Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the Germans used u-boats as a supply vessels in Sealion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
    Any submarine engineers available to discuss the pros & cons of attaching a "100 ton" conatiner to a submarine? Then diving & navigating with it? It must have some sort of provision for nuetral bouyancy, or variable bouancy with cargos of variable weight, so the submarine can maintain control when diving and surfacing. After all ramming the bottom at thirty meters is a bad day.
    .
    The project "Prufstand XII " was my reference in that case. Much more simplified version of course.
    If you believe, you receive.
    If you doubt, you go without.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by leopold View Post
      U.S. submarines delivered 331 people, evacuated 472, and delivered some 1,325 tons of supplies to the Philippines
      - where exactly is the 'abysmall' failure in that?!
      Also the distances, over which those were delivered were incomparably higher than those of the channel


      If you are full of such great ideas, why don't you start your own thread?
      Your figures only demonstrate what an abject failure it truly was. All the supplies that were delivered constituted less than a days worth of supplies needed by the embattled Fillipino-American forces on Bataan and Corregidor.

      Those American submarines would have been better utilized in the sinking of Japanese shipping rather than making "bread runs" to a doomed garrison.
      "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by leopold View Post
        Come on. That was just a side remark by me. It was ment to be amusing. Lighten up..
        I'm not the one being grouchy. However I am the one checking out of this thread. If you aren't prepared to discuss your ideas without implying that everyone else is either drunk or impaired in some other way, then goodbye.

        Dr. S.
        Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

        www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

        www.tabletown.co.uk

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Doctor Sinister View Post
          I'm not the one being grouchy. However I am the one checking out of this thread. If you aren't prepared to discuss your ideas without implying that everyone else is either drunk or impaired in some other way, then goodbye.

          Dr. S.
          I didn't say a single insulting word to nobody. Maybe you misunderstood me..
          If you believe, you receive.
          If you doubt, you go without.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
            Your figures only demonstrate what an abject failure it truly was. All the supplies that were delivered constituted less than a days worth of supplies needed by the embattled Fillipino-American forces on Bataan and Corregidor.

            Those American submarines would have been better utilized in the sinking of Japanese shipping rather than making "bread runs" to a doomed garrison.
            I disagree that it was failure. They provided more or less what was expected given the much longer distances involved and the fact that the subs didn't use any tricks for carrying more cargo.
            The failure would have been if the subs were sunk or couldn't deliver for some other reason.
            If you believe, you receive.
            If you doubt, you go without.

            Comment


            • #51
              Leopold,...if it was easy as the armchair Germans make it out to be the real Germans would not have thought twice about using destroyers, submarine, fishing boats, barges, gliders, air transports and row boats. They simply would ahve crossed the channel,...but they knew better.

              It is a simple fact that the Germans looked at their capabilities and concluded, "No way." No command worth their red stripes is going to risk an army on such unrealistic probabilities.
              The Purist

              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by leopold View Post
                I disagree that it was failure. They provided more or less what was expected given the much longer distances involved and the fact that the subs didn't use any tricks for carrying more cargo.
                The failure would have been if the subs were sunk or couldn't deliver for some other reason.
                Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter. The whole venture was a historical failure that failed to bring any substantial relief to the besieged garrison. It could not bring enought medicine, shell fuses and most importantly, food to aleviate the dire situation one iota. More symbolism over substance. In the end, it didn't matter.
                "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by leopold View Post
                  The width of the german landins zone was to be more than 150 km. That's long enough for the limited number of RAF bombers under constant LW threat.


                  All of it?? So you argue that there even WERE u-boats in WWII?
                  Either make a factually and logically supported argument or be ignored...
                  Someone needs how to understand posts. My reply of "all of it" referred to your calculations that u-boats could deliver enough supplies for the German invasion forces. I NEVER stated that the Germans did not have u-boats.

                  And talking of factually and logically supported arguments - it was not me who started threads about building bridges across the channel...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by leopold View Post
                    You seem to have missed the posts where I suggest using a towed 100 ton containers, which are swapped at the end of each run thus eliminating the argument of slow unloading and sub vulnerability. - this is a major part of my suggestion.
                    Also you must take notice of the specifics of the english channel - i.e. the distances are incomparably shorter than those in US and Japanese sub supply routes and the fact that the LW was in no way inferior to the RAF over the channel.
                    My calculations so far are sound : 28 sub runs per day*100 tons = 2800tons + 200 tons by other means = 3000 tons per day = ~300 tons per division , per day - more than enough for offensive operations.
                    BTW. wouldn't the horses be able to find grass or hay in England?
                    You would not get 28 runs per day - except possibly for the first day - as you only have 28 u-boats. Some will be sunk, some will be damaged. As the days go by, you are going to have fewer and fewer u-boats.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by leopold View Post
                      The width of the german landins zone was to be more than 150 km.
                      It is still a limited area with a limited landing zone. Just because the width of the invasion is 150km, does not mean you can land at every single km along that stretch.

                      That's long enough for the limited number of RAF bombers under constant LW threat.
                      It is also long enough for the limited LW fighter force.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                        Leopold,...if it was easy as the armchair Germans make it out to be the real Germans would not have thought twice about using destroyers, submarine, fishing boats, barges, gliders, air transports and row boats. They simply would ahve crossed the channel,...but they knew better.

                        It is a simple fact that the Germans looked at their capabilities and concluded, "No way." No command worth their red stripes is going to risk an army on such unrealistic probabilities.
                        It is true that part of the german command was feeling quite uneasy about Sealion, however general Manstein wrote :"we were ready and confident of success." The call wasn't his of course, but he was definetly worth his 'red' (maybe not red) stripes.
                        There is also another point. Purely speculative of course. My impression of German decisions in WWII was that the German leaders were quite capable of taking chance whenever they felt they have some kind of extra 'edge' whether technological or tactical. An "ace up the sleeve" if you will. In case of sealion a well presented u-boat transport solution might have provided that 'edge' argument and from there, the whole german war machine would have been put into full drive. So at the end the u-boat solution may have had a psychological value additional to its actual military value. There were many cases in military history when believing in victory was enough to push the balance in one side's favor.
                        If you believe, you receive.
                        If you doubt, you go without.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                          Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter.
                          .
                          So my arguments do not matter? Why, becouse I wrote them?

                          Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                          The whole venture was a historical failure that failed to bring any substantial relief to the besieged garrison. It could not bring enought medicine, shell fuses and most importantly, food to aleviate the dire situation one iota. More symbolism over substance. In the end, it didn't matter.
                          Depends on the scale of what you call "the whole venture". If we call that the very transport operation - it did bring enough according to what it was planned to bring. The subs brought 1500 ton cargo and hundreds people sucessfully and took back wounded and brought them successfully. A total of 41 successful sub missions were done.
                          If we call "the whole venture" WWII then again it came out quite well for the US and allies.
                          My point is that if you choose not to look objectively on the issue I can do it as well...
                          If you believe, you receive.
                          If you doubt, you go without.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by michammer View Post
                            Someone needs how to understand posts. My reply of "all of it" referred to your calculations that u-boats could deliver enough supplies for the German invasion forces. I NEVER stated that the Germans did not have u-boats.

                            And talking of factually and logically supported arguments - it was not me who started threads about building bridges across the channel...
                            If understanding posts means reading your mind telepatically then I haven't mastered that yet. "All of it" is like "none of it" -it contains no info.
                            If you believe, you receive.
                            If you doubt, you go without.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by michammer View Post
                              You would not get 28 runs per day - except possibly for the first day - as you only have 28 u-boats. Some will be sunk, some will be damaged. As the days go by, you are going to have fewer and fewer u-boats.
                              Some losses are obviously possible, however:
                              a) The first few days (~5) home fleet would still have been struggling with the protective minefields so the supplies could have been done by surface vessels.

                              b) The next several days (~3) could have been spent on stored supplies from the first 5 days. Total of ~8 days.

                              c) In my calculations I am using only half of the u-boat fleet. Any losses may be compensated by the rest.

                              d) The more I think of this idea the more seems likely that germans could have received some assistance by the Italian sub fleet. After all the Italians had 117 subs at that point and the British were their rival as well.
                              Those maybe weren't as good as u-boats but we are talking if using them for transport purposes.

                              e) The RN would have suffered losses also - slowly draining it's ability to maintain the blockade. The main RN tool would be the 50 destroyers - those would be a constant target for the LW and the free of transport duty u-boats. The LW would be helped also by the existing german naval radar, which was quite operational at that point.
                              The capital ships would be all but impotent against the subs.

                              f) The using of the u-boat transports is in no way mutually exclusive with trying to provide supplies the conventional way (merchants and transport planes) - quite the contrary, surface ships may be used as distraction pulling RN and RAF attention, while the invisible u-boats pop somewhere unexpected and deliver the loaded containers.
                              If you believe, you receive.
                              If you doubt, you go without.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by michammer View Post
                                It is still a limited area with a limited landing zone. Just because the width of the invasion is 150km, does not mean you can land at every single km along that stretch.
                                .
                                Agree. However there still are enough possible landing zones to keep the 50 destroyer force quite thin. Also keep in mind that since the u-boats have the element of surprise they can be escorted by wolf packs of non transporting u-boats - such concentrated surprize attacks on dispersed RN force will surely afford some breathing space and even may sink a destroyer once in a while.

                                Originally posted by michammer View Post
                                It is also long enough for the limited LW fighter force.
                                The surface ships are constantly visible - that makes it easier for the LW to detect and attack them.
                                If you believe, you receive.
                                If you doubt, you go without.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X