PDA

View Full Version : Question about speed of U boats vs speed of convoy...



Xiolablu3
07-18-2010, 05:05 PM
HI guys, just watching 'Enigma' the film and was wondering :-

Surely the speed of U boats on the surface and underwater was slower than even the slowest convoy ship.

Does this mean u boats had to position themselves correctly in order to intercept a convoy as it passed?

Or were u boats actually fast enought to catch a convoy and take shots as it pleased?

Thanks for your thoughts and answers.

AndyJWest
07-18-2010, 05:18 PM
A quick check of my Silent Hunter 3 manual gives this for the Type VII-C, the most common U-boat type: Max. speed: 17.2 kt (surfaced), 7.6 kt (submerged). This should be comfortably faster than a typical merchant convoy, though running on the surface was risky once air cover became available, and fuel consumption at those speeds was also limiting. Later in the war, convoys were usually attacked by 'wolf packs' rather than lone U-boats, when possible - this gave the escorts greater difficulties, though it required coordination, and the consequent radio traffic was being monitored...

I'd suggest getting hold of SH 3 if you are interested, Xiolablu3, to get a real feel for what operating a U-boat was like - don't bother with Silent Hunter 5, it isn't finished...

horseback
07-18-2010, 05:42 PM
It's been a while since I read The Cruel Sea, and even longer since I left my last tour on a destroyer escort/fast frigate, but I'm pretty sure that the best average speed a convoy could make (based onthe slowest members' speed) in a straight line would be no greater than 8 knots.

Add in the required zig-zagging (intended to spoil an undetected U-boat's firing solution) effectively halving that speed, and a surface speed of 15+ knots gives a U-boat a reasonable edge, as long as he doesn't have to worry about detection from the air (a major factor in the Battle of the Atlantic by mid-1943) and generally knows where the convoy will be.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
07-18-2010, 05:49 PM
Surfaced U-boats tended to be quite fast compared to convoys. Submerged, they could out-flank a convoy but only by making a lot of noise detectable with hydrophones and by running their batteries down relatively quickly.

Does SH3 work well on XP? I have SH4 and it causes my PC to reboot within minutes of actual play. Another UBI waste of money for me, every so often I want to try a title so much I forget how little customers mean to them.

I wish I still had my old Dynamix Aces of the Deep. Never a problem with that one!

HW3
07-18-2010, 06:22 PM
I'm running SH3 on Vista 64, and ran it on XP before with no problems. There are new mods coming out for SH3 most every day. Check SubSim.com, there is a very active community there.

JtD
07-18-2010, 10:23 PM
Top speed of a liberty ship: 11 knots. Large convoys tended to be much slower than that (6-8knots) to allow for maneuvering. I don't think that the German U-Boats followed convoys submerged for a long time even if they could just manage, since the batteries would be dead very quickly when running high speeds.

Waldo.Pepper
07-18-2010, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HI guys, just watching 'Enigma' the film and was wondering :-
Surely the speed of U boats on the surface and underwater was slower than even the slowest convoy ship.


Largely correct.



Does this mean u boats had to position themselves correctly in order to intercept a convoy as it passed?

Yes, correct.


Or were u boats actually fast enough to catch a convoy and take shots as it pleased?


Travelling at speed on the surface consumed enormous quantities of fuel. This made this impractical. Therefore, best practice was to intercept a convoy rather than have to race to intercept. Unlike in Bas Boot. Such a race is dramatic and a good device for the movie - but prohibitively impractical.

See below for additional details.



"The submarines Donitz planned to use in this new war were little changed from those of the previous war. They were really only submersibles, with a very limited capacity to remain submerged and with underwater movement handicapped by slow speeds. The U-boats needed a high surface speed to get to their hunting grounds along trade routes, and also to catch convoys once sighted. Their underwater capabilities had been used only at the point of attack in daylight and to hide from a pursuing escort. These requirements were met by the type VII U-boat, which became Donitz s prime weapon in the Battle of the Atlantic. Eventually he had 628 of these boats built, more than has ever been constructed of any submarine class.

The type VII was a relatively small submarine compared with the standard U.S. Navy model, and it had limited fuel-carrying capacity; therefore a limited range. The model VIIC, with additional fuel tanks, was the most effective of the type. The model VIIC had a displacement of around 750 tons, was 220 feet in length, and held a crew of 44. It carried 14 torpedoes and usually one 3.5-inch, one 37mm and two 20mm surface guns. As did all submarines at the time, the type VII operated underwater on electric battery-powered motors that did not require air to function. The electric motors gave the type VII a top underwater speed of 7.5 knots but an average underwater speed of only 2 to 4 knots. Even at 2 knots, however, the submarine could only remain submerged for 65 hours before it had to surface to recharge its batteries. On the surface the U-boat was propelled by diesel engines, which allowed it to Sustain a speed of around 18 knots.

As Karl Degener-Boning, wartime radio operator on the U-66, characterizes the result of these specifications, "Generally we cruised on the surface and dove only when it was necessary."

Only one other major prewar submarine design was authorized by Donitz, the larger type IX, of which 210 were ultimately built. The type IXC displaced 1,120 tons, was 244 feet long, and had a crew of 50. It could reach a submerged speed of 7.5 knots and a surface speed of 18.5 knots.

The type IXC U-boat was armed with between 19 and 22 torpedoes, plus one 37mm and two 20mm surface guns. But though the type IX had a longer range and was better suited to rough Atlantic conditions, it was more expensive and took longer to build, so Donitz preferred to concentrate on producing greater numbers of the smaller, cheaper type VIIs, which continued to bear the brunt of the fighting in the Atlantic. On average, the type VII U-boat could only stay at sea for a little over a month before it needed to head home for refueling. This was to prove a problem in coordinating group tactics."

Page 21-21 of Secret Weapon: US High-Frequency Direction Finding in the Battle of the Atlantic by Kathleen Broome Williams.

Col_SandersLite
07-19-2010, 12:05 AM
Hi, lurker but don't want to pass this one up.

Waldo does not know what he's talking about. Not at all.


Even if you had the luxury of being vectored to a target by a search plane or another submarine you must first spot the target. A few degrees of estimated target course error can result in an intercept position error of several miles. It may not even be possible to find the target if the information is faulty enough and there are a *lot* of reasons it can be inaccurate. In other words, you *still* have to find the target. An intercept point is just a lead as to where to start looking.

Further:
The most basic submarine tactic used by both US and German forces, and every other submarine force in the world for that matter, was what is called an end around.

Firstly, you spot the target either visually or by radar if available and used (for u-boats, radar was actually used for a very small portion of the war).

The next step is to get if front of him. You do this by moving just outside the outskirts of his detection range. The submarine was *much* smaller than a merchant and being diesel did not leave a massive trail of smoke. This means a submarine could quite easily stay out of his visual range while keeping an eye on him.

When you are in position and the timing is right, you turn into him, usually submerge, and attack.

If the convoy did not have radar or air coverage, the standard German strategy was to shadow a convoy at maximum visual range all day, plotting the targets course and speed attacking on the surface at night if it was escorted. The reason for this is that hydrophone detection was more likely than visual detection in this scenario.


The reason this works is that 95% of all merchant ships had a top speed in the 8-12 knot range. A merchant simply *CAN NOT* maintain that for very long as the engine stress will cause a breakdown sooner rather than later and, quite often, they simply did not carry enough fuel make it across the Atlantic like that. Most merchants cruised in the neighborhood of 5-8 knots depending on type which, surprise surprise, is actually a u-boats best cruising speed. An American fleet boat's best cruising speed was in the vicinity of 10 knots with a top speed of around 20.


Submarines actually quite frequently would make multiple attacks by waiting for the convoy to leave detection range and doing another end around, reloading the torpedoes while in transit.


In the case of a wolf pack attack, the first submarine to spot the target would just keep tracking it and providing positional data to the rest of the pack I believe. An intercept position would be set up somewhere along the convoys route where the maximum number of submarines could make a successful attack and each submarine would attack during its attack window.


There *ARE* exceptions. For example, large warships and cruise liners are as fast or faster than a submarine. Doing an end around in this case is simply impractical or even impossible. The submarine's only hope is to be in a good enough position from the outset that a submerged intercept is possible (IE, the target is already heading towards the submarine).


Also, keep in mind that the big warships and liners almost never traveled with the merchant convoys. The merchants where too slow and that takes a battleships (for example) first and best ASW defense (speed) away from it. Instead, they traveled in military task forces. If resupply at sea or some other special operation was called for, they would travel separately and meet at a rendezvous point.

Edit: Also, the speed highlighted in that big bulky chunk of chaff by waldo is specifically best underwater cruising speed as pertains to battery life when using batteries as your propulsion source. As stated above, the best surfaced speed was considerably higher and attacks where usually made outside of the range of allied air coverage for this very reason. Once the convoy was under the allied air umbrella, the chances of a successful intercept got much worse.

M_Gunz
07-19-2010, 01:59 AM
I wonder if there's time to get popcorn?

Col_SandersLite
07-19-2010, 02:35 AM
I just don't see a need for popcorn at all. Waldos post is akin to saying that a hammerhead is impossible because an airplane cannot sustain a climb at that steep of an angle. Actually, come to think of it, a better comparison would be if he said that fighter pilots never advanced their throttles beyond their economy cruise setting in combat because it just used too much gas (if you keep your throttle at economy cruise during the fight, your P-51 can fight for 4 hours instead of 15 minutes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ). Sinking several thousand tons of enemy supplies is well worth returning to base a day earlier than you otherwise would have had to. Especially since sinking enemy shipping is the whole point of the patrol in the first place.

Quite frankly, even the most basic of historical submarine warfare knowledge, from a tactical point of view, would give him the insight he needs to draw the same conclusions.


Anyways, it's probably about time for me to go lurk some more. If he argues, just take a quick look at the submarine tactics tutorials for SH3/4 over at subsim.

R_Target
07-19-2010, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I wonder if there's time to get popcorn?

You could always go and bump the "Getting away from a Spit...part XVII" thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Waldo.Pepper
07-19-2010, 04:49 AM
Well it is hard to know where to begin. Firstly, welcome to the neighborhood Col_SandersLite.

Lets start with the obvious.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Waldo does not know what he's talking about. Not at all.

Waldo (me) was quoting the book - Secret Weapon: US High-Frequency Direction Finding in the Battle of the Atlantic by Kathleen Broome Williams. Which you derisively attempted to dismiss as "chaff".

So what you are really trying to say is the military historian and Professor at Bronx Community College, CUNY, Kathleen Broome Williams does not know what she is talking about. Ok.

What were your references again? Around these parts 'personal opinions' are rather quickly dismissed. So if you can, do please properly attribute your sources.


-----

Numer 1.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Even if you had the luxury of being vectored to a target by a search plane or another submarine you must first spot the target.

Agreed. But the odds of being vectored by an aircraft are so rare as to be very nearly entirely discounted. Why was this so? I shall let Cajus Becker in The Luftwaffe War Diaries explain. (The following passage appears on page 259.)

"To carry out their long-distance missions successfully, with all that that entailed, the Condor crews had to operate at the limit of their capacity, They represented the cream of the bomber training schools, where trial crews were put together and their performance judged. And they learnt much from their senior colleagues who as former Lufthansa pilots were already expert at blind and long-distance flying.

Yet no amount of individual performances could disguise the fact that the main job of providing effective reconnaissance for the U-boat arm could never be carried out so long as the number of serviceable aircraft could be counted on the fingers of one hand. In 1941 the monthly production of Focke-Wulf Condors amounted to only four or five, which represented no net increase. As the U-boats still sailed blindly through the seas, the following dialogue would take place each morning at Donitz's war-room at Lorient between himself and his chief of operations, Commander Eberhardt Godt:

Donitz: "Are there any reconnaissance flights today?"
Godt: "Jawohl, Herr Admiral."
Donitz: "By how many aircraft?"
Godt: "By one. Herr Admiral."

The two would look at each other and smile sadly; and Donitz, whose U-boats were the paramount source of concern to the British, would shrug his shoulders in resignation."

So it is a little hard to imagine why you would bother to mention such a marginal aspect of the U-Boat war. (You do this again later mentioning the presence of RADAR installed on U-Boats. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Number 2.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
"A few degrees of estimated target course error can result in an intercept position error of several miles. It may not even be possible to find the target if the information is faulty enough and there are a *lot* of reasons it can be inaccurate. In other words, you *still* have to find the target. An intercept point is just a lead as to where to start looking."

Agreed. Except that I feel it necessary to mention that a convoy is a rather larger 'object' that an individual ship. Often betraying its position with telltale exhausts. (As you allude to later in your initial post.) So formatting on a convoy is not quite the navigational Mount Everest as you imply. (As long as the convoy has not been vectored away from a looming threat by the Admiralty, or discerned in its own projected path of the presence of some/any U-boats(s) and altered its own course.

Number 3.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
The most basic submarine tactic used by both US and German forces, and every other submarine force in the world for that matter, was what is called an end around.

I am sorry to be blunt Col_SandersLite, but this is a simplistic overstatement. Tactics vary, depending upon several factors. The year, the type of U-Boat attack. Whether it is an individual boat or a pack. I am sure that you know that but were merely constrained by time/space.

To more fully refute this claim of your I am attaching a portion of a book as a pdf. The chapter is called Tactics and Operations, from the book Wolfpack: The Story of the U-Boat in WW2. Here is the link.

http://rapidshare.com/files/40..._in_World_War_II.pdf (http://rapidshare.com/files/407760104/Chapter_IV_Wolf_Pack_-_The_Story_of_the_U-Boat_in_World_War_II.pdf)

Number 4.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
(for u-boats, radar was actually used for a very small portion of the war).

If by very small portion of the war, you mean virtually negligible, right. RADARS on U-boats is kind of trivial. So trivial to be virtually not worth mentioning. Anyway here are some details.

1. DeTe-U. It was fitted to U-156, U-157 and U-158, all Type IXC U-boats. It was "generally unsuccessful."

2. FMG 42 G (gU) FuMO 30

This was an improved version of the rotating mast version of FMG 41G (gU), with a direction finder added, ready in late 1942. It was built into all U-boats. However, it was easily disabled by depth charges or bombs, and the antennas corroded in the salt water. Commanders did not like to use it, because they feared that it gave away their position.

3. FuMO 61 Hohentwiel U and FuMO 65 Hohentwiel U1.

FuMO 65 was installed in only a few Type XXI submarines. It was considered a very useful piece of equipment, especially for navigation in coastal waters. Like the earlier set, they feared using it for its potential to betray their position. However, like all shipborne RADARS it is a boon to navigation especially in poor visibility.

Other than some further experimental sets, thats about it for U-boat mounted RADARS. Some details are here - http://www.uboat.net/technical/radar.htm

But the best overall source is "GEMA: birthplace of German radar and sonar." by Harry von Kroge. Or the radar book (the bible on the subject really) by Fritze Trenkle, "Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren bis 1945."

number 5.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
The next step is to get if front of him.

Agreed.

Number 6.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
You do this by moving just outside the outskirts of his detection range.

Incorrect. The overwhelmingly preferred method (for the majority of engagements) was to attempt to PREDICT the course of the convoy and form up an INTERCEPTION in their path, with those boats who could get there without harming their engines or consuming all their fuel. Maneuvering into position as you describe is impractical. (see earlier referenced PDF.) Indeed see the PDF for the remainder of your comments on tactics. The chapter is not the be all and end all. But it is a pretty good concise primer.

Number 7.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
A merchant simply *CAN NOT* maintain that for very long as the engine stress will cause a breakdown sooner rather than later and, quite often, they simply did not carry enough fuel make it across the Atlantic like that.

Agreed, however the same laws of physics (engine damage and fuel consumption) apply to the U-boats as well. Which is why in my initial post I took pains to mention how short the legs were of the most common model of U-boat involved in the Battle of the Atlantic were.

Number 8.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
An American fleet boat's best cruising speed was in the vicinity of 10 knots with a top speed of around 20.

What about an Italian one? Or a Japanese submarine? So frikkin' what! How is this tidbit relevant again?

Number 9.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Submarines actually quite frequently would make multiple attacks by waiting for the convoy to leave detection range and doing another end around, reloading the torpedoes while in transit.

SOURCE! (especially for "quite frequently") aspect of your statement. If you got your attack Wunderbar! Afterward if you wanted to live - you bugged out! Attacks as you describe (which I readily concede that I could find) are nevertheless in the extreme minority.

Number 10.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
In the case of a wolf pack attack, the first submarine to spot the target would just keep tracking it and providing positional data to the rest of the pack I believe.

Oh YOU BELIEVE. Ok then that's different. /sarcasm.

What you describe, again is possible, though idealized and romanticized. It was not the norm. The first submarine could supply a position for the convoy. If it were possible for that U-boat to shadow it, it MIGHT make the attempt - IF it were not too dangerous to do so.

Using the radio by the U-boat was required/ordered to report the initial contact. However, this was not always done as it was too dangerous. Why? Because the use of the radio was dangerous. As the Allies could intercept, and then plot the position of the reporting U-boat using HF/DF (HUFF DUFF equipment.) details here

http://www.xs4all.nl/~aobauer/HFDF1998.pdf (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Eaobauer/HFDF1998.pdf)

And here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...cy_direction_finding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frequency_direction_finding)

Number 11.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
An intercept position would be set up somewhere along the convoys route where the maximum number of submarines could make a successful attack and each submarine would attack during its attack window.

Correct. I note you mentioned an 'attack window.' this is correct. Each boat had AN OPPORTUNITY. A fleeting one, as maneuvering into position for another one was (by and large) impractical, for many reasons. See attached PDF!

Number 12.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
...For example, large warships and ...

This passage of yours in entirely correct.

Number 13.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
... the best surfaced speed was considerably higher...

Sorry, overstatement. Was the convoy fast or slow? What is the weather like? etc. etc. etc.

Number 14.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Edit: Also, the speed highlighted in that big bulky chunk of chaff by waldo is specifically best underwater cruising speed as pertains to battery life when using batteries as your propulsion source.

Even if I stipulate that this statement of yours is true, (and I am willing to do so.) The following passage validates that the Allies when fighting a submerged U-boat encountered boats that traveled at 3 knots.

"...the Allies were mentally attuned to a battle in which the enemy could move at only about 3 knots and had a strictly limited underwater endurance."

Page 69 of U-Boats History Development and Equipment 1914-45. In fact here is THAT very page.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/PagesfromU-BoatsHistoryDevelopmenta.jpg

Number 15.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
... attacks where usually made outside of the range of allied air coverage for this very reason. Once the convoy was under the allied air umbrella, the chances of a successful intercept got much worse.

Correct, obviously. Airplanes are dangerous.

Number 16.


Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
If he argues, just take a quick look at the submarine tactics tutorials for SH3/4 over at subsim.

That's your source! Please read a book once in a while 'Colonel.' Oh and I am not arguing. I am stating.

Good talking to you.

ILikePortillos
07-19-2010, 07:14 AM
In real life, I think a U-Boat can out-pace a convoy on the surface. My experience has only involved Silent Hunter III on the PC.

I would go to my assigned sector, shut off my engines, and listen to our hydrophones. Most successes for me involved finding an audible contact in the area, plotting its estimated course by marking two separate bearings at two different times (to plot the change in bearing), and speeding to a location in front of it, then waiting. Even if my assigned sector was rather remote, my route would frequently intersect sea routes, and these were like train spotting next to a heavily travelled route. I rarely if ever went out without making contact. Attack success was another matter.

And yes, once the allies begain heavily patrolling the skies, you didn't spend many daylight hours at the surface.

M_Gunz
07-19-2010, 09:56 AM
Munch, munch, munch, chomp.... sluuurrrrp. Some extra popcorn here, anybody got milk duds?

Anybody wanna pick a fight with Waldo is gonna find out he uses actual sources beyond simulation-game-realities.
I like quite a few simulation game realities as they make the game more playable but I can't judge reality by them.

I seem to remember we had a Col_Sanders before and I'm wondering if the troll who is running the "Mr Lite" persona is the original or not. Why do I say troll? Read the characterizations of Waldo liberally salted throughout when Waldo had done nothing to ask for them besides set down a carefully backed view. And of course his post count is almost to 5000 and we do have those here who get upset about people with bigger post counts than they deem suitable.

JtD
07-19-2010, 10:17 AM
Maybe you guys can find things to agree on, not issues to attack other posters about. It could either make that very informative, or very annoying. We have plenty of the latter around.

And my 2 cents, U-Boats would trail, shadow and overtake convoys on the surface. They'd also organize pack attacks by communicating with other boats. In practice, there were two drawbacks - first, early in the war there were very few U-Boats to organize, and second, late in the war there was too much Allied action to allow for that. Sometime around 1942 things were really great for the U-Boats, though.

Maybe you will find that the major difference in your opinions is simply down to the time stamp on the fact.

Daiichidoku
07-19-2010, 11:57 AM
not all covoys were created equal, as well

typical was to group ships into convoys by lowest speed, where possible

some convoys of older ships would average 2 knots, not much of a prob for u-boats

plus is was not uncommon for some ships to exp engine or other problems, dropping them behind the convoy
often they would be left on thier own, sometimes convoy commanders would attach escort to them...in some cases, new mini-convoys were made from a number of ships that had problems slowing them up, keeping them from pacing the main convoy


also, the u-boats had great intel on size and composition of convoys, particualrly early on, propmting use of "decoy" convoys

thefruitbat
07-19-2010, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by HW3:
I'm running SH3 on Vista 64, and ran it on XP before with no problems. There are new mods coming out for SH3 most every day. Check SubSim.com, there is a very active community there.

Love to know how, cause i cant get it to run on vista 64, and found the silent hunter forums to not be all that helpful with the issue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

M_Gunz
07-19-2010, 01:32 PM
I know from a direct source who was a blimp commander during WWII that no convoy escorted by blimps ever lost a ship to U-boats. It's perhaps the major thing they are proud of. OTOH there is only one strongly contested probable kill of a U-boat by a blimp, no confirmed kills and some unknowns. The blimps did operate beyond land-based aircraft range and were wholly effective. Those blimps carried 50 cals and depth charges and absolutely dwarf the advertising blimps seen since. Between those and smaller carriers in the later war, could it be truly said there was any hole in the air coverage? It's just a shame that those measures were not taken earlier, the technology certainly existed. Given the view and speed (maximum IIRC 70 ktas) the blimps made ideal sub deterrents. Ship captains and crews knew well back then that they were safer when the blimps joined them yet there is very little coverage of the fact post-war.

the Naval Airships Organization Site. (http://www.naval-airships.org/)

K_Freddie
07-19-2010, 02:41 PM
SH3 works well with XP, with a few minor glitches - the MODs go a long way to correct things.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif (SH4 - I just gave up on, didn't have the time for a whole new set of same problems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif - SH5 didn't even feature on my horizon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Waldo is correct in his research/assessment. He was making a simplistic summary, with the Colonel requiring more exact details. There is still a gazillion pages of tactics and info to be read on this front - Best to go to the UBI SH3/4 pages.

JZG_Thiem
07-19-2010, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HI guys, just watching 'Enigma' the film and was wondering :-

Surely the speed of U boats on the surface and underwater was slower than even the slowest convoy ship.

Does this mean u boats had to position themselves correctly in order to intercept a convoy as it passed?

Or were u boats actually fast enought to catch a convoy and take shots as it pleased?

Thanks for your thoughts and answers.

In general they were used as "submegible torpedo-boats", primarily trying to attack at night, on the surface and in the case of ppl. like Kretschmer even from within the convoy itself.
This was a surprise to allied command, since it was believed the classic U-boat was rendered obsolete due to ASDIC and the dogma that U-boats had to / will attack at daytime. submerged.

U-boats couldnt follow convoys submerged. They barely had the speed, and definitely not the range (ca. 60sm submerged). Being submerged (especially at flank speed) made them very vulnerable to ASDIC (and hydrophones) detection of any escorts.

On the surface they were easily able to shadow and overtake convoys if necessary (tho intercept was preferred). Detection by ASDIC was impossible, and even the radar-shilouette was minimal. Additionally they liked to attack at night (reducing the chance of visual detection).
Rudeltaktik emphasised this by
1)getting multiple U-boats concentrated on a single convoy (local superiority) and
2) the wulfpack could intercept according to the posiiton given away by the one shadowing the convoy (saving fuel for everyone, and better chances not to be detected).

Once Radar was improved amongst others (HF/DF, Bletchley park, etc.), their "stealth" was broken, the subs had to be "more and more submerged", thus reducing their range and effectiveness, making them "vulnerable sitting ducks", putting strain on the crews, etc.

Countermeasures were:
Schnorchel, Radar and radar detectors, additional AAA , Acoustic torps (vs escorts), area covering torps (blid shot vs convoy) with mixed results.

The XXI or Walter-u-boat would have been able to give back the initiative to the subs, but "too little, too late".

Col_SandersLite
07-19-2010, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Submarines actually quite frequently would make multiple attacks by waiting for the convoy to leave detection range and doing another end around, reloading the torpedoes while in transit.

SOURCE! (especially for "quite frequently") aspect of your statement. If you got your attack Wunderbar! Afterward if you wanted to live - you bugged out! Attacks as you describe (which I readily concede that I could find) are nevertheless in the extreme minority.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you could apparently quickly find references to such attacks without me providing a source hints at the frequency of such attacks but more importantly invalidates your entire argument. Submarines are faster than merchant convoys. End of story.

Also, when executing this kind of attack, you do bug out. Once you've made your first attack, you get beyond the convoys visual detection range and do yet another end around. It's basically the submarine equivalent of repeated BnZ passes, though with much more time between passes.




Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Lets start with the obvious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Waldo does not know what he's talking about. Not at all.

Waldo (me) was quoting the book - Secret Weapon: US High-Frequency Direction Finding in the Battle of the Atlantic by Kathleen Broome Williams. Which you derisively attempted to dismiss as "chaff". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reasons it is chaff; it is 6 paragraphs long and the only section you highlighted is submerged economy speed. In fact, the third paragraph of the quote completely invalidates your point. Let me refresh your memory:

As Karl Degener-Boning, wartime radio operator on the U-66, characterizes the result of these specifications, "Generally we cruised on the surface and dove only when it was necessary."

The only time it was necessary was when the submarine either turned to attack and visual detection was a risk (in which case it was already in position to attack) or to evade an attack by either a surface ship or aircraft. The entire getting into position to attack procedure was done on the surface. This did change somewhat in the late war when german submarines started snorkeling.

Your next post is also mostly chaff. I'm going to reiterate something very simple here. A submarines top speed was in the 15-20 knot range depending on type and nationality. A typical merchant ships top speed was in the 7-11 knot range depending on type. Let me summaries this difficult math problem for you. A submarine was faster than a typical merchant by a large margin. For most submarine types, the submarine is literally twice as fast. Even if both merchant and submarine ran their engines at 75% power to save fuel and reduce stress, the submarine will still be able to go all the way around a merchant ship for an end around run in less than 6 hours.

I could site sources all day, but quite frankly, I'm just not interested in getting bogged down in a point by point rebuttal of your chaff. Especially since, as stated in my first sentence, you have a serious logical error in your thought process somewhere. Not arguing, just stating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

BTW, the reason I direct people to the various tactical tutorials for SH3/4 is not because I don't have the books, but because anybody who does not know better does not have the books. In other words, it is far better to direct the average curious internet joe to an accessible user friendly source than to tell them to go buy a list of books IMHO.



@ Gunz, yes, I'm the original ColSandersLite. I was not and am not a troll and, at least as of a year or so ago, you still have my avatar on your web server. You thought it would be a nice thing to do for me after I made that IAS vs TAS table (which is still up on mission 4 today). I trust that this knowledge of our history should be sufficient proof to satisfy you as to my identity. I just happened to have lost the password for that account and I also can't remember what the e-mail address I signed up under was. Doubtlessly some spam sponge account that I use to sign up for crap I don't want flooding my primary personal account but whatever. It would be nice if a mod helped me out with that but I just don't care enough to actually bother someone with it as I almost never make posts on forums anymore.

Also, have some milk duds on me bud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


--
This space intentionally left blank.

Waldo.Pepper
07-19-2010, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by ILikePortillos:
In real life, I think a U-Boat can out-pace a convoy on the surface.

Outpace as in to flee from contact - certainly. But to format for a follow on attack? They can of course theoretically. But did they do so? Infrequently - and increasingly less frequently as the tide turned against them. Such practices were dangerous initially, and suicidal later on.


Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe you guys can find things to agree on, not issues to attack other posters about.

Sigh! I have been trying to do just that with statements like - "I am sure that you know that but were merely constrained by time/space."


Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe you will find that the major difference in your opinions is simply down to the time stamp on the fact.

I am sure that there is some of that. However, the 'Colonel' wishes to believe in a fantasy situation where a surfaced submarine is crewed by fearless heroes, who are not constrained by fuel or a desire to preserve mechanical solidarity of their U-boat. (as I contend, a few paragraphs down.)


Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Waldo is correct in his research/assessment. He was making a simplistic summary, with the Colonel requiring more exact details.

Yep, and you see what it got me! But now the 'Colonel' who wanted details, when shown them, now it seems, wants to dumb the topic down again by refusing to consult better sources and remaining in essence a gamer. Why this is so is perplexing to me. ?!?

With statements like this it is clear to me that the 'Colonel' may not interested in examining the matter in a serious manner. And until he is willing to, rather than merely claiming to be able to, discuss the reality of the wartime situation there is little point is responding to him at all, let alone citing or indeed supplying serious publications and sources. I would hope that most who read these words see that as well. However, some summarizing comments should clarify the situation for any who are seriously interested.

There are three speeds to consider.

1. Convoy vessels.
2. Submerged Submarines.
3. Surfaced Submarines

I think that we now agree on the REALITY of the first two of these.

To summarize -

There are book values and real world practices. The book values are effectively meaningless. You now see that this is true for 1 & 2 (convoy vessels and submerged submarines.) At least it SEEMS like you do now, as you have stopped protesting my (supported by reliable sources) contention that the typical submerged speed is around 3 knots. (rather than the book value of around 7(ish).

However, in the 3rd case, that of surfaced submarines, you still stubbornly (in contravention of reliable sources) persist in applying these meaningless book values of a surfaced U-boat as reflecting of reality. Why you reject the evidence, (that surfaced submarines are similarly constrained to approximately half of their book value (in typical operations - meaning that they are not about to go racing around the North Atlantic at flank speed for any length of time) by real world considerations) I don't know, nor do I care.

The same speed limiting constraints (desire for stealth/survival, fuel limitation, preservation of engines, weather, orders etc.) apply to a surfaced U-boat. And while yes the book value would tell anyone who could do basic math the a surfaced U-boat can easily run rings around a convoy. The practical real world reality makes this NOT so. Why you wish to divorce from reality, to give special consideration and make an exception for a surfaced U-boat from these limiting factors, I don't know. Nor do I wish to disparage you by speculation.

The wartime situation was fluid and evolving. But for the U-boat arm of the Kriegsmarine the situation became so dire that from, oh lets say mid 1943 on until the end of the war - if a U-boat tried to run rings around a convoy, reposition itself for multiple attacks, merely attempt multiple attacks - today you find that U-boat rusting on the sea bed. By May 24, 1943 the BdU had to admit defeat and cease wolf-pack tactics against the North Atlantic convoys.

Such fantasy gamer moves, that I suspect you are all too familiar with, would quickly get you killed - period. In the main, they just didn't do it as you persist in believing. Which is why I attempted to answer Xiolablu3's initial question the way I did. With a reality based answer.

Good day.

M_Gunz
07-19-2010, 06:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif IMO the USA had the best submarines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Worst torpedoes in the start though, thanks to the petty kingdom that made them, but best submarines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OTOH we could debate about subs as sandwiches. I used to know a shop that did fantastic hoagies!

Col_SandersLite
07-19-2010, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
There are three speeds to consider.

1. Convoy vessels.
2. Submerged Submarines.
3. Surfaced Submarines

I think that we now agree on the REALITY of the first two of these.

To summarize -

There are book values and real world practices. The book values are effectively meaningless. You now see that this is true for 1 & 2 (convoy vessels and submerged submarines.) At least it SEEMS like you do now, as you have stopped protesting my (supported by reliable sources) contention that the typical submerged speed is around 3 knots. (rather than the book value of around 7(ish).


Please quote where I stated or even implied that a submarines submerged speed was as fast as a surface ships. I don't think *anyone* said any such thing. I really don't get why you keep harping on this, aside from the fact that it's just *more* chaff. Or maybe you think that because you're right on this one tiny point (which no one ever contested) that you win? Hmm... that's a flare I think...

In fact, if you look at the original question and your reply:


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Surely the speed of U boats on the surface and underwater was slower than even the slowest convoy ship.


Largely correct.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the bolded section as this is the point of contention.


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
However, in the 3rd case, that of surfaced submarines, you still stubbornly (in contravention of reliable sources) persist in applying these meaningless book values of a surfaced U-boat as reflecting of reality. Why you reject the evidence, (that surfaced submarines are similarly constrained to approximately half of their book value (in typical operations - meaning that they are not about to go racing around the North Atlantic at flank speed for any length of time) by real world considerations) I don't know, nor do I care.

Again, the math here is rather simple. A 10 knot ship running at half his listed speed is slower than a 17 knot ship running at half his listed speed (10/2 = 5 and 17/2 = 8.5). I really don't get what you fail to understand about this. Considering all U-boat plots are visual (a maximum range of about 10 nM, this is why I discounted radar earlier and you agreed) it will only take about 6 hours (depending on starting target aspect) to get around the target near the u-boats best cruise speed.

I will even be a complete gentleman and show you the complete math for fuel consumption during an end around and put that into perspective of a full war patrol just because I'm such a nice guy. In fact, I'm starting to think that you're so used to air warfare that you're maybe just not understanding the scales of what we're talking about.



Here's a hint of what the results will be.

A type VIIc uboat (not a type IX mind you) has a range of about 12000km (Rössler. The U-boat: The evolution and technical history of German submarines.)

The distance from Brest to NYC is about 6,000 km by the great circle route.

This is round trip time of something like 27 days. Remember that a Type VII would be unlikely to actually go this far but stay in the middle of the Atlantic along the convoy routes. From here, the u-boat can attack a convoy for a few days before having to worry about running into allied air cover for the majority of the war.

An end around at full (not flank) speed may take something like 4 hours but that's only a days fuel (just a rough estimate, will give math later) and as stated earlier, sinking several thousand tons of enemy shipping is worth returning to base a day early or risking resupply at sea.



Again this is like arguing that a p-38 on bomber escort duty is only capable of 185 mph TAS in combat because that's its economy cruising speed. It's pretty ridiculous.



Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Such fantasy gamer moves, that I suspect you are all too familiar with, would quickly get you killed - period.

You sure know a lot about me considering you have no idea who I am don't you? Oops, flare. Don't forget to pull some G there bud.


--
This space intentionally left blank.

M_Gunz
07-20-2010, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
@ Gunz, yes, I'm the original ColSandersLite. I was not and am not a troll and, at least as of a year or so ago, you still have my avatar on your web server. You thought it would be a nice thing to do for me after I made that IAS vs TAS table (which is still up on mission 4 today). I trust that this knowledge of our history should be sufficient proof to satisfy you as to my identity.

What web server? Link please?

rfxcasey
07-20-2010, 08:18 AM
Ok, this is getting, excuse me, has gotten out of control way back on page 1. First off, go get yourself a copy of Silent Hunter 4 gold which includes v.1.5 and the German U-boat missions. Then download the latest version of Trigger Maru. If you like WW2 submarining it is the best your going to get.

Ok, now that that is out of the way, everyone has raised very good points. Waldo seems to have gotten overly defensive as a lot of what Col_SandersLite stated is true. However I think the Col could have been a little more tactful then just saying Waldo does know a fish from a torpedo. I'm not saying Waldo is wrong either but he seems to be freaking out a bit with that one marathon post. And I think Waldo referring to himself in the third person is just a little scary. Just try to calm down people.

Gathering intelligence and mapping shipping routes was a major key in finding and hunting down convoys. I've read quite a bit on WW2 submarining and has spoken with several hard core Sub Simmers at length who let me tell you definitely give the IL-2 community a run for it's money in the passion for historical accuracy department. I will not be stating all sources individually as I actually have a life and time is valuable.

A lot of what Col_SandersLite has stated I have herd often and tend to agree with. This is not to say that Waldo's quotes are wrong either however the quotes made seem to be pertaining more to the prewar and early war thinking especially "The submarines Donitz planned to use in this new war were little changed from those of the previous war." The opportune word being PLANNED as we all known plans change quite quickly in war. The end around was used extensively and from what I have read and herd the merchant did NOT usually have crack lookouts or advance detection equipment if any. Now the word CHASE is subject to opinion. What is your definition of a chase? If you are talking about chasing from directly behind a convoy, no, you have probably missed your window of opportunity but is running to intercept at a 30 deg angle a chase? Or if a sub is running parallel to a convoy in an attempt to overtake is that a chase or more of a race? Waldo however makes a very valid point. There are a WHOLE lot of variables to be consider one major one being sub type. That being said with the right sub and given you have the initiative, element of surprise, and crew I would tend to agreed with the Col. A skilled sub captain could indeed be menacing. I also feel that Waldo is putting a little TOO much stock in one book. It's a book, there are lots of them and some conflict with eyewitness accounts of the men that were actually there. Not to mention your interpretation of the information presented my be a little off from time to time. There is a section in the page you posted that states U2511 eluded a British anti sub group with ease. The Germans must have had something very right in U-boat technology. Where Waldo quotes "...the Allies were mentally attuned to a battle in which the enemy could move at only about 3 knots and had a strictly limited underwater endurance." Well, yes if you are submerged and attempting to elude you know you will not outrun the warships so you run slow and quite. What is the point you are trying to make. I don't care how fast a sub is underwater you are not going to outrun a fast and agile hunter killer on the surface with WW2 technology. Also, a sub at periscope death could snorkel and run on diesel engines while submerged depending on sub type. This yielded a higher underwater speed and endurance as long as your far enough away you snorkel is not spotted.

The shadowing issue will somewhat also depend if you have been detected or not as if you have, a convoy will be changing course quite frequently in an attempt to loose you so keeping visual or hydrophone contact is important. If you are planning an attack with the initiative you my have the luxury to try predicting where the convoy will be at a given time in space but having your eyes on the target is likened to a bird in the hand being worth 2 in the bush. Once visual contact is made you would want to visually check on your target often for status updates so there will be a balancing act of visual checks and the assumption that nothing is going to change about the speed and bearing of your target while the you calculate when and where you need to be for optimal firing position while remaining undetected.

Escorts were spread very thin given the sheer volume of convoys especially early on in the war. If one ship got hit the rest would run for it much like gazelles in Africa relying on safety in numbers and the odds.

Many subs would simply sit submerged in known shipping lanes and just listen for contacts. Once contact was made they could position themselves and, if the targets were merchant, usually with relative impunity to detection at least until that first shot was fired. The element of surprise was the name of the game.

Often a sub could and would shadow a convoy for several days sending reports so that the wolfpack could be vectored in.

Merchants began being armed though lightly and accompanied by trollers for added protection or deterrent.

Sub could also attempt to hit ships in port though mines and anti sub nets became a more and more of a problem as the war progressed.

So in general, detect, shadow, intercept and pounce was the general rule. This indeed could be repeated over and over if exiting from the strike correctly to come back and finish off wounded prey or for those now weaving like mad slow moving merchants. However, any nearby warships or air cover would start to be vectored in almost immediately if at all possible. Still it was possible for a sub to fire a few fish, move out into shadowing range, prepare for another attack and then intercept again.

As far as striking a task for goes, wolfpack tactics would be used whenever possible but and if a lone sub had a fleeting opportunity at something juicy like a battleship or carrier, it was pretty much sneak in, take the shot and TRY to get out alive. Warships weren't nothing to take lightly.

Just for the record I love how people always start nitpicking the heck out of a topic like "what was the weather like, blah blah blah." The fact being "Captain obvious" yeah and what if a comet hit between you and the target. What if Hilter had a stroke? If there are sooooo many what ifs, why is anyone even having the conversation in the first place. There is always going to be tactical, logistical, and consequential circumstances that factor into the decision making process. What if you periscope got damaged in a previous engagement, what if your battery in not functioning at full capacity, what if half the crew has the flew? What if we all just calm the heck down. Good lord I sound like a mad man.

Oh and bye the way Waldo....

This is Waldo quoting the Col.

quote:
Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
If he argues, just take a quick look at the submarine tactics tutorials for SH3/4 over at subsim.

Then Waldo says.....

That's your source! Please read a book once in a while 'Colonel.' Oh and I am not arguing. I am stating.

Myself saying.....

OMG!!! You are in an IL-2 forum. Do you know anything about IL-2? Look to it as an example. Many people with more passion, money and resources then you will ever have have spent years researching the history of the SIMS target era developing these sims with the focus on realism and historic accuracy, hence the term SIM. There are also usually several WW2 veterans involved in the process. No offense but you now DO sound like you don't know what the hell you are talking about not to mention you have probably just offended several thousand people in the SIM community.......FOR REAL!!!!!

The reality is if you want to have this conversation take it over to the Silent Hunter 4 forum and you may just learn a thing or 3. As a matter of fact you should go to the SubSim radio room you'll fit right in.

Why are we even discussing this in the IL-2 forum???

I'm gonna sit back now and eat some checkmix.

Col_SandersLite
07-20-2010, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by rfxcasey:
However I think the Col could have been a little more tactful then just saying Waldo does know a fish from a torpedo.

Agreed, I probably should have been a little more tactful but oh well. I'm just not one to call a duck a frog as the colloquialism goes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Again though, I do think that the man is so used to air warfare and probably dogfight servers in particular that he's just not understanding the scales and time frames. It's either that or the man just knows details without actually understanding the bigger picture. That is to say, in air warfare terms, he knows a FW-190 can outpace a P-40 but fails to grasp how this is used to the FWs advantage because he does not know what a yoyo is.




Originally posted by rfxcasey:
Still it was possible for a sub to fire a few fish, move out into shadowing range, prepare for another attack and then intercept again.


As stated earlier: the fact that Waldo could find real world instances of this exact thing happening without me providing any references whatsoever effectively proves that submarines are faster than convoys and he undermined his whole argument by admitting it. Not to mention the fact that he is the only person who has yet said that a surfaced submarine is slower than a convoy (excepting S Boats, Japanese Midgets, Type II U-boats in some cases, and a few obscure classes). That should be a clue I would think.



Originally posted by rfxcasey:
Just for the record I love how people always start nitpicking the heck out of a topic like "what was the weather like, blah blah blah."

That, is a perfect example of a flare. Basically, you try and nitpick a detail(s), ignoring the larger picture, so that your perceived opponent will stray off topic from the area where you will lose to the area where you will win or at least stand a better chance. You can then win a "victory in detail" or at least end up in no contest territory to save face. The countermeasure to this is quite obviously to not fall for it and stay on topic. Which is why I keep reiterating that a 17 knot ship is faster than a 10 knot ship and providing examples of tactical applications for this advantage which where used historically. In waldos case, he prefers quantity of flares over quality of flares which is a mistake, but works against a lot of people anyways I guess. The upside of using quantity over quality is that it also doubles as chaff. Chaff, of course, being obscuring your argument in a wall of text that's usually completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.


@Gunz

Meh, I don't remember. This was 3 years ago now see the submission date:

http://mission4today.com/index...Base&op=show&kid=336 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=336)

I haven't actually used it in 2 years and the last time I saw that url was when I noticed that an old forum account at I think ofpec.com was still using it.

Of course, I could just be mistaken and it might have been someone with a similar enough name that I got you mixed up (I should think that after all this time it would be understandable). My apologies if this is the case.

Regardless, it's not like I liberally salted my first post with characterizations of Waldo is it? The only things I've said about him is that he is wrong and that he likes to drop chaff and flares which, IMHO, are easy enough observations to make. In fact the only characterizations I see in the whole thread is where he called me a fantasy gamer, despite the fact that he has no clue who I am and where you to call me a troll. My personal opinion is that the old forum xenophobia got the better of you but I could be wrong about your motive.

Of course, I do have the regulars here at a disadvantage. I regularly come to this forum to read the nasty fights, the outrunning a spit thread (this one was *very* amusing) or insert .50 reference here, for example. I *do* miss the glory days of the to mod or not to mod fights though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif. In other words, I know the regulars here lot better than you know me so I'm just willing to let some stuff slide http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.



--
This space intentionally left blank.

rfxcasey
07-20-2010, 06:48 PM
@Col_SandersLite

The biggest indication for me that his thought process is as-cue has to be that one quote he made about allies being used to a pursuit of a 3 knot sub which was totally taken out of context. As I said, 3 knots is about the maximum speed you want to be moving at to avoid detection when within hydrophone listening distance of an escort. I can't just read a quote from a book and latch onto it without having a greater understanding of the whole picture.

He talks about the sub's desire for self preservation but makes it sound as if they were typically filled with cowering jellyfish of men. The fact is many of these men can be considered the at the top of the bravery list. How eager would you be to climb into your own potential coffin again and again, without any windows, knowing death could come at any time. Subs needed to be brave but not stupid either.

The fact is if you want to survive you have to use your head. That means not just launching your fish and running as fast as you can cause you will be caught and killed with that mentality. Subs need to be crafty to escape. Doubling back, changing course often, changing depth often, and trying to slink away quietly. The effects of the thermal layer where not fully understood for a large portion of the war either to my understanding.

M_Gunz
07-20-2010, 06:52 PM
I know Waldo from elsewhere on the net and have never seen him drop chaff and flares. When he references a book or film you can bet he isn't adding BS. His point was not what -could- be done but about the historic frequency of such actions and he did list one reference in particular, should there be need to count others? Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding about the meaning of what he wrote, ie it was taken wrong? But how often does ^that^ happen here, LOL!

Col_SandersLite
07-20-2010, 08:51 PM
His referenced speed is specifically submerged economy speed using battery propulsion. Further, the third paragraph of *his own reference* says that boats submerged as little as possible. U-boats did not submerge until they where already in attack position therefore it is irrelevant because nobody has once contested that number.



For a type VII C (more of this type where built than any other type).

Fuel capacity of 105,3 to 113,5 t (metric tons)
Range of 8500 nM at 10 kn (nautical miles)

Bodo Herzog , "Deutsche U-Boote 1906-1966"

This is the submarines *standard cruising speed*. It was thought that it gives the submarine the best balance between spotting a target and distance travelled and was SOP. *Economy cruise* was closer to 7-8 knots and this could be used for particularly long hops or perhaps loitering around a target area for a while.

Top speed 17,5 kn

Bodo Herzog , "Deutsche U-Boote 1906-1966"

When trying to catch a typical 1910s-1940s merchant with a maximum speed of 7-11 knots the u-boat is faster.

Guess which reference is more relevant?

You know what? A quick google search would have turned these numbers (or something very close to them) up within seconds.

http://tinyurl.com/38bzlg5

AndyJWest
07-20-2010, 09:20 PM
A typical U-boat may be capable of outflanking a typical convoy, but on its own this isn't necessarily sufficient to enable it to make repeated attacks. To do this it has to make the initial attack, evade the escorts (by diving deep and going slow) and only when the escorts have given up the search, go after the convoy - which may well have altered course etc. The next time it attacks the convoy is likely to be on full alert too. I'd say the conclusive resolution of this argument can only come with historical evidence of a U-Boat making repeated attacks on the same convoy. This may well have occurred with unescorted convoys in the early stages of the war, but later on, was it a regular occurrence? Is it even a particularly sensible tactic? Given the endurance of U-Boats, waiting for the next unsuspecting victims may make more sense than chasing after a convoy that knows you are about.

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 12:13 AM
Skimming and reading in the Wolfpack PDF some parts I'd like to mention without drawing conclusions or trolling:

Pages 230-231 describe an attack on a convoy by one sub that had sabotaged fuel and water resulting in breakdowns needing to be fixed. The worth of this is that the breakdowns and fixes punctuate the ships listed as destroyed and though the account does not out and out say so, the single attack was actually a long running series of attacks.

The -only- difference I see between that "sub attacks convoy" and others of the same is the mention of breakdowns due to sabotaged fuel. Otherwise they don't tell of repeated attacks though in the one case it is very apparent yet not given as being exceptional except for the breakdowns. IMO the description 'attacked the convoy' might lead to an impression of a single pass effort where really there were more as a matter of SOP.

Earlier in the same PDF the sub shadowing a convoy while a wolfpack assembled (including the 'shadowing' sub) from a wide-spread patrol line does tell me that yes the subs did outrun the convoy ships for quite some distance just in order to perform this feat. In the same pages I read that many commanders kept radio silence with all that implies given how hard a convoy was to spot in the first place.

Waldo, I think you need something more definite or point out pages in the PDF saying that repeated attacks were uncommon or some such thing. I'm only being fair here! Not trying to blow you off or concentrate on -parts- so please I don't find the above conclusive or cause to give you c.r.a.p but do find question therefrom.

Waldo.Pepper
07-21-2010, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Waldo, I think you need something more definite ... saying that repeated attacks were uncommon... I'm only being fair here!

I agree, and also think that you are being quite fair. And I am pleased to make the attempt. I would call that a difficult request to fulfill. But one that I am happy to attempt to answer in a forthright manner. After all I am the person who made what is being seen as a contentions statement, which goes against orthodoxy. So I should at least make a good faith effort to support it.

So in order to support my contentious claim, which to restate Briefly, is that repeat attacks on convoys (by the same U-boat) participating in the attack, are 'exceedingly rare'(this is the phrase I think I used earlier.)

But how to do that? What methodology would we all accept? Sadly there will not be a perfect method, which is persuasive for
all. But perhaps the following will be seen as useful, and perhaps potentially persuasive.

If we all agree that Wolf Pack operations were suspended in 1943, (see the work of Prof. Jurgen Rohwer for this point). Then certainly multiple attacks after that date would be even rarer than those of an earlier phase of the battle when attacks by single U-boats would be the norm. Yes? I hope that this sounds reasonable.

So what might prove to be illuminating would be to find a record of a cruise of a U-boat from a date (mid war) when Wolf-Pack tactics were still in force. We (I) could examine that cruise, finding all attacks mentioned. Look for multiples attacks/running battles (etc.) on convoys. Do some basic arithmetic comparing how many multiples there were with the remainder of the attacks conducted, to determine a ratio.

I think that this sounds pretty reasonable. At least as a starting point. Hopefully any interested readers here do as
well. Because we are fortunate to have such an account readily available, and in convenient book form even! "U-boat War Patrol: the Hidden Photographic Diary of U564."

From the preface of the book the following is written.

"An entire collection that charts the course of a single patrol
is a rare find indeed, and U564's successes and trials provide
a unique insight into life aboard the medium-size U-boats.
Taken during the summer of 1942 by an onboard war
correspondent, the photographs show a U-boat in action within
the Atlantic and Caribbean, as the German submarine service
teetered on the brink of what was, with hindsight, the
unstoppable downward slide into defeat. However, at the stage
of the war at which they were taken, U-boats could still spend
time surfaced without fear of Allied air attack within the
mid-Atlantic and were raking a harvest of considerable numbers
of Allied merchant ships."

Is this ideal? Most probably not. Ideal is never possible. Is this acceptable? I hope so, at least as a starting point.
So sorry if you find this data source inadequate and sorry if you do not find the methodology proposed perfect enough for
you, but it may be the best there is. If anyone else is willing to do the legwork, please do!

Okay so how many multiple attacks (on Convoys - because a multiple attacks against a single vessel is hardly interesting - I would hope we might all agree to that) are mentioned during the entire war patrol?

There are in fact none. Zero.

Actually, to be exceedingly fair there may be a single account of a multiple attack. On page 134 there is an account of three U-boats attacking a convoy (actually a pair or convoys who have crossed paths).

The wording is vague, but to bend over backward I shall concede that I have found a single multiple attack mentioned in the book. The passage in question reads.

"U600 joined battle against TAW.12, hitting the Everelza and sending her under beneath a column of flames hundreds of meters high. A second attack sank the American convoy Commodore aboard SS Delmundo."

Is this a genuine second attack, after a period of maneuvering? Or is this merely a follow on torpedo which was fired during the initial attack, striking a second target? This is vague, to me. But I shall concede this as evidence of a multiple.

There are however none mentioned for the subject of the book U564. But again I shall concede this one. I found one attack mentioned that qualifies. I did find another multiple attack against a single ship, chronicled on page 119. Which was against a single merchant ship, (NOT a convoy) which was furthermore unescorted.

To recap - I find mention of 1 (maybe).

Now 1 might be 50% if there were only 2 attacks made during the cruise. So if it were 50% that would not qualify for
exceedingly rare now would it? Fifty percent I would say would mean that such attacks were quite common.

So how many attacks are mentioned? There are in fact 10 attacks mentioned. Ten percent I think does qualify for the moniker of exceedingly rare. Use your own judgment, but I think this might just qualify for exceedingly rare. You might not. It depends on how you define things doesn't it?

The Captain of the U-boat was Reinhard Suhren. A Knight's Cross recipient, with Oak Leaves and Swords even! Of whom Donitz thought highly enough of to write the following words about THIS patrol -

"The convoy attacks, both in conception and execution, were carried out in an exemplary manner."

I think maybe Donitz liked him because he didn't get his U-boat sunk and his men dead. It certainly sounds like he has the respect of his peers/commanders. But perhaps this might merely be an example of florid penmanship that is all too common in documents which are evaluations.

Reinhard Suhren Captain of the U-boat survived the war with these tactics. He was not a coward. He was cautious, wily.
stealthy even.

I think that this does help to support my contention that those who were bolder and attempted multiple attacks are in fact at the bottom of the sea. I think that the kind of running attack we see depicted in popular culture is exceedingly rare. More common earlier in the war when defenses are even weaker? Sure - I will say yes to that. It only makes sense.

So where did we get the notion that multiple attacks are more common than they are? Well I think popular media is partly responsible. The propagandists during the war (of both sides) would have us believe that they were more common. This is only one patrol. Maybe the book is an incomplete POS! Possible, but like was mentioned in the preface such chronicles of a patrol are rare to begin with. Maybe multiples are more common. Sorry, but I just don't think so.

Col_SandersLite
07-21-2010, 06:18 AM
Meh, the point of contention was and always has been whether a submarine is faster than a convoy or not.

You have stopped arguing that a submarine cannot because you finally understand that 17 > 10, therefore there is no longer a point of contention. I feel quite justified in taking this as concession.

Since you have conceded, I no longer feel obligated to correct such a blatant disregard for the historical facts on such a fundamental issue. Though you finally convinced me to actually go up to the attic and break out the books, they have now been put back and I will happily slip back into obscurity and let you hash out the details without my interference (which I wanted to do like 5 posts ago now).


One last parting word of wisdom on the subject of repeated attacks however:
For the Germans, WWII started in September of 39 and ended in May of 45. The wolf pack died in 43 as well as the single sub making multiple attack runs due to improved radars and allied air coverage. In 43 allied air coverage was *so extensive* that a convoy could cross the Atlantic and have friendly planes on hand to assist them nearly immediately for over 90% of the route. However, this is for only 2 years out of 6.

In just the space of 2 minutes, I did find this:
http://www.uboat.net/articles/73.html

Note that 3 out of 4 u-boats made 2 separate attack runs against this convoy while the other made 3 separate attacks. (I'm grouping salvos together into attack runs, instead of counting every topedo salvo fired)

U-553 attacked at 0000 and at 0538
U-558 attacked at 0128, 0149, and 0215
U-432 attacked at 0343 and 0448
U-568 attacked at 0415 and 0602

Given that this was a night action, most attacks would have been made on the surface and that's why they are at such small intervals in the case of u-558 (the time it takes to reload and close the range again basically).

Also note that this convoy had *9* escorts and it was in 41 (the halfway point of the war for germany).

I would say that a 100% ratio is quite a disparity from the 10% you are stating.


If you want more information on the subject of repeated attacks, you're best off not looking into specific u-boats but instead look into the convoys (which are well documented). It's not hard to find information on specific convoys and who made what attacks on it when.

As it happens, you are talking to somebody who actually has a clue about this stuff, not some "fantasy gamer" idiot who goes around yelling "teh u bot es teh bets!!11!!eleventyone".


I do also strongly suggest you take a look at SH3 and 4. While those games, as does il-2, have their limitations, they are indeed quite good. The odds are quite high that if you're into a heavy duty flight simulation like il-2, you will enjoy them. My personal recommendation is that you play SH3 with GWX and SH4 with TMO (just ask over at subsim, you'll find them). I also recommend starting with 4 as opposed to 3.


@andy
I know that the common view is that convoys where all over the place, and it's true if you look at a big enough time frame, but the endurance of a u-boat was not so great that spotting more than one convoy was at all likely. A uboat commander would have been very lucky indeed if he encountered more than one during a patrol. I would say that though the tactical situation would certainly come into play, a u-boat commander needs and would be expected to seize the day if it is at all possible. This is one point that SH3 and 4 gets *very* wrong. It is understandable though in that this was done for the same reason static il-2 campaigns don't tend to include missions where the flight was uneventful.

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 06:52 AM
In all fairness, I have to agree with the Col on this one. Things seem to be getting way off topic. The original argument was whether a WW2 sub could chase down a convoy or not. Not even if they DID or not, just if they could. Though this is an extremely oversimplified and generalize question it leaves itself open for several assumptions that we all must take for granted.

In general a typical WW2 sub as is conventionally though of could all things relatively equal and "normal", chase down, or should I say beat in a race, a typical WW2 convoy. But once again, just saying a sub is a gross over simplification and what is, if there ever was, a typical convoy. Not to mention that in WW2, technology was advancing a such a rate that there real was nothing typical about any situation. I still would have to say that your most common WW2 sub could chase down your average merchant convoy for a certain distance.

The other thing that troubles me about this conversation, you know the point where the whole original topic goes AWOL, is that the convoys and escorts changed their tactics as a reaction to the subs tactics. The subs then having to adapt to the new tactics of the convoys and escorts in a constant game of cat and mouse all the while being skewed by technological advancement.

It's really not fair to compare early, mid, or even late war when it comes to the argument of frequency of tactics as the pressure was constantly being turned up in the conflict and what worked yesterday might not work today or tomorrow.

Anyways, I was reluctant to even go into any of this as it is really not relevant to the question originally posted and feel this conversation has degraded much the way the Col described.

Once again for clarity. Could a "common" WW2 sub chase down a "common" convoy? If the convoy was merchant, I say that is pretty clear they could with relative ease. So I am wondering why the original posted prefaced his question with the statement "Surely the speed of U boats on the surface and underwater was slower than even the slowest convoy ship." If he already thought he knew the answer, why ask the question. This has Trolling Lollersnake written all over it IMHO, OMG, LOL, ROFLMAO, WTF, GTFO!

Col_SandersLite
07-21-2010, 07:25 AM
Personally, I would give xio the benefit of the doubt as he did ask the question both ways. Besides, personally, I think the internet would be a far better place if that courtesy was more freely distributed. Though, I think I would have to find some source of amusement other than reading stupid internet flamewars... Ah well, I will always have youtube comments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
Personally, I would give xio the benefit of the doubt as he did ask the question both ways. Besides, personally, I think the internet would be a far better place if that courtesy was more freely distributed. Though, I think I would have to find some source of amusement other than reading stupid internet flamewars... Ah well, I will always have youtube comments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Meh, to me it sounds like he is asking if they could, not necessarily if they did as would warrant a whole discussion of tactics, thought with one question begs the other. He doesn't even ask what nationality of sub. I'm writing this off as a far too generalized and consequently a baited question, though the motive was well intentioned I'm sure.

I think about it, even when he says "Does this mean u boats had to position themselves correctly in order to intercept a convoy as it passed?" I mean off course you have to be in the right position for an optimal attack. Usually this was getting in front of the convoy or already being in front of the convoy an attacking from 90 deg as "it passed" as he put it. It's not like your going to chase down a ship and shoot at the smallest profile from 180 deg off the bow. Even if my "U-baot" (which to me means German) was 4 times faster then a convoy I would still want to get in front of it and wait for it to pass. This gives you the most time to prepare and best chance to hit your moving target with a relatively (compared to shells for missiles) slow fish.

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 09:26 AM
LOL!

Same source Col_Sanders quotes from but perhaps a bit more detail.... (http://www.uboat.net/articles/73.html)


U-boat attacks carried out on ships in convoy SC-48 during the night of 16/17 October 1941
Time U-boat Grid Target Weapon Observations
17/0000 U-553 AL 1962 Tanker, 6000 T (1) Missed
17/0004 U-553 AL 1962 Tanker, 6000 T (1) Missed
17/0005 U-553 AL 1922 Tanker, 6000 T (1) Missed
17/0007 U-553 AL 1922 Tanker, 6000 T (1) Hit amidships, sinking not observed
17/0128 U-558 AL 1966 Tanker, 7000 T (1) Missed, but observed detonation after 4 min. 47 sec. – assumed hit on ship beyond
17/0131 U-558 AL 1966 Tanker, 7000 T (1) Hit aft after 50 sec., tanker caught fire and sank fast by the stern
17/0149 U-558 AL 1966 Steamer, 6000 T (1) Hit after 49 sec., settled on even keel
17/0214 U-558 AL 1966 Steamer, 4000 T (1) Hit after 12 sec. with high column of smoke
17/0342 U-432 AL 0143 Steamer, 6000 T (1) Hit after 2 min. 30 sec. and sinking by stern
17/0343 U-432 AL 0143 Steamer, 5000 T (2) Missed, but observed detonation after 2 min. 55 sec. – assumed hit on ship beyond
17/0346 U-432 AL 0143 Steamer, 7000 T (1) Hit amidships after 1 min. 20 sec., broke in two and sank immediately
17/0400 U-432 AL 0143 Tanker, 12000 T (1) Hit aft after 41 sec., caught fire and stopped
17/0415 U-568 AL 0146 Destroyer, 1400 T (4) Hit after 1 min. 39 sec., broke in two and sank
17/0448 U-432 AL 0143 Tanker, 12000 Tf (1) Hit amidships after 31 sec., exploded and sank immediately
17/0538 U-553 AL 0143 Destroyer, Tribal T (2) Missed, surface runner
17/0602 U-568 AL 0155 Corvette T (1) Missed

U-553 attacks the non-warships between midnight (German time) and 7 minutes later. At 5 hours and 38 minutes U-553 attacks a Destroyer. Hmmmm, did U-553 run around and get in front of that convoy just to attack the destroyer or did it take a shot at a destroyer that had it pinned far behind the convoy?

U-558 attacks were made in 36 minutes.
U-432 attacks were made over 1 hour and 6 minutes
U-568 attacks made only on a destroyer and a corvette, ie sub-hunters not glued to the convoy.

And that I spotted in LESS THAN TWO MINUTES.

But hey Col, this is from the SAME SOURCE that you claim backs your view! So my question is simply How did you miss that, it being RIGHT AT THE TOP?

Even the freaking MAPS on that site show the subs operating on one area only!

Col_Sanders, you have this way of grabbing at PARTS of information that support your view and pushing those while, uh-Meh, blowing off and ignoring what does not even from the source that you claim backs your view. Your view is inconsistent with your own source, are you blind to that? Perhaps in the rush to attack what Waldo posted you just don't have time to see, absorb or understand anything that does not support your narrow view it is understandable in some warped manner how you can turn that source into evidence of what it completely is not?

From insults to methods you are very like a toned-down version of an earlier member here who was also very fond of using multiple accounts to hide behind and often to back himself up. But that troll has been banned and banned and perma-banned and banned under a half-dozen aliases so you can't be the same jerk can you?

And hey Casey, you still think that squinting real hard makes you fly Japanese planes better? The real question now is if there is some way you can actually read the material before agreeing on what it says!



From "Col_Sanders"

Meh, the point of contention was and always has been whether a submarine is faster than a convoy or not.

Wrong. That is your point not Waldo's. And you did choose to attack what Waldo posted.


You have stopped arguing that a submarine cannot because you finally understand that 17 > 10, therefore there is no longer a point of contention. I feel quite justified in taking this as concession.

You feel justified to reduce what Waldo posted to what you, not he, contends and can "win" over. Such grace!


Since you have conceded, I no longer feel obligated to correct such a blatant disregard for the historical facts on such a fundamental issue. Though you finally convinced me to actually go up to the attic and break out the books, they have now been put back and I will happily slip back into obscurity and let you hash out the details without my interference (which I wanted to do like 5 posts ago now).

Just WHAT is Waldo supposed to be conceding? Perhaps it is you who should concede your own ignorance?

Blatant disregard for the historical facts? You've -finally- linked to history and it does not support your view at all. Whereas Waldo started with historic sources. Who disregarded their source? Not Waldo. Who BLATANTLY disregarded their source to the point of picking out details to post while leaving others out that disprove the very thing that the picked details is supposed to show? Who posted U-boat numbers and times taken and used those to create an opposite impression from the very page they were taken from? There's even MAPS showing that the operation was confined to one area with no end-runs or other BS at all.

So now go get your books (as if some kind of threat to now get up a real effort) and "slip back into obscurity" as in please, is that a promise? Good luck with the books. At least there you can pick out the PARTS you need to construct your rhetoric from without having just anyone able to see the context they came from, or at least anyone who doesn't bother going to the library and hauling the same book out just to see what it REALLY says.

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 09:49 AM
The present topic aside.


And hey Casey, you still think that squinting real hard makes you fly Japanese planes better?

And your point is what? No, wait don't answer that cause I really don't care what you think.

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 10:02 AM
So you make a post to tell me not to explain my point that you ask what it is. I rest my case.

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So you make a post to tell me not to explain my point that you ask what it is. I rest my case.

Really? What case? I made a joke, it was funny, I sand by it. Do you know anything about me or my nationality? Besides anyone who took offense to it needs to lighten up. If not they have bigger issues they need to contend with.

Now, to my point. Why are you attacking me? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? I don't believe I have or tried to insult anyone in this discussion so why are you so angry? It's not very becoming of you. Try not to be so contentious. Your starting to sound like a flamer.

I was trying to be a bit of reason in this discussion as this topic doesn't warrant fighting over. The question posed, as maybe you didn't read me say earlier, was extremely vague and open ended. I have nothing against Waldo and both him and the Col make valid assertions.

But my point still remains, why are you attacking me? I didn't attack anyone. I simply pointed out to both the Col and Waldo they shouldn't be attacking one another or "gamers" as Waldo put it. And contributed my 2 secs toward what I have heard and read. But I am not convinced about your argument yet so keep digging and posting lots of info so we can make a more educated consensus. I guess the ONE last piece of data you sited which is obviously pertaining to wolfpack tactics explains the whole war. It by itself really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Not to mention you and Waldo seem to be fixated on the perception that all or even most convoys where escorted which is was simply not possible given the sheer volume of sea traffic. Resources could be better spend patrolling shipping lane and responding where the need arose.

And M-Gunz, next time before YOU feel like attacking someone, think about keeping your self righteous attitude to yourself first. It shows your insecurity. I'm sure you really thought you GOT me with that last remark, but sorry to disappoint you. Try not to be so angry.

I rest my case....Don't be a flamer. Now slip YOUR happy self back into obscurity.

Mayhem out...

ElAurens
07-21-2010, 11:05 AM
SH 4 works perfectly fine for me, patched to 1.5 and running the TMO 2.0 mod, with or without the RSRDC mod.

XP Pro, Service Pack 3.

And out running freighters is not hard.

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 11:06 AM
Casey: My case is that you don't bother with facts. You made it for me. You continue to do so.

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Casey: My case is that you don't bother with facts. You made it for me. You continue to do so.

Really? You know I really didn't want to have to crush you to death but you forced my hand. Here are your facts angry person. Read this and then please keep quiet.
Taken from Wikipedia. Anyone who wishes to contest it may do so by contacting Wikipedia at any time.

World War II

In World War II, submarine warfare was split into two main areas - the Atlantic and the Pacific. Although the war still waged in Africa, the Mediterranean Sea was also a very active area for submarine operations. This was particularly true for the British and French as well as the Germans. The Italians were also involved but achieved their greatest success using midget submarines and human torpedoes.
[edit] Atlantic ocean

Main article: Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)

In the Atlantic, where German submarines again acted against Allied convoys, this part of the war was very reminiscent of the latter part of World War I. Many British submarines were active as well, particularly in the Mediterranean and off Norway, against Axis warships, submarines and merchant shipping.

Initially Hitler ordered his submarines to abide by the Prize Rules but this restriction was withdrawn in December 1939. Although mass attacks by submarine had been carried out in the First World War, the "wolf pack" was mainly a tactic of the Second World War U-boats. The main steps in this tactic were as follows:

* A number of U-boats were dispersed across possible paths of a convoy.
* A boat sighting the convoys would signal its course, speed and composition to German Naval Command.
* The submarine continues to shadow the convoy, reporting any changes.
* The rest of the pack is then ordered to close to the first boat's position.
* When the pack is formed a coordinated attack is made on the surface at night.
* At dawn the pack withdraws leaving a shadower, and resumes the attack at dusk.

*REPEAT*
* At dawn the pack withdraws leaving a shadower, and resumes the attack at dusk.

So as you can see it was very possible for a WW2 sub to attack, leave and attack a moving convoys again. This example being with early sub types.

Early on these tactics were required solely. After 1939 the belt was loosened so to speak giving U-boat captains more freedom. This is not to say the tactics were not still employed.

References

1. ^ Tucker, Spencer; Priscilla Mary Roberts (Digitized by Google Books online), World War I: Encyclopedia

, London: ABC-CLIO, 312, ISBN 1851094202, 9781851094202, http://books.google.com/books?...lopedia&lr=&as_brr=0 (http://books.google.com/books?id=B1cMtKQP3P8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=World+War+I:+Encyclopedia&lr=&as_brr=0)


2. ^ Story of the U-21

, National Underwater and Marine Agency, http://www.numa.net/expeditions/u-21_1.html

, retrieved 2008-11-02
3. ^ Helgason, Guðmundur (2008), U 9

, Uboat.net, http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/index.html?boat=9

, retrieved 2008-11-02
4. ^ Blair, Clay, Jr. Silent Victory (New York, 1976), p.878.
5. ^ Blair, p.878.
6. ^ USS Albuquerque Joins San Diego-based Fleet, Contributes to Maritime Strategy


* John Abbatiello. Anti-Submarine Warfare in World War I: British Naval Aviation and the Defeat of the U-Boats (2005)
* Blair, Clay. Silent Victory: The U. S. Submarine War Against Japan 2 vol (1975)
* Gray, Edwyn A. The U-Boat War, 1914-1918 (1994)
* Preston, Anthony. The World's Greatest Submarines (2005).
* Roscoe, Theodore. United States Submarine Operations in World War II (US Naval Institute, 1949).
* van der Vat, Dan. The Atlantic Campaign Harper & Row, 1988. Connects submarine and antisubmarine operations between World War I and World War II, and suggests a continuous war.

Here is the quote made by the Col that seems to be so controversial.

quote:
Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
The most basic submarine tactic used by both US and German forces, and every other submarine force in the world for that matter, was what is called an end around.

Notice he claims it was the most basic, not the most used.

Here is Waldos quote...

I am sorry to be blunt Col_SandersLite, but this is a simplistic overstatement. Tactics vary, depending upon several factors. The year, the type of U-Boat attack. Whether it is an individual boat or a pack. I am sure that you know that but were merely constrained by time/space.

To more fully refute this claim of your I am attaching a portion of a book as a pdf. The chapter is called Tactics and Operations, from the book Wolfpack: The Story of the U-Boat in WW2. Here is the link.

http://rapidshare.com/files/40..._in_World_War_II.pdf

Well what I just posted seems to affirm that the tactic in question was well known and documented at least for the Germans. Was it always used? Of coarse not, but in my opinion Waldo got very defensive (somewhat rightly so) and started a wee bit of flamerly. You can argue this all day but the fact remains is was a well known, documented and used tactic which attest to the fact that the subs could outrun the merchant convoys at least on the surface and did engage in shadowing. So I really don't see how the Col's assumption is so wrong.

Now what was M-Gunz saying again?

Daiichidoku
07-21-2010, 11:57 AM
no need for that, rfxcasey, show some understanding

MGunz has troll tourettes..perhaps troll hypersensitivity as well...maybe an unpleassant troll molestation scene as a child left him this way

let him serve his purpose in life, and lead us into a brave new world of troll-lessness

all he does is point and shout "troll!" at most everyone, eventually he will have found them all

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
no need for that, rfxcasey, show some understanding

MGunz has troll tourettes..perhaps troll hypersensitivity as well...maybe an unpleassant troll molestation scene as a child left him this way

let him serve his purpose in life, and lead us into a brave new world of troll-lessness

all he does is point and shout "troll!" at most everyone, eventually he will have found them all

Well thank goodness someone with some sense. Cheers!

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
no need for that, rfxcasey, show some understanding

MGunz has troll tourettes..perhaps troll hypersensitivity as well...maybe an unpleassant troll molestation scene as a child left him this way

let him serve his purpose in life, and lead us into a brave new world of troll-lessness

all he does is point and shout "troll!" at most everyone, eventually he will have found them all

Coming from you, considering the BS PM you last sent, that is no surprise.
What other lies and mispellings do you want to inflict on me?

Maybe, maybe, maybe. What kinds of maybes apply to you, oh pure of post?

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 12:23 PM
Gee Casey, how can I stand up to such an impeccable source as WIKIPEDIA, where -anyone- can edit the articles?
It must be true! It's on the internet!

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 12:31 PM
OK this guy isn't worth arguing with. I rest my case. Your gonna have to finish your popcorn in the dark M_Gunz cause the Drama just ended. If you really want information from people who research the heck out of the subject go over the Uboat.net, but you won't and haven't as you don't want the knowledge you just want to argue. I will let all the rest of you be the judge so please do.

JtD
07-21-2010, 12:57 PM
There are about 5000 pages of German U-Boat war diaries out there, can be purchased and read by anyone.

Just an idea.

Daiichidoku
07-21-2010, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
considering the BS PM you last sent

i have never PM'd you, nor ever recieved any from you

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by rfxcasey:
@Col_SandersLite

The biggest indication for me that his thought process is as-cue has to be that one quote he made about allies being used to a pursuit of a 3 knot sub which was totally taken out of context.

Waldo's thinking is wrong because he covered the submerged chase angle by pointing that out as part of a long post?
And HE is taking words out of context?


He talks about the sub's desire for self preservation but makes it sound as if they were typically filled with cowering jellyfish of men.

Waldo made it sound like that? Cowering jellyfish?


In all fairness, I have to agree with the Col on this one. Things seem to be getting way off topic. The original argument was whether a WW2 sub could chase down a convoy or not.

Where did Waldo dispute that as a possibility? He even showed that it did happen.

Did you read what Waldo actually posted? Did you check his sources? Did you ask him about his conclusions?

Yes indeedy-do a sub could outrun a convoy. In doing so it would have to go miles around said convoy if said convoy had escorts. Why? Because even at half speed the sub made a lot of noise both in and over the water. Noise that could be heard miles away both over and in the water and identified as a speeding surfaced submarine.

So was what Waldo posted wrong, ie "chaff"?


Waldo.Pepper Posted Mon July 19 2010 00:34

Travelling at speed on the surface consumed enormous quantities of fuel. This made this impractical. Therefore, best practice was to intercept a convoy rather than have to race to intercept. Unlike in Bas Boot. Such a race is dramatic and a good device for the movie - but prohibitively impractical.

The very next post:

Col_SandersLite Posted Mon July 19 2010 02:05

Hi, lurker but don't want to pass this one up.

Waldo does not know what he's talking about. Not at all.

Since then he's turned it into what Waldo never posted but of course Waldo is still wrong. And you helped.

I don't say that Waldo has it 100% exact but he hasn't posted the kind of BS that Col_Sanders has, he has posted links to his sources that actually -do- back his words up rather than put the lie to them, and he has been credited with what he did not post at all. He has been disputed on the strength of what? Wikipedia. Posts on the Silent Hunter GAME forum. A post of historic material on another forum that actually does nothing to counter his view as the battle was not as portrayed by "I can't be bothered to get it right, I just grab some names and times and paint what I want" Sanders and what was the very next post with your response? Go back and read it. Did you bother to find out he was full of it?

What I wrote: My case is that you don't bother with facts. That's not Wikipedia, it's from your own posts.

thefruitbat
07-21-2010, 01:24 PM
i wonder if there is any subject that people won't argue about at the zoo, nonchalantly walks away.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
considering the BS PM you last sent

i have never PM'd you, nor ever recieved any from you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you say so

M_Gunz
07-21-2010, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
i wonder if there is any subject that people won't argue about at the zoo, nonchalantly walks away.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Someone posts something and then someone else says they're totally wrong and 3 pages later they prove something entirely different once they've finally figured out the first person is in fact not wrong at all.

Here: I just looked out the window and the sky is mostly cloudy.
Lets see how wrong I am about that?

rfxcasey
07-21-2010, 02:11 PM
Hey, if a wolfpack is vectored in by a shadower, wouldn't that constitute "racing to intercept"? I mean after all you don't wanna be late for the party.

Or what about this quote "The U-boats needed a high surface speed to get to their hunting grounds along trade routes, and also to catch convoys once sighted." I guess high surface speed, or the word catch don't mean the same thing as race?

But right before that the conversation goes...

Or were u boats actually fast enough to catch a convoy and take shots as it pleased?

Travelling at speed on the surface consumed enormous quantities of fuel. This made this impractical. Therefore, best practice was to intercept a convoy rather than have to race to intercept. Unlike in Bas Boot. Such a race is dramatic and a good device for the movie - but prohibitively impractical.

So on one hand, don't try to catch your enemy, but on the other, you have to catch your enemy.

He contradicts himself.

I just want to set him off again.

It's sunny here. So yeah, you are still wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

thefruitbat
07-21-2010, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
i wonder if there is any subject that people won't argue about at the zoo, nonchalantly walks away.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Someone posts something and then someone else says they're totally wrong and 3 pages later they prove something entirely different once they've finally figured out the first person is in fact not wrong at all.

Here: I just looked out the window and the sky is mostly cloudy.
Lets see how wrong I am about that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, I just looked out of my window, and its clear, you must be wrong, check your sources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

FoolTrottel
07-21-2010, 02:41 PM
Me thinks this thread has run its course.

Repeated attacks do get boring.

It's enough now.

Locking.