Of all the navies, of all the world in WW-ll, this ship fascinates me the most. I am, of course, talking about the type XXl "Elektro-boat" submarine of the German navy. In my opinion had the boat been available two years earlier it could have had a huge impact on the war, especially considering there was no real "technical reason" it couldnt have been.
The Germans underestimated the danger radar and patrol planes would be to their submarine fleet. As it was the Elektro-boats came to late to have an impact.
The type XXl........A war winner?
The XXl was different however. First off there wasn't any new technologies the boats were dependant on. Basically they were very big U-boats with very big batterys, and, a schnorkel. The important thing however is they were designed to operate for long periods underwater, and were far more capable operating as lone wolves instead of in packs.
For much of WW-ll the German U-boat service fought a WW-l war. They didnt anticipate the impact new technologies and air power would have on U-boat operations in time. The Allies would have had a real hard time with the XXl's had they appeared in '43/'44 when the tide was turning against the U-boats.
For much of WW-ll the German U-boat service fought a WW-l war. They didnt anticipate the impact new technologies and air power would have on U-boat operations in time. The Allies would have had a real hard time with the XXl's had they appeared in '43/'44 when the tide was turning against the U-boats.
Before you dismiss the possible impact of this boat keep in mind a few facts. First off, if first introduced in 1942/'43, the Elektro Boat would have been virtually un-stoppable. To begin with the EB would have been able to traverse the bay of Biscayne, and the area around Britain, with impunity because it would never have to surface. Once out in the open ocean the EB would have been able to approach, attack, and evade their enemy at high underwater speeds due to its tremendous battery capacity. Even worse, the boat had an auto-loader for its torpedoes and it could re-arm all six tubes within 10 minutes. Which was a tremendous improvement.
In short the boat could make way underwater for up to 3 days at a time at speeds from 4 to 8 knots. And then to fully re-charge she would only have to schnorchel for 3 to 5 hours, again staying underwater. Keep in mind that 56% of U-boats lost in the war were lost from attacks of enemy air craft.
She had a range of over 15,000 miles at 10 knots so she was a true blue water submarine. She could also dive to over 900' which gave her a tremendous advantage to the crude sonar of the day. EB would have no problem finding cold layers to hide under.
And last the EB was probably the Germans most successful example of an assembly line system of the war. They could have constructed dozens of them in that time frame, and that would have been a huge problem for the Allies during the critical supply buildup phase, pre-Normandy invasion.
There was no real technical obstacle that prevented the Germans from launching EB two years earlier. They just didn't want to expend the resources to do so. That, and they underestimated the Allied ability to improve their anti-sub resources.
If the Germans would have stayed focused on their submarine fleet, instead of spending so many resources on surface assets that had such little impact, we'd of had a huge problem.
XXI would have been a serious menace if she'd have launched in '42.
In short the boat could make way underwater for up to 3 days at a time at speeds from 4 to 8 knots. And then to fully re-charge she would only have to schnorchel for 3 to 5 hours, again staying underwater. Keep in mind that 56% of U-boats lost in the war were lost from attacks of enemy air craft.
She had a range of over 15,000 miles at 10 knots so she was a true blue water submarine. She could also dive to over 900' which gave her a tremendous advantage to the crude sonar of the day. EB would have no problem finding cold layers to hide under.
And last the EB was probably the Germans most successful example of an assembly line system of the war. They could have constructed dozens of them in that time frame, and that would have been a huge problem for the Allies during the critical supply buildup phase, pre-Normandy invasion.
There was no real technical obstacle that prevented the Germans from launching EB two years earlier. They just didn't want to expend the resources to do so. That, and they underestimated the Allied ability to improve their anti-sub resources.
If the Germans would have stayed focused on their submarine fleet, instead of spending so many resources on surface assets that had such little impact, we'd of had a huge problem.
XXI would have been a serious menace if she'd have launched in '42.
No doubt it was outstanding boat.
But Panther or Me 262, or V2 was also modern weapons, and they only keep 3rd reich alive few years more. Who knows what could be response of Brits and Americans if XXI started bites their convoys? Maybe new sonar, radar or new destroyer or plane? And how many u-boats could Germans produce. It will be another mysterious story of WWII
But Panther or Me 262, or V2 was also modern weapons, and they only keep 3rd reich alive few years more. Who knows what could be response of Brits and Americans if XXI started bites their convoys? Maybe new sonar, radar or new destroyer or plane? And how many u-boats could Germans produce. It will be another mysterious story of WWII
The U-boat was a strategic impact weapon. The XXI could have attacked at the weak link of the Allied effort, the Atlantic ocean expanse that was crucial to sustaining a ground effort in Europe. They damn near did it with their regular submarines and it would have taken years to develop some kind of defense against this beast.
Meanwhile the odds for a settlement in the West would have increased and the war in the east probably could have been settled with acceptable territorial gains. The Russians aren't stupid and without the possibility of another front opening up they may have made a deal.
Another such weapon with such possibilities was nerve gas. The Germans were the ones who discovered sarin, Tabun, and soman, and had a huge lead in gas stockpiles.
Meanwhile the odds for a settlement in the West would have increased and the war in the east probably could have been settled with acceptable territorial gains. The Russians aren't stupid and without the possibility of another front opening up they may have made a deal.
Another such weapon with such possibilities was nerve gas. The Germans were the ones who discovered sarin, Tabun, and soman, and had a huge lead in gas stockpiles.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
The opinion that the Type XXI could have been a war-winner comes from....the American flag officer in charge of a flotilla of German submarines sailed back to the USA after the war for evaluation. He chose the XXI as his flagship, and was amazed at the vessel. Twenty years ahead of comparable Allied vessels. And not apparently surpassed until many of its innovations were designed into very late-generation diesel boats of the Cold War period.
Phylo
Phylo
Avete,
If the type XXIs had been produced in the numbers that Doenitz had wanted the type XIIs and IXs manufactured, England quite possibly would have choked. Even if the type XXIs had been produced in small numbers initially, Hitler may have increased their production after having become aware of their successess. But then again, maybe not.
Valete,
-Spandau
If the type XXIs had been produced in the numbers that Doenitz had wanted the type XIIs and IXs manufactured, England quite possibly would have choked. Even if the type XXIs had been produced in small numbers initially, Hitler may have increased their production after having become aware of their successess. But then again, maybe not.
Valete,
-Spandau
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Rich,
Surely many a weapon taken out of its historical context and deposited in an earlier era would also be a war winner?
Furthermore, with hindsight one can almost always see shortcuts that would have speeded their development and blind alleys that could have been avoided.
In answer to your question, yes, the Type XXI might well have been a war winner under different circumstances. If significant production had begun in 1942 it would very probably have had a major impact in mid 1943, when the U-boat war was in reality lost. However, there is a Catch-22 - it was also this defeat in mid-1943 that gave the Type XXI programme its real impetus.
Cheers,
Sid.
Surely many a weapon taken out of its historical context and deposited in an earlier era would also be a war winner?
Furthermore, with hindsight one can almost always see shortcuts that would have speeded their development and blind alleys that could have been avoided.
In answer to your question, yes, the Type XXI might well have been a war winner under different circumstances. If significant production had begun in 1942 it would very probably have had a major impact in mid 1943, when the U-boat war was in reality lost. However, there is a Catch-22 - it was also this defeat in mid-1943 that gave the Type XXI programme its real impetus.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
Type XXI was NOT a war winner.
1) Beacuse the necessary counter weapon (the US made acoustic torpedo Mark 24, was yet in use since late 1943).
2) Because type XXI technology (its new batteries) was yet available in 1938.
Even if, in theory, a mass production of hight standard level (i.e. without the many defects of the 1943-1945 multi assembled stock XXI boats) since 1939 of the XXI like the VII and IX, was, theorically, possible, it would have been the wrong weapon against convoys as the problem, until 1941, was to attack in surface against low escorted trumps. Type VII could do this work, type XXI, a pure submarine and not a TB with the ability to submerge herself for a while, not.
In 1941-1943 the Allied escorts number and, above all, tactics and doctrine, were better, but still type VII was the right solution for that kind of war.
Since Oct. 1943 the matter was an academic one as the USA Liberty and Victory freighters was beyond any destruction capacity by a submarine force.
The USA shipyard system and the not fantastic, but enough level of the USN and American merchant fleet training activity to have new sailors was, simply, a too much morsel for the Axis (the same for the Russian Army divisions; they were simply too many, since 1941 until 1945).
What a pity again.
EC
1) Beacuse the necessary counter weapon (the US made acoustic torpedo Mark 24, was yet in use since late 1943).
2) Because type XXI technology (its new batteries) was yet available in 1938.
Even if, in theory, a mass production of hight standard level (i.e. without the many defects of the 1943-1945 multi assembled stock XXI boats) since 1939 of the XXI like the VII and IX, was, theorically, possible, it would have been the wrong weapon against convoys as the problem, until 1941, was to attack in surface against low escorted trumps. Type VII could do this work, type XXI, a pure submarine and not a TB with the ability to submerge herself for a while, not.
In 1941-1943 the Allied escorts number and, above all, tactics and doctrine, were better, but still type VII was the right solution for that kind of war.
Since Oct. 1943 the matter was an academic one as the USA Liberty and Victory freighters was beyond any destruction capacity by a submarine force.
The USA shipyard system and the not fantastic, but enough level of the USN and American merchant fleet training activity to have new sailors was, simply, a too much morsel for the Axis (the same for the Russian Army divisions; they were simply too many, since 1941 until 1945).
What a pity again.
EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.
The biggest enemy to U-boats after 1942 was aircraft, regardless of what they were armed with. Fido was a good weapon but first the U-boat had to be located and the torp dropped in the water near where it had submerged. It wasnt like you could just drop it in the ocean and it would find the sub on its own. Successful FIDO attacks invariably started with a sighting of the sub. FIDO could also be out-ran and out-survived because they only had a small explosive charge. XXl would have actually been quite safe from FIDO. She could outrun it, out dive it, out-survive a hit, and probably wouldnt have had to do any of the three because we never would have know where XXl was in the first place to drop FIDO.
Since the XXl would have never surfaced how would you know where it was? Unless you got lucky and saw its schnorkal, or the seas were calm enough to reflect it on radar. Even if you did find the boat it could evade FIDO just like it could evade sonar and that by its high submerged speed and incredable diving depth.
The tactics that worked during "the happy days" with the Vllc's...ect were exactly the tactics that doomed them. That is, attacking on the surface . "If" they even made it thru the valley of death in the first place. The XXls would have made it on station safely, to begin with, and once a convoy was spotted she could broadcast its location for other subs. From there she could approach by stealth, launch her torpedos, and evade at high speed. All the time underwater. And she could re-load quickly and attack again. 3 or 4 of them could have decimated a convoy.
Many people have the mistaken impression that U-boat "pack" tactics were highly organized attacks. Its true there was a certain degree of coordination but the U-boat by its defination is a lone wolf and they always operated with a high degree of self suffeciency.
By '43/'44 the USN got very,very good at dealing with U-boats. Thats because the USN is "very good" period. What was needed was different tactics and a different weapon. XXl was just such a weapon. When I started the thread I said that there were no "technical reasons" why XXl couldnt have been launched earlier in the war.
If the Germans had done so the Allies would have had a huge problem. The XXl would have negated the threat of air power, the valley of death, convoy escorts, and FIDO would have had no impact against her. If she was around in the all important '42/'43/'44 time frame, and in enough numbers, she could have prevented, or greatly hindered, the supply by sea of the Allied war effort and forced them to cancel a Jun '44 invasion plan.
Since the XXl would have never surfaced how would you know where it was? Unless you got lucky and saw its schnorkal, or the seas were calm enough to reflect it on radar. Even if you did find the boat it could evade FIDO just like it could evade sonar and that by its high submerged speed and incredable diving depth.
The tactics that worked during "the happy days" with the Vllc's...ect were exactly the tactics that doomed them. That is, attacking on the surface . "If" they even made it thru the valley of death in the first place. The XXls would have made it on station safely, to begin with, and once a convoy was spotted she could broadcast its location for other subs. From there she could approach by stealth, launch her torpedos, and evade at high speed. All the time underwater. And she could re-load quickly and attack again. 3 or 4 of them could have decimated a convoy.
Many people have the mistaken impression that U-boat "pack" tactics were highly organized attacks. Its true there was a certain degree of coordination but the U-boat by its defination is a lone wolf and they always operated with a high degree of self suffeciency.
By '43/'44 the USN got very,very good at dealing with U-boats. Thats because the USN is "very good" period. What was needed was different tactics and a different weapon. XXl was just such a weapon. When I started the thread I said that there were no "technical reasons" why XXl couldnt have been launched earlier in the war.
If the Germans had done so the Allies would have had a huge problem. The XXl would have negated the threat of air power, the valley of death, convoy escorts, and FIDO would have had no impact against her. If she was around in the all important '42/'43/'44 time frame, and in enough numbers, she could have prevented, or greatly hindered, the supply by sea of the Allied war effort and forced them to cancel a Jun '44 invasion plan.
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
Acustic buoys, son.
And dont'forget a VII boat could do many attacks, at night, surfacing, while a XXI just a single one, as the batteries, at top speed, allowed only a run after the launch; then it couls only evade slowly waiting the next day for charge them again.
An other detail: XXI boats were sailing, at sea, surfaced, like a pig. VII not. It's a long way for the middle Atlantic.
The time a 1942 XXI had arrived in the patrol zone the double of the freighters, stragglers included, would have arrived to the Western Approaches.
The situation since the Seventies was different (not only in the technology field) as there were not many targets like the decades before. Merchant ships were few and quite bigger. In these conditions a single success become quite more improtant.
Bye
EC
And dont'forget a VII boat could do many attacks, at night, surfacing, while a XXI just a single one, as the batteries, at top speed, allowed only a run after the launch; then it couls only evade slowly waiting the next day for charge them again.
An other detail: XXI boats were sailing, at sea, surfaced, like a pig. VII not. It's a long way for the middle Atlantic.
The time a 1942 XXI had arrived in the patrol zone the double of the freighters, stragglers included, would have arrived to the Western Approaches.
The situation since the Seventies was different (not only in the technology field) as there were not many targets like the decades before. Merchant ships were few and quite bigger. In these conditions a single success become quite more improtant.
Bye
EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
A "real naval historian" ? Enrico I couldnt understand a thing you were saying. Maybe Sid could interpret since he such an obvious genius.Enrico Cernuschi wrote:Acustic buoys, son.
And dont'forget a VII boat could do many attacks, at night, surfacing, while a XXI just a single one, as the batteries, at top speed, allowed only a run after the launch; then it couls only evade slowly waiting the next day for charge them again.
An other detail: XXI boats were sailing, at sea, surfaced, like a pig. VII not. It's a long way for the middle Atlantic.
The time a 1942 XXI had arrived in the patrol zone the double of the freighters, stragglers included, would have arrived to the Western Approaches.
The situation since the Seventies was different (not only in the technology field) as there were not many targets like the decades before. Merchant ships were few and quite bigger. In these conditions a single success become quite more improtant.
Bye
EC
Heres what I "think" you said. According to paragraph.
1, You somehow seem under the impression that only the Vll had diesel engines and the XXl's didnt, or, "couldnt" attack at night or on the surface. Since such a 'surface attack", from '43 on, would most likely get you killed why would you consider such an ability an asset in the first place? Thats the whole point! That the surface attacks by the U-boats were getting them wiped off the sea's which is why they needed a boat better able to attack "under" the water.
Now a serious naval historian like you or Sid might contemplate the fact that post WW-ll successful submarine designs and tactics only included boats that operated independentaly for long periods underwater. We are still in that operational concept. A submarine that surfaces is a submarine that is dead. The point is that the Germans beat us to it with XXl and would have had a tremendous advantage had they pressed its service.
And it didnt have to "then it couls only evade slowly waiting the next day for charge them again." It could "evade quickly" as in 17 knots underwater for up to 1&1/2 hours.
2, Your second paragraph is hard to understand. I suspect only serious naval historians can do so. Can you try it again in a language your familiar with. Let me worry about getting it translated.
3, Were not talking about the 70's. Were talking about 1943, at least I am. What are you talking about? In the 70s we had a great deal of our equipment pre-positioned already in Europe and personel could be flown in on commercial aircraft. In '43 we were totally dependant on shipping for both materials and personel and had nothing pre-positioned.
The Germans almost won the battle of the Atlantic even with submarines that were surface dependant, which was also their greatest handicap. With XXl it wasnt!
Your post made no sense. But at least you tried, unlike Sid, who I think is going to end up in "the insulting fool" category.