|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2018 8:56:16 GMT -6
In relation to the number of U-boats vs number of tanks built remarks a couple of pages ago, I'd just like to make the comment that Germany would've been far better served building trains than it would've building tanks. That is all, continue offering knowledge to less knowledgable people like myself. I want it all! Well, trains can carry more supplies and men however they are much easier to interdict and destroying tracks can slow trains down. Maybe building more trucks and using older tanks chassis's as Flakpanzer's might have been more successful. Trucks accompanied by flakpanzers could be hidden easier in trees and camouflaged. Stay with us, we all have something to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Oct 10, 2018 10:06:15 GMT -6
In relation to the number of U-boats vs number of tanks built remarks a couple of pages ago, I'd just like to make the comment that Germany would've been far better served building trains than it would've building tanks. That is all, continue offering knowledge to less knowledgable people like myself. I want it all! Well, trains can carry more supplies and men however they are much easier to interdict and destroying tracks can slow trains down. Maybe building more trucks and using older tanks chassis's as Flakpanzer's might have been more successful. Trucks accompanied by flakpanzers could be hidden easier in trees and camouflaged. Stay with us, we all have something to contribute. I'll disagree there. I'm thinking of the Eastern Front, where to get anything anywhere you basically need trains. Russian roads being of too poor quality and too easily ruined by weather I think underlines that requirement. The Germans un****ing their handling of the broader rail network would also have helped a tad (expletive included for emphasis of the mess it was in). But we're getting wayyyy too offtopic and I have zero to contribute to the subs discussion other than praise for the depth of material. This forum puts every other history related forum I have encountered to shame.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2018 10:12:19 GMT -6
Well, trains can carry more supplies and men however they are much easier to interdict and destroying tracks can slow trains down. Maybe building more trucks and using older tanks chassis's as Flakpanzer's might have been more successful. Trucks accompanied by flakpanzers could be hidden easier in trees and camouflaged. Stay with us, we all have something to contribute. I'll disagree there. I'm thinking of the Eastern Front, where to get anything anywhere you basically need trains. Russian roads being of too poor quality and too easily ruined by weather I think underlines that requirement. The Germans un****ing their handling of the broader rail network would also have helped a tad (expletive included for emphasis of the mess it was in). But we're getting wayyyy too offtopic and I have zero to contribute to the subs discussion other than praise for the depth of material. This forum puts every other history related forum I have encountered to shame. I agree that we are getting off of the main topic. However, I will point out that Russian train gauges were different from German train gauges. This difference disrupted German logistics immeasurably. I won't go into detail. But more and better trucks would still have been a better bet.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2018 12:32:02 GMT -6
I’ve been doing some more research on the Type XXI U-boats in a book I’ve had since I was still in high school. The Type XXI was prefabricated in small shops around Germany, but Allied bombing disrupted its production and movement of the sections. The Type XXI was built in two levels, with the high capacity battery in the lower level. The battery, at 6 knots would provide power for about four days, but at 16 knots, it could only power it for about one hour. The snorkel was covered in a coating of synthetic rubber to reduce its detection by radar and the boat had a dipole receiver system to detect 9-centimeter radar. Both the Type XXI and Type XXIII could carry a new type of torpedo called the LUT. It could be fired from an angle greater than 90 degrees. uboat.net/technical/torpedoes.htmThey did take two of the boats, and develop new tactics in the Baltic, but by the time the necessary number of boats were available, the war ended.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2018 18:04:57 GMT -6
I was thinking (and it gave me a headache) that maybe we should begin to study and discuss submarine operational strategy based on the different countries in the game. We have some countries that are continental, some are maritime, and some are a combination. Some countries are on narrow or enclosed seas, other on the blue oceans, some have ports blocked by passages and ice. So what would be the best strategy and kinds of submarines to build and deploy? "combat tactics, Mr. Ryan"
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 10, 2018 20:17:06 GMT -6
For usage of submarines I would suspect both Britain and Australia-Hungary are in the same boat but for different reasons. What I mean by this is that strategically they mostly will have subs for the purpose of sinking enemy fleet combatants. For the British this is because they can reasonably expect to be the dominant naval force an a conflict, thus rendering the commerce raiding potential of the submarine moot, so they are used for reconisance and attacks on enemy fleet units For Austria-Hungary it is for a very different reason. The Adriatic is not suited for commerce raiding as it is too narrow, and thus it makes it much harder to operate submarines. Additionally because basically any comparable opponent can close off the Adriatic with ease it makes any potential AH submarines much more likely to be confined to the Adriatic as opposed to being able to slip into the wider Mediterranean Which is much more favorable to submarine warfare. In my mind this would thus confine any AH submarines to a fleet support role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2018 21:42:35 GMT -6
For usage of submarines I would suspect both Britain and Australia-Hungary are in the same boat but for different reasons. What I mean by this is that strategically they mostly will have subs for the purpose of sinking enemy fleet combatants. For the British this is because they can reasonably expect to be the dominant naval force an a conflict, thus rendering the commerce raiding potential of the submarine moot, so they are used for reconisance and attacks on enemy fleet units For Austria-Hungary it is for a very different reason. The Adriatic is not suited for commerce raiding as it is too narrow, and thus it makes it much harder to operate submarines. Additionally because basically any comparable opponent can close off the Adriatic with ease it makes any potential AH submarines much more likely to be confined to the Adriatic as opposed to being able to slip into the wider Mediterranean Which is much more favorable to submarine warfare. In my mind this would thus confine any AH submarines to a fleet support role. I don't believe we could place Britain and AH in the same boat. We have to examine the prime enemies for both individually. In the game, the British prime enemy could be France, Germany, possibly Russia and Italy; maybe AH. It certainly could be the US. In these cases, especially for Russia, AH, Italy and Germany, commerce raiding using submarines can be a useful tool to win any war. For AH, while the Adriatic is an enclosed sea, against England and especially her prime enemy, Italy, A-H could send her medium range submarines out of Adriatic before the war and station them near Naples, Taranto and other spots to interdict Italian trade. Italy is very susceptible to trade warfare. But your strategy is a good one, but explore other opportunities. Question: Who are the three main threat nations to both Britain and A-H. Are those countries vulnerable to trade warfare using submarines?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 11, 2018 0:03:44 GMT -6
It is a little different in game.
Q: Is have historic vulnerability of commerce shipping effect in RTW? A: It was not case for RTW1 Q: In game we have one main question. How I can hurt my opponent? A: see bellow
1. First and best is blockade. As long as you can blockade your enemy it is matter of time you win If you can blockade enemy submarines usefulness is limited. What countries can blockade others? UK except USA later and each nation against weaker opponent. So you need bases at enemy home territory.
2. Monroe doctrine adjusted. Fight battle and win which allow to blockade enemy. In this case submarine could be more useful however mainly as fleet support. Again you need bases at enemy home territory.
3. You have no bases at enemy territory so you cannot sustained long blockade or you are in inferior position. In this case submarines you can build commerce raiders or submarines. Submarines are better. It is best for nations which are not colonial nation or which do not posses large navy budget.
By nations: UK - no, it could work only to support fleet or later in case of war with USA USA - could be as USA have problem to use fleet worldwide due to absence of bases Germany - could be useful if Germany expects rival UK or if started in 1920. In both cases you fight superior enemy, so submarines could be your option. France - submarines could be option as only Italy, Russia and A-H are expected to be weaker Italy - submarines could be good option as Italy could be superior mainly to A-H A-H - submarines could be good option Japan - submarines could be good option because of absence of bases to fight other nations with main fleet Russia - could be good option as Russia could not be everywhere and have limited resources
So answer is it depends on your opponents you would expect to face.
After this analysis we can have one question to RTW2. Will be still RTW2 limited by fleet operation on bases on that location as RTW1 or could be used some resources/budget to create supply train which can suplement absence of bases in limited way (e.g. after invasion possibility to build temporary base with faster pace than in RTW but much higher costs)? Historically it was done in large scale by USA and in limited scale by UK in WW2 (fleet supply trains to Pacific), very limited scale (commerce raiding) by Germany and Japan.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 11, 2018 6:52:27 GMT -6
In response to oldpop: (sorry if I miss anything, I'm on a phone so I can't see post while I type) while I agree that if they station the subs prior to war AH can use subs for commerce attacks, especially against Italy, I was thinking in the context of a long war. If the hypothetical enemy has any noticable ASW gear then getting back for resupply is going to be very hard (assuming Italy is an enemy or hostile neutral, which I feel likely), which puts a high risk and hard cap on the viability of commerce raiding with their subs. Primary enemy's for AH are: Italy, France, and historically Russia, tho in game I suspect Britain will be the more likely and dangerous game enemy. Primary enemy's for Brits: USA, France, Germany. Don't have time to analyze, class starts in 5min, lists in no particular order.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2018 11:12:09 GMT -6
In response to oldpop: (sorry if I miss anything, I'm on a phone so I can't see post while I type) while I agree that if they station the subs prior to war AH can use subs for commerce attacks, especially against Italy, I was thinking in the context of a long war. If the hypothetical enemy has any noticable ASW gear then getting back for resupply is going to be very hard (assuming Italy is an enemy or hostile neutral, which I feel likely), which puts a high risk and hard cap on the viability of commerce raiding with their subs. Primary enemy's for AH are: Italy, France, and historically Russia, tho in game I suspect Britain will be the more likely and dangerous game enemy. Primary enemy's for Brits: USA, France, Germany. Don't have time to analyze, class starts in 5min, lists in no particular order. Well, you can develop the same type of submarine the German's developed: the Type XIV or milk cows. It could resupply other submarines with 603 tons of fuel, 13 tons of motor oil, four torpedoes and fresh food from refrigerators. They also had bakeries to provide fresh bread. What do you think? Interesting solution? You could use some of your AMC's to do the same work. If the submarines are being used for fleet support, then the fleet could provide the necessary logistics.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 15, 2018 10:38:08 GMT -6
The "war winning weapon" could have been the IBIS wake homing device combined with the active (not passive) electromagnetic fuse on the relatively cheap (in man-hours and resources comparedt to the G7a) G7e torpedo frame. This would have effectively meant a ca. 60-80% merchant kill ratio per torpedo...
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 16, 2018 0:42:38 GMT -6
The "war winning weapon" could have been the IBIS wake homing device combined with the active (not passive) electromagnetic fuse on the relatively cheap (in man-hours and resources comparedt to the G7a) G7e torpedo frame. This would have effectively meant a ca. 60-80% merchant kill ratio per torpedo... Issue is that you cannot kill by this weapon the weapons which will kill you. If the issue with Atlantic would be more difficult, Allies will build much more planes to cover the area and makes the life of u-boots pain. Issue is that planes losses are only by attrition which is not difficult to handle for Allies. What makes todays submarines dangerous. If I understand it correctly they need 2 things - permanently hide and able to hit even if they are hidden. The WW2 submarines could hide but not permanently and they cannot hit when hidden as they are not completely hidden at periscope depth. This means that when they want hit something they are exposed so it is only matter of resources allocation to patrol areas around convoys. These torpedoes could increase efficiency of attack but issue of submarines (U-boots in Atlantic) was not be exposed.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 16, 2018 6:26:48 GMT -6
When each of your tanks need to fight 10 enemy tanks, why would it be considered useless to use the resources required to build 1 tank to force the enemy to pay 10 times as much as you do? No German tank or other weapon achieved anything close to a 10:1 kills:losses ratio in terms of resources invested, except the submarine. It was certainly one of the most effective strategic weapon in the German arsenal, and the only one that really came close to allowing them to win the war against Britain. For Germany the war was already lost in 1941 when they dragged USA and Soviet into it. I totally agree that most of Germany's "Wunderwaffe" projects had unrealistic goals and could have achieved little even if they got them working, but the submarines is not one of them. The type XXI should be seen as a development of older submarine types, which had been forced to stay in combat far past their best before date. Both the type VII and type IX workhorses of the German Atlantic campaign had first entered service in 1938 already, and there is a limit to how much can be retrofitted to an old design. For the game I would like to see submarines as an effective weapon if your enemy falls behind in ASW research, so that you can't ignore ASW tech or escort construction pre-war. The paper I linked earlier had the following figures as an example for a proper submarine campaign against an enemy inferior in both ASW tech and escort construction: "Conclusion: The Japanese lost or spent 42.3 times as much as the Americans." Now I agree that 40:1 would probably be very unbalanced, but maybe about 4:1 damage to enemy ships vs own submarine losses could be expected for submarines that are significantly more advanced tech than the escorts they face ( including the cost of sunk/damaged enemy capital ships ). For a campaign with equal ASW tech and investment in escort vs submarines on both sides it would probably make sense to have the cost be 1:1 for game balance reasons. Historically the effectiveness also depended on how reliant the target was on sealanes for industry and sustaining the population with food, for example both Japan and UK would be very vulnerable while Soviet and USA probably the least vulnerable. Since the end of the war, historians and analysts have discussed and argued over how close the U-boat campaign actually came to shut down British war production. You find statistics that will prove either side. But realistically, after the Happy Days on the East Coast of the US ended, which was probably about March 1942, the chance for the U-boats to really make a difference was over. Doenitz is reported to have said that he needed 300 U-boats in order to maintain 100 boats at sea. If that were true, then if the boat they fielded was a Type XXI, would that number have been reduced. While it could stay submerged longer and was faster underwater, it could not carry that many more Torpedoes than the Type VIIC or Type IX. The Type IXC could carry 22 torpedoes. The Type VIIC could carry 14 The Type XXI could carry 23 IMO, even with its better underwater capability and stealthiness, I don’t really see how it could do more damage. With its advanced technology and the problems associated with the technology, its hard to see whether it could have really accomplished much until the technological advancements had matured. As to its effectiveness in the game, would it be more effective in unrestricted submarine warfare or fleet support. There is no serious argument over how effective submarines were in WW2, just look at the statistics: In all, during the Atlantic Campaign only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only 10% on average of the ships were lost. Overall, more than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so successfully. Most emphasis is focused on aces who did the "Raid of Scapa Flow" and such but those were isolated examples, if every Uboat had been that successful the war wouldn't have lasted a month. The vast majority of Uboat patrols never hit anything. The KM estimated they needed to sink 300,000 tonnes a month a starve out the British islands, and they only managed it for 4 months out of the first 27, this was during the Happy Time when they were most effective, and they didn't know about all the extra land reclamation being done, I think Britain doubled its effective farming capacity from 1939 to 1945, I'm not sure of the exact numbers, it was certainly still not enough to really support the country but it was taking the pressure off the losses. Even Donitz himself admitted they weren't convinced about the tonnage target they estimated to starve Britain, and that in order to starve it they'd have to maintain it for almost a whole year when they couldn't manage more than 2 months at a time. By the times the Yanks get involved the KM needs to sink 700,000 tonnes a month, something they only achieve once (Nov 1942) but by June 1943 they are sinking less than 10% of that a month. The confusion over this is because Britain took very drastic measures throughout the war with such things as the "WarAg" and the Great Pet Euthanasia very early on, and that at times basics were comparatively very hard to come by thanks to rationing, also because later documentaries, films and such like to play everything up for dramatic effect and that seeps into the National Consciousness, the fact is most people get what they know about history off TV and Film, and it doesn't make for good TV and film to say "well it wasn't really that bad", rationing actually got worse after the war, but it was never so bad as to prevent people eating meat or force people to only eat the most necessary food. I don't really care who is on what side of this argument oldpop2000 or alexbrunius but to suggest that the Uboats brought this country to the brink of surrender or even close is just bad history.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 16, 2018 7:19:15 GMT -6
The submarine warfare was much closer to win in WW1 than in WW2 and by great margin.
Still in 1918 UK launched more merchant tonnage that was sunk by submarines.
The main point I can see was surprise which is something Germany had not in WW2. The second point was that in WW1 new countermeasures needs time to be effective but in WW2 you have already a lot of them and have experience. And the main innovation of submarine warfare was coordination of submarines, not the weapon itself. On opposite your main advantage in WW2 were aircrafts which submarine had no chance to counter, they can only hide which decreases their efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 16, 2018 8:44:58 GMT -6
Frankly, I am not on either side. My opinion is that trade warfare is just one tool in the toolbox. As Doenitz stated, he needed at least 300 submarines to win the war. However, Doenitz was not the expert that we all think he was. We can compile statistic, after statistic to prove any point that we want to make, but the key to victory for Germany was in the East, against Russia. Unless Germany could have gained air supremacy over the Channel and Southern England to invade the islands, it was moot point. The key was Russia.
Now would the English have ever admitted that they were close to defeat? Of course not, national pride would prevent that, and the government would ensure that the idea of defeat was never near. But is it the truth, I have no idea. The German’s, Japanese and the Russian’s never admitted that they were close to defeat, so why should the English be any different.
The discussion was about the Type XXI and XXIII advanced U-boats and whether they could have made a difference and all historical analysis points to the answer…. no. They were too little, too late. They might have made a difference one or two years earlier, but that is virtual history with no real supporting evidence.
|
|