What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 02:27

Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 01:59
For Overlord,
The Allies scuttled over 50 merchant vessels of about 300,000 gross tons in constructing the artificial ports that were used so successfully during the invasion.
Says a lot about how successful these Type XXIIIs will need to be...If the Allies are intentionally sinking 50 merchant vessels. Right there is 75 Type XXIIIs worth of sunken ships.
You're willfully ignoring tactical context. I.e. T23 hoping to find a target during a limited-endurance cruise vs. literally thousands of targets in a predictable and constricted space. I say willfully because you're too knowledgeable for this not to be obvious to you.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 02:35

Takao wrote:Let's also not forget that the Type XXIIIs were also operating in far off Norway. Kinda hard to defend the shores of France from Norway. Also, keeps the safe and away from all the action
Let's also not forget that the Type XXIIIs didn't exist operationally on D-Day.

I don't know what's more aggravating today: navigating this mall crush while trying to figure out what to get a 16yo girl for Christmas or a comment in a What If thread that ignores the premise of the What If.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Takao » 24 Dec 2019 02:55

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Dec 2019 02:27
Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 01:59
For Overlord,
The Allies scuttled over 50 merchant vessels of about 300,000 gross tons in constructing the artificial ports that were used so successfully during the invasion.
Says a lot about how successful these Type XXIIIs will need to be...If the Allies are intentionally sinking 50 merchant vessels. Right there is 75 Type XXIIIs worth of sunken ships.
You're willfully ignoring tactical context. I.e. T23 hoping to find a target during a limited-endurance cruise vs. literally thousands of targets in a predictable and constricted space. I say willfully because you're too knowledgeable for this not to be obvious to you.
Ummm, no I'm not...

First, the Germans had a far more effective two-torpedo submarine, a fraction of the cost & building time - the Seehund, which sank 8 or 9 merchants & damaged at least 3 more.

Second, the Type XXIII never operated in areas patrols by the British ASW "varsity". Their extremely limited number of torpedoes also means that they are not going to be hanging around. They are in and out.

Third, the Germans knew where the high traffic areas were...In the English Channel...where were the Type XXIIIs patrolling? Not in the English Channel.

Fourth, the Germans were never certain of any invasions, Allied deception had them guessing else where.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Takao » 24 Dec 2019 03:44

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Dec 2019 02:35
Takao wrote:Let's also not forget that the Type XXIIIs were also operating in far off Norway. Kinda hard to defend the shores of France from Norway. Also, keeps the safe and away from all the action
Let's also not forget that the Type XXIIIs didn't exist operationally on D-Day.

I don't know what's more aggravating today: navigating this mall crush while trying to figure out what to get a 16yo girl for Christmas or a comment in a What If thread that ignores the premise of the What If.
Yes...Why are we discussing Type XXIIIs in a Type XXI thread.

Oh yeah, you brought it up.

Oh well, tangents are tangents.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 04:03

Takao wrote:Yes...Why are we discussing Type XXIIIs in a Type XXI thread.

Oh yeah, you brought it up.

Oh well, tangents are tangents
Yeah a brief remark met, as so often on this forum, with incoherent hostility for some unfathomable reason.

Such as your latest argument that - I don't know - T23 at DDay is a terrible idea even to consider because the 3-knot Seehund is just as good as the 12.5kn T23.

Of course that's probably not your argument because you probably don't have one except ambient hostility and a desire to show off your reading.

I think the Seehund would have been interesting at DDay and I'm glad you added it to the conversation. I just wish more posters here were capable of discussion instead of reflexive and ill-considered opposition.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Takao » 24 Dec 2019 13:19

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Dec 2019 04:03

Yeah a brief remark met, as so often on this forum, with incoherent hostility for some unfathomable reason.

Such as your latest argument that - I don't know - T23 at DDay is a terrible idea even to consider because the 3-knot Seehund is just as good as the 12.5kn T23.

Of course that's probably not your argument because you probably don't have one except ambient hostility and a desire to show off your reading.

I think the Seehund would have been interesting at DDay and I'm glad you added it to the conversation. I just wish more posters here were capable of discussion instead of reflexive and ill-considered opposition.
The "hostility" is coherent, however, you simply don't want to hear it.

The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option. Further, the Seehund could be operational in three months or less, as opposed to 6 months or more with the Type XXIII. Sure, the Seehund will have more losses, but the crew is only two, and the boats are much more readily available.
Also, with these factors, attacking en mass to overcome ASW defenses is much more achievable. The downside, is that the Seehund was limited by weather, and would be easily sunk in heavy seas - as did occur.

This is my argument.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 16:13

This post contained several negative reviews about another member, which is a violation of AHF rules. Keep the tone friendly if this recurs, we lock the thread.

Best regards
Georg
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 24 Dec 2019 16:25, edited 1 time in total.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Dec 2019 16:21

What's a detailed source on the R&D apparatus/culture of the KM? Per Uboat.net and other accounts, T21/23's genesis stemmed from a single meeting to discuss the Walther boats, in which a couple engineers pointed out the obvious solution of using those boats "double bubble" pressure hull to store more batteries. Until then, it seems Walther had no or little interface with KM engineers - despite having discussed with Doenitz. Terrible management.

Per wikipedia (uncited), development of faster subs was discouraged in early 1941 because of short-war expectations and their long time horizon. Anybody have verification of that account?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 4993
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by glenn239 » 24 Dec 2019 17:00

Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 13:19
The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option.
I'm not following why it was one or the other? The Germans were building both.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 24 Dec 2019 19:08

Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 13:19
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Dec 2019 04:03

Yeah a brief remark met, as so often on this forum, with incoherent hostility for some unfathomable reason.

Such as your latest argument that - I don't know - T23 at DDay is a terrible idea even to consider because the 3-knot Seehund is just as good as the 12.5kn T23.

Of course that's probably not your argument because you probably don't have one except ambient hostility and a desire to show off your reading.

I think the Seehund would have been interesting at DDay and I'm glad you added it to the conversation. I just wish more posters here were capable of discussion instead of reflexive and ill-considered opposition.
The "hostility" is coherent, however, you simply don't want to hear it.

The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option. Further, the Seehund could be operational in three months or less, as opposed to 6 months or more with the Type XXIII. Sure, the Seehund will have more losses, but the crew is only two, and the boats are much more readily available.
Also, with these factors, attacking en mass to overcome ASW defenses is much more achievable. The downside, is that the Seehund was limited by weather, and would be easily sunk in heavy seas - as did occur.

This is my argument.
Seehund is worthless. It's like all midget subs. It lacks a fire control system for firing torpedoes meaning if the target's moving, even slowly, you need to be close to get a hit, or you need very good luck. The conning tower is so low that you can't really open it in any sort of sea other than near calm. The vessel is slow, cramped, and noxious in design.
It also lacks communications and navigation gear so it's really even just luck getting to an operational area to begin with. If you add in that visibility from the low conning tower limits one to about 5 to 8 miles of range, finding targets is even a matter of luck. No sonar is fitted, so you are all but blind submerged.

This is the later model with Plexiglas bubble on the conning tower to allow the commander to try and see around him when surfaced in a seaway and not sink the boat:

Image

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5701
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Terry Duncan » 24 Dec 2019 19:40

A non-content post from TheMarcksPlan was removed by this moderator.

Terry

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2825
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Dec 2019 21:39

glenn239 wrote:
24 Dec 2019 17:00
Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 13:19
The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option.
I'm not following why it was one or the other? The Germans were building both.
That's okay, I'm still not clear on how 1944 technology gets transferred to 1940? Time machine? :lol: Or how single examples of the Typ XXI and XXIII completed in June 1944 and barely operational in 1945 could effect D-Day?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Takao » 25 Dec 2019 00:16

glenn239 wrote:
24 Dec 2019 17:00
Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 13:19
The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option.
I'm not following why it was one or the other? The Germans were building both.
Glenn, you specified the niche in post#47
glenn239 wrote:
18 Dec 2019 18:37
Type XXI's in numbers and with support bases nearby might have posed a considerable threat to Allied anchorages during amphibious operations.
TMP jumped on the bandwagon and added
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Dec 2019 01:32
Type 23 even more so. They're cheaper, harder to spot on sonar, and you're not risking as much by deploying them in tight waters. They could have wreaked havoc on Husky/Salerno in 43.
With which you followed up with
glenn239 wrote:
23 Dec 2019 18:50
Normandy as well, with the bomb proof U-boat pens nearby.
Thusly, the goalposts have moved from open ocean attacks to invasion defense.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2932
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Takao » 25 Dec 2019 00:34

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Dec 2019 21:39
glenn239 wrote:
24 Dec 2019 17:00
Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 13:19
The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option.
I'm not following why it was one or the other? The Germans were building both.
That's okay, I'm still not clear on how 1944 technology gets transferred to 1940? Time machine? :lol: Or how single examples of the Typ XXI and XXIII completed in June 1944 and barely operational in 1945 could effect D-Day?
Alien Space Bats...As it always is in these sort of threads. Like a Hollywood movie, we're supposed to put our brains in neutral...Facts and plot holes spoil the ride.

Some of the items were there - high submerged speed & the Dutch schnorkle. But what made the Type XXI an XXI would still be missing - the "creep" motor, sophisticated Balkan Gerat, and semi-automatic torpedo loading system.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2825
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if the Type 21 U-Boats became operational in 1940?

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Dec 2019 04:19

Takao wrote:
25 Dec 2019 00:34
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Dec 2019 21:39
glenn239 wrote:
24 Dec 2019 17:00
Takao wrote:
24 Dec 2019 13:19
The Type XXIII, for all it's benefits, is an overpriced way of delivering two torpedoes to a target. The Seehund, for example, was a much cheaper option.
I'm not following why it was one or the other? The Germans were building both.
That's okay, I'm still not clear on how 1944 technology gets transferred to 1940? Time machine? :lol: Or how single examples of the Typ XXI and XXIII completed in June 1944 and barely operational in 1945 could effect D-Day?
Alien Space Bats...As it always is in these sort of threads. Like a Hollywood movie, we're supposed to put our brains in neutral...Facts and plot holes spoil the ride.

Some of the items were there - high submerged speed & the Dutch schnorkle. But what made the Type XXI an XXI would still be missing - the "creep" motor, sophisticated Balkan Gerat, and semi-automatic torpedo loading system.
Perhaps I simply have too strong a grasp of reality? Which makes me question how a design stemming from the failed Walter Typ XVIII (assessed in November 1942 after three years of development and five years of official disinterest), with preliminary design studies in January 1943, completed design in June 1943, project approval in August 1943, and prioritization that resulted in one boat completed in June 1944 and 118 more through May 1945, with all of one reaching operational status, somehow become 500 available in 1940?

More likely is a Typ VII schnorkle in 1941, but even that is likely restricted to the numbers actually built, unless fundamental changes in decision-making in 1933 (and even earlier) occur. Quite simply, the idea the Germans would have 500 U-Boote of any type in 1940 is Alien Space Bats thinking.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “What if”