17:41

Originally Posted by Stitch

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.

**TopHatter** · 15 May 12,, 18:22

Originally Posted by 1979

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.

**1979** · 15 May 12,, 19:48

Invasion of the british islands.

Irc the British started the war with 15 capital ships and 7 carriers.

**TopHatter** · 15 May 12,, 23:25

Originally Posted by 1979

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

**Gun Boat** · 15 May 12,, 23:38

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.

**Dreadnought** · 15 May 12,, 23:47

Originally Posted by Captain Worley

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.

**1979** · 16 May 12,, 06:00

Originally Posted by TopHatter

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.

**zraver** · 16 May 12,, 08:04

Originally Posted by 1979

According to the link you posted they executed at least one invasion (Crete) that involved more than a river crossing.

2- Crete and Norway.

**TopHatter** · 16 May 12,, 14:14

Originally Posted by 1979

According to the link you posted they executed at least one invasion (Crete) that involved more than a river crossing.

Originally Posted by zraver

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.

**zraver** · 16 May 12,, 19:05

Originally Posted by TopHatter

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.

**TopHatter** · 16 May 12,, 20:24

Originally Posted by zraver

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.

**1979** · 16 May 12,, 20:39

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

**zraver** · 16 May 12,, 20:56

Originally Posted by 1979

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.