- Thread starter
-
- #521
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I always thought we were a democracy, must have missed something along the way.Big Mouth Churchill´s bully attitude in his so-called "mission" to "save" the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" .
A problem I admit, I can live with.The problem being, Great Britain is way different to the Soviet Union.
the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" kept
I am inclined to believe that Britain a.) could not have increased shipping tonnage at expense of anti-sub, or b.) could not have sustained Britain in context of fuel and food through 1943 - absent some amazingly efficient breakthroughs in detection and sub sinking technologies.
drgondog said:I don't know how important the 50 Lend Lease destroyers were to Britain, but I do know how important our ship building and steady stream of supplies were to marginally overcome the Atlantic threat in 1943 - after 18 months of our own dedication. I still do not know how Britain would have kept supply chain going from Canada or Africa/Middle East
drgondog said:Does US abstinance from U-Boat campaign significantly weaken Britain's ability to keep sea lanes open I know we made no significant difference in 1940-1942 except for replacement of hulls and crews and war material, and introduction of long range patrols and Finally USN support beyond Greenland and Iceland. Canada and GB doing heavy lifting on escort in that time..
The UK and Canada had enough aircraft to protect the sea lanes, the problem was that Bomber command refused to release them.
What about US based training of commonwealth pilots free of interference from Germany, provision of replacement vessels (and cargo) of U-boat sinkings, capacity of British based shipyards and labor force dedication to rebuilding fleet attrition, etc.
The Commonwealth had a large pilot training based in Canada.
The US was not able to supply vessels in a significant amount until mid 1943, they first had to replace their own losses from 1942, and to increase their shipping required for moving troops supplies, especially to the seaborne operations in the Pacific.
I just remain unconvinced that Britain had the manufacturing capacity to replace enough sunk cargo vessels to carry the supplies.
Read below...
But I have been wrong before.
The Battle of the Atlantic was won by the Allies by the Allies by the summer of 1943, in the space of about two months, but there was no single reason for this, it was a combination of technology tactics. The disastrous convoy battles of October 1940 forced a change in British tactics. The most important of these was the introduction of permanent escort groups to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of ships and men in battle. British efforts were helped by a gradual increase in the number of escort vessels available as the old ex-American destroyers and the new British- and Canadian-built Flower class corvettes were now coming into service in numbers. Many of these ships became part of the huge expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy.
The mid-Atlantic gap that had been unreachable by aircraft was closed by long-range aircraft. By spring 1943 the British had developed an effective sea-scanning centimetric radar small enough to be carried on patrol aircraft armed with airborne depth charges. Centimetric radar greatly improved detection and nullified the German Metox radar warning equipment. Further protection was provided by the introduction of escort aircraft carriers, they provided the much needed air cover and patrols all the way across the Atlantic.
The British introduced the first escort Carrier "HMS Audacity" in June of 1941, and proved to be very effective, leading to the building of 100's more.
The continual breaking of the German naval Enigma enabled the Allied convoys to evade the wolf packs while Naval support groups were able to hunt U-boats that approached the convoys or whose positions were revealed by Enigma decrypts.
The British introduced of the Leigh Light in June 1942 which enabled accurate attacks on U-boats re-charging their batteries on the surface at night. Previously U-boats were quite safe from aircraft at night, since the deployment of an illuminating flare gave adequate warning of an attack. The Leigh Light was a powerful searchlight that was automatically aligned with the airborne radar to illuminate targets suddenly while in the final stages of an attack run. This let British aircraft attack U-boats recharging batteries on the surface at night, forcing German submarine skippers to switch to daytime recharges.The U-Boat commanders who survived reported a particular fear of this weapon system since the hum of an aircraft was inaudible at night above the noise of the boat. A drop in Allied shipping losses from 600,000 to 200,000 tonnes per month was partly attributed to this ingenious device.
By late 1942, the British had developed a another new weapon, and warships were being fitted with the ''Hedgehog'' anti-submarine mortar which fired twenty-four contact-fused bombs directly 'ahead' of the attacking ship. Unlike depth charges, which exploded at certain set depths 'behind' the attacking warship disturbing the water and making it hard to keep track of the target, Hedgehog charges only exploded if they hit a U-boat. This meant that a U-boat could be continuously tracked and attacked until it was sunk. The Hedgehog was a particularly effective weapon, raising the percentage of kills from 7% of attacks to nearer 25%. When one of the Hedgehog charges exploded, it set off the others which increased the weapon's effectiveness.
The U.S., having no direct experience of modern naval war on its own shores, did not employ convoys or coastal black-outs. The U.S. Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Ernest King, who hated the British, initially rejected these when suggested by the Royal Navy. King has been criticized for this decision, but his defenders argue that the United States destroyer fleet was limited, and King claimed that it was far more important that the destroyers protect Allied troop transports than shipping. This does not explain the refusal to require coastal black-outs, or to respond to any advice the Royal Navy provided. Merchant ships sailing in U.S. waters were left exposed and suffered greatly. Britain eventually had to build coastal escorts and provide them for free to the U.S. in a "reverse Lend Lease", since King was unwilling (or unable) to make any provision himself.
In May, Admiral King finally scraped together enough ships to institute a convoy system. This quickly led to the loss of seven U-boats. But the U.S. did not have enough ships to cover all the holes, and the U-boats continued to operate freely during the Battle of the Caribbean and throughout the Gulf of Mexico where they effectively closed several U.S. ports until July, when the British-loaned escorts began arriving. The institution of an interlocking convoy system on the American coast and in the Caribbean Sea in mid-1942 resulted in an immediate drop in attacks in those areas.
Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.
They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night.
Try imagining what would have happened if Churchill hadn't been around.
Large numbers of senior members of Parliment and business were for an agreement with Germany. Its by no means certain that war would have been declared and Germany could have concentrated on Russia and life would be very different.
Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.
They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night.
But the U-Boat skippers didnt know that. All they knew was some destroyer was near by with depth charges erady to drop on them.
Keeping a u-boat submerged and unable to attack is almost as good as damaging it.
Excellent posts, Freebird. You've just thrown the idea of Britain being unable to fight the U-boats on its own out of the window. I'm sorry but anyone elses argument against Freebirds postings on the British anti-submarine war have to be abandoned...they really do.
No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.
I agree Syscom. It is one thing to assert that RN MIGHT be able to prevail, quite a different thing to prove it. Particularly if RN has to contend with combined fleets of Japan (however limited in Atlantic) plus Italy plus Germany.
Having said that it is silly to say anyone has to Prove anything - this has been logic based speculation at best.