The type XXl........A war winner?

[Rich47]

The captured XXl's were critical in the construction of the new "Tang" class USN submarines in that such XXL innovations like a streamlined hull, pressure hull, better high tensile steel, the schnorkal, far larger batteries and better electric engines, and were the first Yank subs capable of operating like a XXl. That is diving deep, moving silently, and doing so for extended periods under the water.

While they certainly were not exact reproductions of the XXl, the elektroboat had great influence in both design and tactics for all future submarine development. And since the Tang class had great influence on the development of the nuclear powered Nautilus, Seawolf, and Skate class..........well........maybe now you can see just how important the XXl was. Even someone that doesnt want to see it should at least be able to do so.

In a nutshell the German type XXl revolutionized submarine warfare!

[Enrico Cernuschi]

We all agree type XXI was a decisive step in submarine warfare. it was not, anyway, a war winning weapon like could have been some nukes in Hitler's hands in 1940, maybe with a battery of Minutemen ICBMs too.

EC

[Sam H.]

I think 100 operational XXi's in 1943 could very well have been a war winner. By the end of 1942, the war in the Atlantic was very much in doubt, it 1943 had seen more extensive losses than 1942, any allied offensive operations would have been in jeopardy.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Sam,

That brings us back to an earlier point - many a weapon that was uplifted from its own time and dropped into an earlier period might be decisive. However, this widely applicable truism is not a particularly profound insight of itself.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sam H.]

Sid,

I agree, my comment was directed to Enrico Cernuschi who drew an analogy to nukes. Many weapons from latter years could have changed the tide if introduced earlier.

Sam

[Enrico Cernuschi]

Hi Sam,

if Hitler's nukes shock you what about a pair of heavy machine guns to old Hannibal facing the Romans at Zama? The result is always the same.

Bye

EC

[Imad]

We all agree type XXI was a decisive step in submarine warfare. it was not, anyway, a war winning weapon like could have been some nukes in Hitler's hands in 1940, maybe with a battery of Minutemen ICBMs too.

EC

Ciao Enrico
I don't think anyone has a problem with the fact that the type XXI was brilliantly revolutionary. I think some of us in this forum, myself included, would like to see more evidence that threat Britain faced in the Atlantic was as exaggerated as you think it was. Why, for example, did Churchill say that the war in the Atlantic gave him more sleepless nights than any other theatre? If he was exaggerating, what was the motive? And I would like to see some documentation for the %1 figure you gave above.
Imad

[Enrico Cernuschi]

Hello Imad,

Churchill had a deep sense of drama. I yet mentioned Clay Blair's book (someone said it was debated, but I would like very much to know the charges).
I could suggest, anyway, a simple glance at Capt. S.W. Roskill "The Navy at War 1939-1945" edited by Collins in 1960, pg. 451. It's a classic. It states: "Ocean convoys. a total of 2,889 escorted trade convoys were run to and from UK. Out of 85,775 ships that sailed in them, 654 were sunk, a loss rate of only 0,7 per cent.

The same number for the coastal ones gives a "...loss rate of 0.14 per cent".

I believe that if it was necessary (as it was) to bring the Yanks at war against Germany to lie about the real condition of British trade was a minor pity.
The real problem was after 1945 as any doubt about the many propaganda and not so innocent lies by the British would put in jeopardy their whole monument. They chose (it was the only way) to remain faithful at even the most absurd of their original versions. Like a perfect mafioso they denied stubbornly evidence. And we must be grateful too, as if they had admitted just a little 1% of their lies we would not being here, now, debating until the end of the centuries the strange case of Dr. UK and Mr. Britannia.

Bye

EC

[Imad]

so the bottom line is - even a successful U boat war could not have brought Britain to its kneew?
Imad

[Enrico Cernuschi]

A successful U Boat war able to stop British imports through the Atlantic was not possible.
As a matter of fact the Axis trade war was a success as it changed the political terms of the war. Since 29 March 1943 the British war was over, with its 1938 aims. The Red Ensign had been melt, that day, in an American 100% controlled pool which dictated, until 1945, the strategy of the Allies.
It was no more the British conflict, but a USA one with the goals (quite different and, about Italy, much more merciful than the original UK ones).
London had accepted this surrender, after three years of lips service in front of the American request of a future, open market giving up the 1931 Imperial preference system, as the only British merchant fllet was by now unable, after three years of war, to supply the British islands. They needed 2 millions of American new freighters (whoich become 2,5 until 1948, when Britain, at least, recovered the necessary tonnage).

The Axis trade war had, so, quite an interesting political result, but it could defeat the British strategy, not the American one. They were too much strong (and I don't mean only the shipyards capacity; these Liberties had to be manned and the Yanks were able to train the sailors too; that was the real enterprise).

You can find plenty of infos in the excellent Kevin Smith, Conflict Over Convoys, ed. Cambridge, 1996.


Bye

EC

[Rich47]

Hi Sam,

That brings us back to an earlier point - many a weapon that was uplifted from its own time and dropped into an earlier period might be decisive. However, this widely applicable truism is not a particularly profound insight of itself.

Cheers,

Sid.

The difference being there was no technological/industrial barrier to the XXl being available in 1942. Its not like were saying, "what if the A-bomb were available in 1942". This is something quite different. The XXl really could have been there in '42 had the Germans the will and forsight to. Instead Hitler didnt really have a disciplined military mind. Or, a very disciplined mind at all, and if youv read about his life this is something that keeps popping up.

In fairness he'd been a brave soldier and had great Political instincts on a localized scale.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Rich,

I rather think it is very much like saying the atom bomb really could have been there in '42 had the Germans the will and foresight to. After all, the world's leading nuclear theoreticians were German citizens in the 1920s and 1930s. They had the head start and a bit of will and foresight might have led to a very different outcome. There isn't a weapon that has ever been invented that couldn't have been available earlier had greater will and foresight been there.

Cheers.

Sid.

[Spandau]

Avete,

but the fact that the U-boats didn't have snorkels to begin with....

Valete,

-Spandau

[Rich47]

Hi Rich,

I rather think it is very much like saying the atom bomb really could have been there in '42 had the Germans the will and foresight to. After all, the world's leading nuclear theoreticians were German citizens in the 1920s and 1930s. They had the head start and a bit of will and foresight might have led to a very different outcome. There isn't a weapon that has ever been invented that couldn't have been available earlier had greater will and foresight been there.

Cheers.

Sid.

Thats a difficult "what if". To begin with the A-bomb was a huge gamble, unlike an advanced submarine built by the worlds most advanced submarine building country. Secondly the Manhatten project was such a huge undertaking its doubtful Germany could have pursued her war aims and fainanced such a huge project at the same time. Especially after losing the heavy water plant in Norway.

Schnorkals were not exactly revolutionary. Theyv been around since 1938 and the Germans got their hands on them when they over-ran the Dutch in 1940. They simply didnt develope them until U-boat losses became extreme.

So there-in lies the rube. XXl wasnt around sooner because the Germans didnt think it was necessary. Not because they couldnt build it. The A-bomb wasnt around sooner because nobody could build it sooner.

[Spandau]

Schnorkals were not exactly revolutionary. Theyv been around since 1938 and the Germans got their hands on them when they over-ran the Dutch in 1940. They simply didnt develope them until U-boat losses became extreme.

Ave Rich,

That is what it makes it so foolish, the schnorkals weren't revolutionary! The Dutch navy had them, it would have been relatively easy for the Kriegsmarine to equip them!

Vale,

-Spandau