Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine.
User avatar
Montgomery
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 14:15
Location: London

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#61

Post by Montgomery » 04 Nov 2008, 21:11

LWD wrote:I seam to recall reading that the British got a lot of info by df'ing u-boat radio transmissions. Hunter killers can be very effective if you are getting this sort of data. Even if they aren't sinking huge numbers if they are forcing them down especially at night so they can't recharge batteries, exchage air, and such. EAlso even a little damage can impact the rest of the cruise for a U-boat.
Theoretically you are right but in reality this is not what happens!
The British did their best to break the Enigma code and they almost got to good results for breaking up the code before 1941! But it would take 48 hours to a week to decrypt the code!
After the German/Donitz suspected the decryption followed by the introduction of the advanced Enigma called Shark by the British (Called Triton by German) in 1942 it became difficult and not useful to decrypt the message.
http://www.ilord.com/enigma.html
The period of decryption might take around one month to decrypt the message which was not practical!
It is not worth it to know Donitz order to attack the convoy after one month! It is faster to know that in German newsreel when the covoyed is destroyed!
http://everything2.com/title/Enigma
However in WWII Documentary one British official mentioned that we didn't realize that all our Atlantic radio messages was fully recognize and decrypted by the German unless the war is over!!
The Most reason for making the life of the U-boat missirable is the conitnues and enormous Airplanes scanners equipped with radar which stopped the U-boat to travle at surface and re-charge the battery !
The German succeeded to make Long life battery that would last longer under surface but I am not sure wither it was used in any type other than the XXI !?

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#62

Post by Takao » 05 Nov 2008, 05:06

Well, Huff-Duff was not that effective early in the war. There were only land-based sets, and their "fix" had an accuracy of 50-100 mile radius. This allowed the convoy to attempt to avoid the area where the U-boat was located, but did not allow for aggressive prosecution of the U-boat. Huff-Duffing became more effective against the u-boats, in 1942, with the advent of ship-borne units. By having Huff-Duff aboard ship, much time was saved in triangulating the contact. Also, with the many escort vessels being completed, escort carriers and extended range land-based aircraft allowed for a more aggressive pursuit of a Huff-Duffed U-boat. The Germans attempted to counter Huff-Duffing, first with the use of "Kurzesignale"(short signals) and then with the development of the "Kurier" burst transmission device. Unfortunately for the Germans, the problems of the Kurier device were not solved until shortly before the war ended.

For Montgomery,
The 44 MAL 740 battery was used on the Type IXC and IXD u-boats. The IXC had 124 cells, the IXD had 248 cells and the Type XXI had 372 cells.
http://uboat.net/technical/batteries.htm


kgvm
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 21:14
Location: Hannover, Germany

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#63

Post by kgvm » 05 Nov 2008, 18:16

The "short signals" were developed for use by surface units, especially raiders, and to the best of my knowledge not used by subs (and if so only in an attempt to shorten the time the sub has to be at the surface to send the message, i.e. to reduce the risk of air attacks). The danger of wireless transmission for subs was underestimated during the whole war because nobody in the German high command realised there was a shipborne HF/DF.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#64

Post by Takao » 05 Nov 2008, 18:42

The "Short signals" were most certainly used by the U-boats. The British took a copy of the Wetterkurzschlüssel off U 110 when she was captured during May, 1941. When the British boarded U 559 on October 30, 1942, the British captured a second edition Wetterkurzschlüssel and a copy of the Kurzsignalheft.

User avatar
Montgomery
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 14:15
Location: London

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#65

Post by Montgomery » 05 Nov 2008, 19:00

Takao wrote:For Montgomery,
The 44 MAL 740 battery was used on the Type IXC and IXD u-boats. The IXC had 124 cells, the IXD had 248 cells and the Type XXI had 372 cells.
http://uboat.net/technical/batteries.htm
Thanks

User avatar
colt45
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 17:44
Location: battleship, N J.

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#66

Post by colt45 » 27 Feb 2009, 23:20

Image

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#67

Post by Urmel » 28 Feb 2009, 11:30

Takao wrote:The "Short signals" were most certainly used by the U-boats. The British took a copy of the Wetterkurzschlüssel off U 110 when she was captured during May, 1941. When the British boarded U 559 on October 30, 1942, the British captured a second edition Wetterkurzschlüssel and a copy of the Kurzsignalheft.
Does that mean they actually used it for their own transmissions, or simply that they received signals In Kurzschlüssel and decoded them?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#68

Post by Takao » 01 Mar 2009, 05:07


User avatar
colt45
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 17:44
Location: battleship, N J.

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#69

Post by colt45 » 25 Apr 2010, 02:36

talk inside the U Boat Image

User avatar
Montgomery
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 14:15
Location: London

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#70

Post by Montgomery » 08 May 2011, 08:12

AQUILIFER wrote:
- Hitler fundamentally changing attitude, and start looking west for a fight, not east (in my opinion).
- UK et al. reacting to the pre-war build up (declaration of war, intense ASW research... you pick one)
- would have reduced building of surface ships (and perhaps other things, must confess my ignorance on military industry)
- in 1939 no French or Norwegian ports availiable (300 U-Boats operating out of Wilhelmshafen and Kiel??)
- the massive sinkings in 1942 includes american ships in Operation Drumbeat, would you have Germany do that in 1939??

I am sure there are other points.

:wink: If you want to move the timeline 2 years forward and give Germany 300 U-boats, why not also give USA The Bomb in 1943? I'm sure Kiel and Wilhelmshafen would be leveled among the first :lol: ... just kidding

/AQUILIFER
The 300 was not totally hypothetically!!
It is just miss strategy of Hitler to avoid concentration on the production of U-Boat
It was affordable and technologically very possibly to be achieved by German industry to have 300+ UBOAT by December 1939 if Hitler agreed on those requests of Donitz and Raeder!!! But he didn't.
I am not saying If he have atomic bomb or V2 rocket by that time because that would be technologically impossible as it need s time to develop, while 300 boat was totally possible and within the hand of the Reich.

The question here why he refused!!And was he is the only influencer of the refusal? Or other Reich leader like Göring and Keitel are involved! Dönitz and Raeder demanded more U-Boat production as per Dönitz words.

If America started the Atomic Bomb before Germany surrenders it will push Germany and German scientists to finalize the process of producing the first Atomic Bomb.
Germany had enough scientists and technology far above United States to produce the Atomic Bomb but many reasons delayed the project.

-- Hitler was not very enthusiasm to launch the project although what Germany achieved consider almost very close to the end of producing Atomic Bomb.
- Not enough Uranium
- etc

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#71

Post by mescal » 08 May 2011, 20:33

300 boat was totally possible and within the hand of the Reich.
I thought this had already been dealt with.
If this was possible, there was a cost - namely cuts in other programs.

So instead of claiming that this was "totally possible", could you elaborate ?
How could Germany have done this ?
Which boats ? Built in which shipyards ? Where do the workers, steel, rubber come from ? Are there enough diesel generators ? ... etc...

(and this does not take into account the answers by other powers).
Olivier

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#72

Post by Andy H » 09 May 2011, 18:32

Hi All

Can we please keep any discussion focused upon Raeder/UBoats and not drift into other areas not directly connected suge as ABombs etc.

Regards

Andy H

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#73

Post by ljadw » 09 May 2011, 18:49

Maybe that 300 UBoats could be available in 1939,but the result also would be hundreds of tanks and aircraft less.And,IMHO,Uboats would not be very useful for Fall Gelb. 8-)
An other point about the 300 UBoats :how many would be operational ?
On 1 january 1942,there were 249 UBoats,of which 91 front line boats,55 were available in the Atlantic,and 22 of those were on patrol .=less than 10 % of the total .

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#74

Post by LWD » 09 May 2011, 19:06

There's also the question of what type of boats they would be if available in 1939. Given that historically only a few VII-A's and B's were ready in that time span as well as a few type XI's and more than half of the force is Type I's and II's.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Admiral Raeder and U-Boats

#75

Post by Andy H » 09 May 2011, 19:56

ljadw wrote:Maybe that 300 UBoats could be available in 1939,but the result also would be hundreds of tanks and aircraft less.And,IMHO,Uboats would not be very useful for Fall Gelb. 8-)
An other point about the 300 UBoats :how many would be operational ?
On 1 january 1942,there were 249 UBoats,of which 91 front line boats,55 were available in the Atlantic,and 22 of those were on patrol .=less than 10 % of the total .
Hi

The usual mantra for the mythical 300 is that 100 would be on ops, 100 returning from ops and the other 100 undergoing R&R. Obviously this leaves out any allocated to training!. The flip side to the 300 is the obvious Allied response. The Allies especially the RN aren't going not respond to 300 UBoats being built, so we would expect to see a greater escort build program prior to the war and with a relative increase in numbers at the wars start.

Regards

Andy H

Post Reply

Return to “U-Boats”