German commando attack on the US, Canada Alaska

[Freebird]

Hot bunking was done when all 22 torps were carried, which filled up a lot of space in the torpedo rooms, space where there could be a lot of extra bunks. But that's not the only place the crew sometimes slept, they also made some nice little beds on the flor occasionally.

If some of the crew look like this lady then double-bunking will NOT be a problem!

 

[parsifal]

Here is a link to the missions undertaken by the USN subs, for transport type missions

WWII US Submarine Special Transport Missions in the Pacific During World War II 1941 to 1945

Now, as you can see, there are a lot of missions undertaken, and some involving quite large numbers of people. However, there needs to be word of caution thrown in. Firstly, the evac missions are not comparable to a commando raid, because they would be unlikely to involve a large amount of stores and equipment, and secondly so long as you get your evacuees out alive, the mission is a success...it doesn't matter what state they are in when they disembark, so long as they are OK.

Now, we should also compare the available hardware, of both the German Navy, and the USN. As you can see, a lot of the missions were undertaken by regular USN fleet boats, which typically were the gato class. These boats had a deep load displacement of 2400 tons, so were quite large in comparison to the German counterparts. But perhaps it is best to look at the two "commando" subs, the Nautilus and the Narwhal, and specifically compare them to what might be available to the Germans.

Nautilus and Narwhal were quite old subs, but they were unique in that they were designed as mine layer. They reportedly were designed to carry up to 200 mines II RC. They were huge boats as well, with a deep load displacement of over 4000 tons. This enable them to carry a full company (less one rifle section) per boat, so that for the famous raid on Makin in August 1942, the two boats were able to land 211 men, and over 30 tons of stores, but only after they had been converted to the purpose. This conversion took about 4 months to complete, from Pearl Harbour through to some time in April. From that point until the actual operation, the Boats and the commandos were in training, although the actual target was not finalized until June.

Finally, it is worthwhile to take note of the actual time spent at sea, the boats cleared PH 9 August, spent two days on station, and returned to PH 26 August. Total Mission time was 16 days, and total sea time was 14 days

Now, lets compare that to the likely German capability. Sorens suggestion is that the mission takes place early 1942, and that it would involve about 30 commandos. He has not stated the amount of cargo being hauled, but from the looks of it, it could be conservatively estimated to be about 30 tons.

Now if the mission is to take place in early 1942, it immediately rules out using the biggest of the German boats, the Type IXD2, because these were not ready until later in 1942. Moreover, they would have needed some time to be made suitable for this purpose, as we have see, it took the American 4 months to convert the Nautilus and Narwhal, so it seems reasonable to estimate that the Type IXD2s would not be ready until the end of 1942, at the earliest. So this mission, in order to be carried out at the times designated would necessarily have to rely on one of the earlier types, most likely a Type IXC. These boats have a deep load displacement of 1200 tons, so, on a straight comparison of displacement alone, they are going to be able to carry about 32 troops. However, the difficulty with this, is the mission time. To complete the German mission, the total mission is going to be about 33 days, 14 days outbound, 14 days return journey, and Say about seven days at the target. If the troops are to arrive in any sort of combat capable state, the numbers per boat will have to drop. having spent time on a submarine, they are a most uncomfortable means of transport. If you apply the rule of thumb, and apply the mission time to a range to payload equation, you arrive at a carrying capacity per boat of about 16 troops per boat. Now that means a minimum of two boats to complete the mission.

On top of that you need to consider the down time for the boats themselves. Based on the US experience, it would take about 4 months to make the conversion, and another 3 months to train for the mission, and then another say two months to return the boats to normal operations. And there is also the mission time itself. All up your two boats are unavailable for other missions for at least 10 months, a massive cost in the tonnage war.


Missions of this type are certainly possible. The Australians undertook two extremely daring anti shipping missions into Singapore harbor, the most famous of which involved the use of a small trawler, the MV Krait. These raids cost the Japanese over 40000 tons of shipping, but required many months of advance planning to implement.

For the Germans, I think a far more cost effective approach would be to engage in an intensive mine laying campaign in the Caribbean by as many blockade runners as they could lay their hands on. Even a modest mine laying campaign would have disrupted the movement of vital fuel oil for months, and caused serious dislocation to Allied economic development. And at no cost to the all important tonnage war, which had to be pursued relentlessly, if there was any hope of winning in 1942.

For those interested in the Carlson raid, here some good links as a start

From Makin to Bougainville: Marine Raiders in the Pacific War (Makin)


Historical Reflection

For those interested in the correct way to approach commando style operations , I recommend having a second look at the operations of the Krait. Here are some links which i think are interesting:

MV Krait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two Events of 1943


I also recommend the following written publication

Subs Against the Rising Sun: U.S. Submarines in the Pacific, Keith H. Milton, Yucca Free Press, 2000

 

[syscom3]

If some of the crew look like this lady then double-bunking will NOT be a problem!

Yes, I thought the same thing.

8)

 

[Soren]

How many mates I was with 3 and I admit that it wasn't easy. Can I ask which sub you were in and for how long, also how did you find it.

I have no idea what kind of sub it was, too long ago, but we didn't find it, it found us

Re the pictures you posted, are those of the film set in which case there is one huge difference between those pictures and the one that I posted of U505 which is of course a real Type IX submarine. The torpedo room in the pictures you posted is twice as long as the real submarine which is a big difference.

The first picture Adler commented on is from Das Boots film set apparently, the second one is from a real one, the forward torpedo room of the U-505 specifically. (From here: Tom Maglione's DESA Web Page)

Oh and btw, don't fool yourself by thinking that space has increased in modern Uboats compared to those in WW2, it hasn't..

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh and btw, don't fool yourself by thinking that space has increased in modern Uboats compared to those in WW2, it hasn't..

I beg to differ. Modern Subs today have much more room. Even the modern U-Boots built by Germany today have more room that the Type VII, IX, XXI. The US and Russian subs today have lots of more room.

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
IIRC only Argonaut was minelayer sub, that's why it was able to carry 121 men of the Makin raider force, it didn't have stern tubes as very similar Nautilus and Narwhal had. The 2 latter were fleet submarines and Nautilus transported "only" 90 men of the Makin raiding party. And IIRC even with modifications which incl extra air conditioning units the air conditioning wasn't enought and the Marines had very uncomfortable cruise to Makin even if the skippers allowed them onto deck daily for a short period of time in order to keep them combat capable.

Juha

 

[Soren]

I beg to differ. Modern Subs today have much more room. Even the modern U-Boots built by Germany today have more room that the Type VII, IX, XXI. The US and Russian subs today have lots of more room.

Now I wasn't really thinking about the top modern Uboats of today (Or the Russian Kursk ), but more about the ones in service in the 70's and up until the early 90's, and can tell you for a fact they were definitely no more roomy!

Here's a picture from inside the SSN-571 (Forward torpedo room) which saw service until 1980, which is even less roomy than that of the WW2 German Type IX:

 

[Soren]

And here from inside the WW2 German sub U-995:

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now I wasn't really thinking about the top modern Uboats of today (Or the Russian Kursk ), but more about the ones in service in the 70's and up until the early 90's, and can tell you for a fact they were definitely no more roomy!

Here's a picture from inside the SSN-571 (Forward torpedo room) which saw service until 1980, which is even less roomy than that of the WW2 German Type IX:

Lets see the Los Angeles Class Subs have been in service in starting in 1976 and they are much bigger, so lets through out the service from the 70s on up. If you want to talk about "modern" subs then you start with the 70s, and they are way roomier and much larger than U-Boots from WW2.

I know I have been in both...

 

[Soren]

Same here Adler and I strongly disagree.

And the the Los Angeles class is a very bad example Adler as not all modern subs are that large, infact most aren't even close.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I accidently closed this thread while I was typing my info, I am not going to type it all over again.

What I was going to post (before I accidently closed the thread) was a list of about 30 different class of Submarines from around the world that were in service from the 1960s until now.

They were all much larger than your German U-Boots in length and beam. Take into account the larger size and more modern equipment Soren and speaks for itself...

You might want to rethink what you posted up there.

 

[Soren]

Nope, I'm fine with it cause I've been crammed into one of those iron coffins for 10 days.

Sure the larger boats can hold more men, that's a no brainer, but they're no more roomy inside Adler, not the least bit, they just got the exact same little extra space for the larger crew... the bunks don't get larger with the boat.

Oh and all that marvelous modern equipment you talk about, well guess how much space it takes up.

Modern doesn't always translate into lighter or more roomy Adler, and you can take a look at the development in fighter a/c to spot that as-well.

I challenge you to take a peak inside the Dutch Sea Dragon class or the SSN-571, and as for size you forgot to mention how big these 30 or so different subs you found are in comparison to the Los Angeles class sub - rather small I'd presume.

 

[syscom3]

Soren, just what targets are these commando's going to attack, with any hope of effecting the war effort?

 

[Soren]

Lets compare the Los Angeles class submarine to the Type IXD2:

LA Class:
Displacement: ~6,700 tons
Crew: 129

Type IXD2:
Displacement: ~1,790 tons
Crew: 63

So LA class equates over three times the displacement of the Type IXD2 yet only carries double the amount of crew aboard. I sincerely doubt that space has gotten bigger pr. man aboard, but since I've never been inside any of the top modern boats I can't say for sure. However the boat I was in contained ~70 crewmembers, was fully equipped and had me and me mates along as-well, and space is not something there was plenty of for sure! Walking inside a Type IX it doesn't feel any more cramped.

 

[Soren]

Soren, just what targets are these commando's going to attack, with any hope of effecting the war effort?

Good question Syscom3, I would think someone like you could find something ? But remember like I said the goal wasn't just that.

 

[Freebird]

Soren, just what targets are these commando's going to attack, with any hope of effecting the war effort?

Good question Syscom3, I would think someone like you could find something ? But remember like I said the goal wasn't just that.

I have given this some thought, have some ideas that will probably raise a few eyebrows...
But a little too busy to post right now, I will do it tomorrow.


By the way Soren, is that your GF in the U-boat pic?
Very blonde, cute. Congrats if it is, condolences if it ain't! 8)

 

[syscom3]

Soren, forget about these misguided adventures on the US and Canadian mainlands.

Go for bigger fish, with dramatic results.

Panama Canal and the oil refineries in Aruba, Mexico and other Caribbean facilities.

 

[Soren]

Well syscom3 I disagree about forgetting to attack facilities and towns/cities close to the coastline. But I'm interested in your suggestionn about the Panama Canal and the oil refineries in Aruba Mexico and I agree they are possible targets.

Could you post a map with their locations pointed out ? That would help a lot in trying to figure out what was needed to accomplish the mission.

 

[Soren]

I have given this some thought, have some ideas that will probably raise a few eyebrows...
But a little too busy to post right now, I will do it tomorrow.

Looking forward to hear them Freebird!

By the way Soren, is that your GF in the U-boat pic?
Very blonde, cute. Congrats if it is, condolences if it ain't! 8)

Haha, no I'm afraid it isn't, but I'm already spoken for so that's fine

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nope, I'm fine with it cause I've been crammed into one of those iron coffins for 10 days.

Sure the larger boats can hold more men, that's a no brainer, but they're no more roomy inside Adler, not the least bit, they just got the exact same little extra space for the larger crew... the bunks don't get larger with the boat.

Oh and all that marvelous modern equipment you talk about, well guess how much space it takes up.

Modern doesn't always translate into lighter or more roomy Adler, and you can take a look at the development in fighter a/c to spot that as-well.

I challenge you to take a peak inside the Dutch Sea Dragon class or the SSN-571, and as for size you forgot to mention how big these 30 or so different subs you found are in comparison to the Los Angeles class sub - rather small I'd presume.

Soren you just gave me an example of two class of submarines that are small compared to most modern subs today.

You forget you are talking to someone who has also been in Submarines. You are not the only one who has had that experience. Yes they are cramped but not as cramped as WW2 submarines.