Causes and effects of U Boat war

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine.
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14986
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by Andy H » 31 Mar 2011 18:30

Clio13 wrote:The capital ships of the RN were old and need of extensive refits at best or new classes being built. These were desperately needed as those navies of our potential enemies were building newer better ones.


Did Britain really need so many capital ships ? I mean they proved such a decisive factor in WWI didn't they ?
Hi Clio

There is a thesis available (for free) online at EThOS by Joseph Alan Moretz entitled
THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE CAPITAL SHIP CONTROVERSY OF THE INTERWAR PERIOD:
AN OPERATIONAL AND TACTICAL REASSESSMENT

that would be of some interest in answering your post above

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
hagen
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 20:35

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by hagen » 28 Jun 2011 13:45

RichTO90 wrote:Oh dear, you still aren't quite getting it. When do these "more resources" get allocated? How do they get paid for in the pre-1 September 1939 German economy that was already running full blast? Who are the skilled dockyard workers that will build them? Why do they decide to do so?
Oh I get it - you think the Germans were all set on a total war economy and going all out with the maximum production they already could for U-boats.
RichTO90 wrote:BTW, what is aircraft are a "different topic and failing" supposed to mean?
It means this is about U-boats and I am not, it would seem, supposed to bring aircraft into the discussion.
Somehow I cannot find comfort in the idea that contemporary planners got it all wrong to be concerned about German capabilities and that it was never really a close run thing. The Germans simply had not a chance.
RichTO90 wrote:Who is supposedly trying to comfort you and why? Just curious really, since otherwise i cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.
So all the people who were concerned about winning the U-boat war should have really been more relaxed because it was evidently a foregone conclusion that the Allies would win it. :roll:
RichTO90 wrote:so do you think maybe perhaps what the Germans did do might represent what they could do rather than the "ideal solution"? And that, just maybe perhaps, the "ideal solution" was never practical for all the myriads of reasons that have been pointed out - ad nauseum
That is your view - you want to complain that you have kept pointing things out - my reciprocal take you see as a negative whiles yours is a positive. I doubt this is going to be helpful.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by LWD » 28 Jun 2011 14:01

hagen wrote:
RichTO90 wrote:Oh dear, you still aren't quite getting it. When do these "more resources" get allocated? How do they get paid for in the pre-1 September 1939 German economy that was already running full blast? Who are the skilled dockyard workers that will build them? Why do they decide to do so?
Oh I get it - you think the Germans were all set on a total war economy and going all out with the maximum production they already could for U-boats.
Going to a "total war economy" when you are not at war and have signficant economic problems is rather problematic.
RichTO90 wrote:BTW, what is aircraft are a "different topic and failing" supposed to mean?
It means this is about U-boats and I am not, it would seem, supposed to bring aircraft into the discussion.
In so far as they are relevant to the topic it's perfectly reasonable to do so.
RichTO90 wrote:Who is supposedly trying to comfort you and why? Just curious really, since otherwise i cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.
So all the people who were concerned about winning the U-boat war should have really been more relaxed because it was evidently a foregone conclusion that the Allies would win it. :roll:
That appearst to be a rather classic strawman.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by gracie4241 » 24 Dec 2018 17:28

Why is it assumed in many quarters that Stalin was and would be a passive observer of events while Germany prioritized its naval program, presumably at some expense to Army size and programs, in the meantime. The Soviet policy 1939-40 was a VERY aggressive one. The results of the Hitler/Molotov summit in November 1940(read the transcripts available on the internet) made abundantly clear they had immediate expansion plans completely incompatible with Germany. As Hitler said THE VERY NEXT DAY after" Molotov had let the cat out of the bag as to where Soviet plans lie .At least we know NOW that a(temporary)marriage ofconvenience is no longer possible" Could not be clearer. Doubt any major surface naval programs were in his mind at the time

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by gracie4241 » 13 Mar 2019 16:30

According to Speer and the USSBS A substantial reason why german armament production increased during the war notwithstanding allied bombing was the large "slack" that existed in the armament sector.Germany may have been full out economically in 1939(zero unemployment) but NOT in the armament sector. On war breaking out the government assumed the power to allocate labor as needed(you didn't "pick"your job) as well as raw materials. Workers and steel used building submarines by definition were workers and steel not building tanks, and vice versa.Trade offs were made all the time(see the ups and downs of ammunition production)As a factoid the most expensive single defense program pre-war was the West Wall, not submarines,tanks, bombers etc .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9689
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by ljadw » 20 Mar 2019 17:21

gracie4241 wrote:
24 Dec 2018 17:28
Why is it assumed in many quarters that Stalin was and would be a passive observer of events while Germany prioritized its naval program, presumably at some expense to Army size and programs, in the meantime

. The Soviet policy 1939-40 was a VERY aggressive one.
1 Stalin remained passive while the WM was in France may/june 1940.
2 There is no proof for this .

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 18 Feb 2013 00:23

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by sitalkes » 21 Mar 2019 05:08

But he did take Bessarabia and Lithuania, and attack Finland (the other Baltic states too, but they were part of the agreed Soviet sphere of influence). The attack on Romania was of particular concern to the Germans.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9689
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by ljadw » 22 Mar 2019 19:28

sitalkes wrote:
21 Mar 2019 05:08
But he did take Bessarabia and Lithuania, and attack Finland (the other Baltic states too, but they were part of the agreed Soviet sphere of influence). The attack on Romania was of particular concern to the Germans.
And Hitler said that he was not concerned about a possible Soviet attack ;he was convinced that Stalin would not attack him .
Other point : the Soviets were not attacking Romania .

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 18 Feb 2013 00:23

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by sitalkes » 24 Apr 2019 00:16

Sorry, one of the people I work with is in Australia because the Soviets invaded Bessarabia which was part of Romania at the time (her parents became refugees - she thinks she is Romanian) but the Russians did it at a time when Hitler was otherwise occupied.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by gracie4241 » 28 May 2019 20:45

To those who argue for "different alternatives" to Barbarossa you might want to consult Manstein's memoirs;he goes through the list at considerable length and comes to the same conclusion Hitler did(he does say in retrospect that because of soviet strength and the late start[june 22} it would have been better to plan for TWO campaign years.)You seem to forget(1) that the ENTIRE purpose of the War was achieving LEBENSRAUM in Russia, not fighting Britain,and (2)Stalin was not a benign, passive observer, but had far reaching aims DIRECTLY contrary to Germany, and the forces and will to do so if the circumstances presented themselves .Anyone reading the transcripts of the Hitler/Molotov "summit' in November 1940, which few seem to have done,could not but conclude that Germany would have to perpetually keep strong air and ground forces in the East as a hedge against a Soviet Barbaossa.which itself precluded vastly larger investment in naval weapons, which were possibly too large anyway. It has been estimated that the UBoat program 1940-as it was-represented an opportunity cost of 25,000 tanks (125 panzer divisions)

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2800
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Causes and effects of U Boat war

Post by Takao » 29 May 2019 23:20

gracie4241 wrote:
28 May 2019 20:45
To those who argue for "different alternatives" to Barbarossa you might want to consult Manstein's memoirs;he goes through the list at considerable length and comes to the same conclusion Hitler did(he does say in retrospect that because of soviet strength and the late start[june 22} it would have been better to plan for TWO campaign years.)You seem to forget(1) that the ENTIRE purpose of the War was achieving LEBENSRAUM in Russia, not fighting Britain,and (2)Stalin was not a benign, passive observer, but had far reaching aims DIRECTLY contrary to Germany, and the forces and will to do so if the circumstances presented themselves .Anyone reading the transcripts of the Hitler/Molotov "summit' in November 1940, which few seem to have done,could not but conclude that Germany would have to perpetually keep strong air and ground forces in the East as a hedge against a Soviet Barbaossa.which itself precluded vastly larger investment in naval weapons, which were possibly too large anyway. It has been estimated that the UBoat program 1940-as it was-represented an opportunity cost of 25,000 tanks (125 panzer divisions)
Curious how the 1940 U-Boat program equates to 25,000 tanks/125 Panzer Divisions...Are you using that "new"math?

In 1940, there were only 50 U-Boats constructed, with another 63 having been completed in 1935-39.
https://uboat.net/technical/shipyards/
So, with a total of 113 U-Boats through 1940, you equate 1 U-Boat = 221.23 tanks. Or, just 1940 U-Boat production alone 1 U-Boat = 416 2/3rds Panzers.

Return to “U-Boats”