If Doenitz had the 300 U-boats he desired at the start of the conflict,could he have won the Battle of the Atlantic? This question is very debatable...Originally posted by APV97MCV91:Hello Doenitz
I read your post in which you mentioned that a guerre de course strategy has serious limitation. I am no suggesting that a guerre de course strategy is a replacement for a maritme strategy that aimed at command of the sea but rather in view of Germany position, a guerre de course would have to be the temporary expedient untill Germany complete the consolidation of its continental hegemonic position. .
lol i see myself like this in a few years like y ouOriginally posted by APV97MCV91:Hello Doenitz
You are doing a postgraduate in History? I think that would be a hugely interesting thing to doJust out of curiosity...what will your thesis be on for you to delve into the Kriegsmarine pre war expansion program? I am in the navy and about to do a postgraduate course as well....though in something related to science and engineering
maybe I will pursue one in history or strategy in the future
I have a passion for history even prior to joining the service and it is fortunate that my hobby happens to have relevance in my profession. It is sad that in this age of high technology warfare, most military officers are too enarmored by technology to appreciate that the technology does not make strategy obsolescent and many of the principles of strategy and politics behind warfare are as relevant today as they were in the age of Napoleon or even that of the Greeks and Romans for what use is the finest weapons if you do not understand when where and how to use the weapons. It is truly sad to see that many military officers and I am not just stating SAF officers are just about as ignorant as military history as civilians.The best way to understand strategy is through the study of history eg Operatio Babarossa teaches us the danger of strategic overstretch, the inital Israeli setbacks in the Yom Kippur War teaches us the danger of military hubris......Like how the cliches goes "Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it......"
Hello 05dun worry pal u dun insult me i dun insult u..
Before I comment on your points, I just want to say that our discussions and disagreements are nothing personal and let us not get too heated up by the disagreements. This may sound a bit frivolous but I have seen discussions degenerated in this forum into shouting matches because of strong disagreement
heh well for me it's like this......i like warfare so i started reading about ww2 and how airpower was used the 1st time in such a scale.....but that lead to reading about land armies and the british navy.All that made me read about the cause of the war....which made my find out about ww1....and that lead me to the franco prussian war....and the napoleanic wars and so on so fought until the classical wars ahha long story lahOriginally posted by Doenitz:I am impressed with all the information posted here...I always feel that military buffs are more into armies and air forces than the perenial bridesmaids,navies. People seemed to be more interested in "garang" special forces and the more "glamorous" fighter jets rather than some strange looking boats.
Frankly,I know nuts about land warfare.I know quite a bit about airpower especially naval airpower.Hahaha
I like reading about the politics of the wars of unification.How Bismarck altered the telegram from the French ambassador,how Bismarck manipulated France and Austria..that sort of thing...Originally posted by |-|05|:heh well for me it's like this......i like warfare so i started reading about ww2 and how airpower was used the 1st time in such a scale.....but that lead to reading about land armies and the british navy.All that made me read about the cause of the war....which made my find out about ww1....and that lead me to the franco prussian war....and the napoleanic wars and so on so fought until the classical wars ahha long story lah
But everything is connected.War is about combined-arms as much as it is about tri service operations
ahhhh that haha quite interesting also but sometimes politics bored me.Originally posted by Doenitz:I like reading about the politics of the wars of unification.How Bismarck altered the telegram from the French ambassador,how Bismarck manipulated France and Austria..that sort of thing...
Where are you studying now?ah, i'm taking o level this year. dont know whether i should go to JC or poly. i got no amaths.
I shared your bleak prognosis of the U Boat arm but then I still feel that if the Germans had sufficient U Boats in 1939 and 1940 before the OPEN entry of the Americans into the war and the mobilisation of Allied resources, the outcome of the Atlantic campaign might have been very different. I think most of the merchant ships regardless of their speed were convoyed (convoy designation such as SX -slow convoy and HX - fast convoy). As for the armed merchant ships, I think you are refering to the Q ships which are armed with medium calibre guns normally of 4 - 5 inch calibre. This scheme exploited the fact that the U Boats prefer to surface and sink lone merchant ships by shelling with their deck gun rather expend valuable and scarce torpedoes. However this scheme was quickly abandoned. Besides the advantages that we have discussed in the post, another significant factor that contributed to the Allied victory but often overlooked was the Liberty merchant ship program which was essentially a merchant ship design that allowed for ease of construction involving extensive use of prefabricated parts. The adoption of this design allowed American shipyards to boost their production significantly and hence allowed the losses to U Boat to be made good. Disadvantage of the Kriegsmarine surface combatants - I think it will probably be the absence of naval aviation and insufficient numbers. Then again it would probably not be feasible for Germany to build such a fleet as I have argued earlier.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well honestly the U-boat arm was doomed from the start.The British had learnt from their ww1 experience and started convoy system almost at the start.The only ships not protacted were the erm......certain boats which had their own arms or were faster then 21knots.Those were sunk in quite some numbers but not really enough.Also the british was highly advanced in ASW so the u-boat was once again at an disadvantage.As for the surface fleet i erm...forgot wad was on difference ahha
Well If going University is your goal, then perharps going to JC would be a safer bet. It is easier for you to qualify for university through the JC route than the poly route. But bear in mind that an A Level cert is worth much less than a poly diploma. You also need to think about what you want - If you want a more hands on education than probably poly would be better - A level has quite a lot of theoryOriginally posted by SingaporeMacross:ah, i'm taking o level this year. dont know whether i should go to JC or poly. i got no amaths.
You seem to know a lot more than me.Used to digest a lot of such things when I was younger.For example,I know the aircraft complements of HIJMS Shokakau and Zuikaku during the Battle of the Philippine Sea were 27 Zekes,27 Judys,21 Jills each.Yeah,I even managed to assemble my own carrier task force from the Tamiya waterline series.But nowadays,more interesting in watching footie and skirt-chasing instead of reading such stuff.Do you study history at tertiary level?Originally posted by |-|05|:Well honestly the U-boat arm was doomed from the start.The British had learnt from their ww1 experience and started convoy system almost at the start.The only ships not protacted were the erm......certain boats which had their own arms or were faster then 21knots.Those were sunk in quite some numbers but not really enough.Also the british was highly advanced in ASW so the u-boat was once again at an disadvantage.As for the surface fleet i erm...forgot wad was on difference ahha
Yea the Liberty program and also the Canadian naval yards building the Standard British covette helpped almost double the number of escots for the convey.Yes there were SX and HX convoys but there was an indepentdent ship program which had ships faster then 21knots since they could out run the U-boats but those ships were generally smaller or passenger carrying ships/ferries.i Highly doubt the U-boat fleet could have done anymore then they did....though if they had better range the could be convoy raiders like the bismark.Also using them in the med would have been much much better.Maybe they could have used the u-boat wolfpack the take out the home fleet or at least 1 sqn of RN ships would have been nice.Originally posted by APV97MCV91:I shared your bleak prognosis of the U Boat arm but then I still feel that if the Germans had sufficient U Boats in 1939 and 1940 before the OPEN entry of the Americans into the war and the mobilisation of Allied resources, the outcome of the Atlantic campaign might have been very different. I think most of the merchant ships regardless of their speed were convoyed (convoy designation such as SX -slow convoy and HX - fast convoy). As for the armed merchant ships, I think you are refering to the Q ships which are armed with medium calibre guns normally of 4 - 5 inch calibre. This scheme exploited the fact that the U Boats prefer to surface and sink lone merchant ships by shelling with their deck gun rather expend valuable and scarce torpedoes. However this scheme was quickly abandoned. Besides the advantages that we have discussed in the post, another significant factor that contributed to the Allied victory but often overlooked was the Liberty merchant ship program which was essentially a merchant ship design that allowed for ease of construction involving extensive use of prefabricated parts. The adoption of this design allowed American shipyards to boost their production significantly and hence allowed the losses to U Boat to be made good. Disadvantage of the Kriegsmarine surface combatants - I think it will probably be the absence of naval aviation and insufficient numbers. Then again it would probably not be feasible for Germany to build such a fleet as I have argued earlier.
I also prefer to chase skirts and watch football and stuff ahha.I only in poly now taking engineering.....i stopped taking history at sec 2 but i still read books to pass timeOriginally posted by Doenitz:You seem to know a lot more than me.Used to digest a lot of such things when I was younger.For example,I know the aircraft complements of HIJMS Shokakau and Zuikaku during the Battle of the Philippine Sea were 27 Zekes,27 Judys,21 Jills each.Yeah,I even managed to assemble my own carrier task force from the Tamiya waterline series.But nowadays,more interesting in watching footie and skirt-chasing instead of reading such stuff.Do you study history at tertiary level?
Originally posted by APV97MCV91:hmm.......makes sense...though the uboats could and were transported via rail to italy.But by sinking convoys in the med and with longer ranger the U-boats to seige the African coast,and the suez and maybe even Gilbratar they could have prevented troops from going into Africa and maybe win that place thus preventing the need for Stalingrad and the cacause(sic) fields.And to expand on ur Luftwaffe and uboat's poor interservice well the Germans did lack a long range bomber.heck they could hardly hit targets in Britian!.Basically i believe the Germans screwed their chances with a few key mistakes.
hello 05
I stand corrected on the issue of the independent sailing by fast merchant ships. I do not understand your sentence [b]If the U Boats had longer range, they could be convoy raiders like the Bismarck I thought the U Boats were already convoy raiders? As for the issue of using them in the Med, I think that would be an unwise tactical decision. Why would you want to divert your forces from the main theatre of operation - The Atlantic? Between the India - Britain convoys and the US-Britain convoys, I think the value of the latter would be much greater than the former. Moreover, only a few of the German U Boats diverted to the Med were able to emerge safely from the Med - The transit of the Straits of Gibraltar was especially hazardous. The U Boats diverted to the Med were hence effectively locked in the Med. I grant you the fact that the ASW conditions in the Med were terrible - High acoustic background and poor sound transmission etc. The British submarines based in Malta and Gibraltar did have an excellent campaign though but there was no requirement for them to be in the Atlantic. Using the U Boats to take out the Home Fleet would have been a misapplication of resources. As attractive as idea of taking out combatants were, the Atlantic Campaign was ultimately about the economic strangulation of Britain and hence taking out a tanker would be much better than taking out a cruiser. The risks were greater and the possible returns lower. To support my argument on this, I would point to the case of the Japanese submarine policy. The I Boats were designed with fleet action in mind and they were not unleashed on an organised commerce hunting campaign. The returns of the I Boats on warships were rather mediocre but at because of this decision, the Allies convoy in the Pacific were pretty much unmolested to the extent that by 1944, the Allies merchant vessels were travelling the Pacific unescorted and unconvoyed. I have 2 major critique of the U Boats operation. The 1st one was the inflexibility of the command and control system. Upon sighting of the convoy, direction of the convoy battle were shifted to U Boat HQ in Kerneval. The rationale was that the HQ would have a more holistic picture and hence better able to direct their operations to maximise impact. The downside of this was that the HQ have no inkling of the actual tactical conditions and the commanders were not free to pursue better options. Coordinating the wolf packs also generated large amount of signal traffic and with the advent of shipboard HFDF and the breaking of Engima, it allowed for the tracking of the U Boats and contributed to their destruction. A better model of tactical control would be the American method whereby the subs operated in packs of 3 or 4 with a local senior commander in full tactical control and minimal HQ interference. The 2nd main criticism was the very poor interservice cooperation between the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. Insignificant aircraft were allocated to the U Boat campaign and even these were allocated grudgingly. Coordination of the air support and U Boat operation was minimal as well. This deprived the U Boats of intelligence and tactical support.
[/b]
Thanks Doenitz for posting this gem of a conversationOriginally posted by Doenitz:Conversation between Adolf Hitler and Commander Reinhard Hardegen of the Ubootwaffe on 13 May 1942(Cmdr Hardegen was at a dinner with the Fuehrer after receiving the KnightÂ’s Cross for exemplary performance. Also present were generals from the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe)
Hardegen: It was a great mistake abolishing the naval air arm, my Fuehrer
Hitler(surprised): What?
Hardegen: The Ubootwaffe desperately needs air coverage of its own-Focke Wulf 200 Kondor long-range reconnaissance planes to find convoys at sea, and the new Heinkel HE-177s, which not only have the range and fighting power to join us in attacking the convoys but also have the guns to take on the English aircraft over the Bay of Biscay
Hitler: I donÂ’t think you quite understand our military priorities, young manÂ…
Hardegen: Another thing, my Fuehrer. We would never have lost the Bismarck if you had allowed our aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin to be completed. Its planes would have turned back the English attackersÂ…and Navy planes can drop torpedoes. Look at what the Italians did in the Mediterranean, and the Japanese at Pearl Harbour.
(Everyone at the dining table was frozen in silence by then at the impetuosity of this lowly Kriegsmarine officer)
Hardegen: You will forgive me, my Fuehrer if I say that you make the mistake of looking only to the east, while the war will be won or lost in the west-at sea.
Hitler(red in the face): Reichsmarshall Goering is enjoying great success with our air forces. He has our aviation strategies correctly in hand. We will have no more talk about these matters.
Thanks Doenitz for posting this gem of a conversationOriginally posted by Doenitz:Conversation between Adolf Hitler and Commander Reinhard Hardegen of the Ubootwaffe on 13 May 1942(Cmdr Hardegen was at a dinner with the Fuehrer after receiving the KnightÂ’s Cross for exemplary performance. Also present were generals from the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe)
Hardegen: It was a great mistake abolishing the naval air arm, my Fuehrer
Hitler(surprised): What?
Hardegen: The Ubootwaffe desperately needs air coverage of its own-Focke Wulf 200 Kondor long-range reconnaissance planes to find convoys at sea, and the new Heinkel HE-177s, which not only have the range and fighting power to join us in attacking the convoys but also have the guns to take on the English aircraft over the Bay of Biscay
Hitler: I donÂ’t think you quite understand our military priorities, young manÂ…
Hardegen: Another thing, my Fuehrer. We would never have lost the Bismarck if you had allowed our aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin to be completed. Its planes would have turned back the English attackersÂ…and Navy planes can drop torpedoes. Look at what the Italians did in the Mediterranean, and the Japanese at Pearl Harbour.
(Everyone at the dining table was frozen in silence by then at the impetuosity of this lowly Kriegsmarine officer)
Hardegen: You will forgive me, my Fuehrer if I say that you make the mistake of looking only to the east, while the war will be won or lost in the west-at sea.
Hitler(red in the face): Reichsmarshall Goering is enjoying great success with our air forces. He has our aviation strategies correctly in hand. We will have no more talk about these matters.
the Forkker loh...yes it can carry harpoonsOriginally posted by APV97MCV91:Thanks Doenitz for posting this gem of a conversationHardegen correctly surmised the potential and possibilites offered by naval aviation to the U Boat arm. It was fortunate for the Allies that Germany lacks more of such officers who dare to tell the truth instead of sycophants like Goering. There was mentioned of what the Italians did in the Med
I think it will be more of what the British did to the Italians in the Med - Doenitz I am sure you would have heard of Taranto
The last statement by Hitler was a joke. Success with our air force? After the humilation of the Battle of Britain? Claiming that the Luftwaffe can supply the besieged 6th Army at Stalingrad and hence making Hitler prohibit their earlier breakout and withdrawal - Aviation strategy? Tasking a tactical oriented air force with strategic mission? I hope the RSAF will not forget the needs of the RSN in a conflict in view of the heavy demands placed on their resources in times of war. With the retirement of the Skyhawks which currently fulfill the maritime strike role, I would be interested to know which aircraft will be tasked as their replacement.
Can the Fokker patrol plane carry Harpoons?Originally posted by APV97MCV91:I hope the RSAF will not forget the needs of the RSN in a conflict in view of the heavy demands placed on their resources in times of war. With the retirement of the Skyhawks which currently fulfill the maritime strike role, I would be interested to know which aircraft will be tasked as their replacement.
FM: CINCPACOriginally posted by Doenitz:You people should have heard of the message from Nimitz to Halsey in the heat of the Battle of Cape Engano on 26 October 1944:"Where is TF34,rpt,where is TF34? The world wonders." Halsey was incensed by the second part of the message as he did not know that it was padding to throw enemy intelligence off balance.Instead,Halsey felt that it was directed at him...
Recently,a misunderstanding between a friend and I occurred due to misperceptions like the one I mentioned above...
FM: CINCPACOriginally posted by Doenitz:You people should have heard of the message from Nimitz to Halsey in the heat of the Battle of Cape Engano on 26 October 1944:"Where is TF34,rpt,where is TF34? The world wonders." Halsey was incensed by the second part of the message as he did not know that it was padding to throw enemy intelligence off balance.Instead,Halsey felt that it was directed at him...
Recently,a misunderstanding between a friend and I occurred due to misperceptions like the one I mentioned above...