German commando attack on the US, Canada Alaska

[pbfoot]

At -40c there will not be any fighting it would be painful just to use your weapon exposed flesh will freeze in minutes and a glove won't help , the only time I experianced -40c my shifter in my truck froze as well as the foam in the seats

 

[parsifal]

I had a predisposition to hypoglycemia, which the cold weather and the stress made worse. The outcome was that i contracted full blown diabetes, insulin dependant. Similar to the way that some pregnant women develop diabetes.

I basically went into hyploglycemic shock. My brain shut down as a result of the cold, and the lack of glucose getting to my brain. i very nearly died

 

[Soren]

I will again post this chart:

 

[Soren]

I had a predisposition to hypoglycemia, which the cold weather and the stress made worse. The outcome was that i contracted full blown diabetes, insulin dependant. Similar to the way that some pregnant women develop diabetes.

I basically went into hyploglycemic shock. My brain shut down as a result of the cold, and the lack of glucose getting to my brain. i very nearly died

I have a friend who experienced somewhat the same deal, although less serious, whilst working for the Navy in Greenland. He went into shock and passed out. He was found to be a diabetic as-well. He was not allowed at sea from that point on.

 

[Freebird]

We can do that syscom3 but I need to know exactly where the targets are located syscom3.

The oil refineries would be prime targets. As I mentioned earlier, I think railway bridges would make an easy and profitable target. {No railway to Alaska BTW} If you blew the bridge just as a freight train is crossing the momentum will pull several dozen more boxcars into the river. Once you have your men cross the border a mortar team could wake up the cities by dropping rounds on port facilities, army barraks, airport, city hall, etc

There is something else I was thinking, suppose you dropped a few bombs on an airfield, what would be the immediate reaction? They would scramble the planes thinking that they were under attack right? So you have a couple of guys at the end of the runway with a HMG to knock the planes down before takeoff.


If we are talking about the "Mexican strategy" Then San Diego CA, San Antonio TX, El Paso TX, Tucson AZ, Brownsville Texas would be good targets. There is a Naval station in SanDiego {both a port air station}. San Antonio also has an Army Air Corps training field IIRC

 

[Juha]

Soren
Quote: "And you base that on a single event Juha ??"

Soren, that single event was the only time during the WWII that a German vessel was past the Vilkitsky strait and the only recent info on situation past the strait on which KM had to base their planning. And as I wrote earlier summer 42 wasn't easy, it took from July to Oct by Soviet flotilla leader and DDs to travel from Vladivostok to Kola Fjord. And why KM didn't use that according to you quite passable route by its tranport subs which travelled between Europe and Japanese areas?

Quote: "All that needed be done was cross the Vilkitsky strait, then the way was open."

Somehow the crew of Komet experienced in the real world something quite different than what you believe. But who cares, you can believe what you want, we live in a free world.



On cold, the coldest temperature that I experienced during military manouvres was -32,5 deg C, it was quite possible to live in tents but of course we had some difficulties with food and drink, and 3 men had to sent to hospital after our motor march to the training area on open trailers behind tractors. We stopped every 45 minutes to march 15 minutes then back to trailes for another 45minutes, IIRC. Without those stretches of foot march probably more of us would have found ourselves in hospital beds. That march was the worst part of that manouevre. It was so and so that the manouevres was held, officers talked a while what to do but then decised to go on.

Ordinary Finnish troops could definite fought in -35 deg C.

Juha

 

[Freebird]

Soren, why not expend your energy in coming up with a successfull plan to attack the "soft" and poorly defended targets in the Gulf of Mexico.

I already gave you an option. Use your commando's to hijack a ship and use it for operations.

Syscom, { Parsifal} I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Axis deliberatly de-stabilizing Mexico. I started posting this on page 8 {posts # 303, 305, 311, 313 323}, before we got more involved in the "Alaska" gambit. I think that the situation in Mexico was unstable enough to collapse given the right actions by the "Black ops" teams, and would pose a far greater danger to the US

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will again post this chart:

You talk of Anchorage as if that is the climate of the whole state (territory at that time).

I have news for you Soren Anchorage is mild and that average temp you just posted is wrong.

It gets much warmer in the summe time and it gets much much colder in the winter. The average high in the winter time is around 18 F....

Just as you say, you know what you know based off of your experience. I have been there, you have not, so I guess I know what I know based off of my experience...

It works both ways.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet or put all your faith in all of these charts you love so much.

 

[parsifal]

Freebird

I am not quite going to answer your question, but I will give you my opinion.

I have never said that small scale raids against the US are not impossible, or that compared to history a greater effort could not have been mounted. however, what I think is a mistake is the diversion of such a large amount of high quality assets off on what I consider to be minor operations. The primary function of the U-Boats has to be the sinking of ships, and any deviation away from that objective by ANY U-Boats, is a defeat for the Axis, and a victory for the allies. In fact the way to assist by Special Operations is to seek ways to to enhance that capability. Sinking a few ships by submarine, and then knocking out a refinery, or an oil well, is not working to the same purpose. if you have a few less ships, then a knocked out refinery is not going to increase allied probls. What needs to be done is to sink ships by submarine, and to sink ships (or its equivalent) using other means to augment the process.

The prime target to achieve this would be to look for some way to render the panama canal inoperative, even if temporarily. if it gets knocked out, or made unusable, the pressure on US shipping becomes immense. Moreeover, even a small delay of say two months might be enough to tip the whole balance of power in the pacific, its that serious.

Now, Panama was one of the most heavily guarded targets prewar from landward attack. It was protected by more than a full brigade of troops pre-war, and this was rapidly increased soon after hostilities broke out. So, IMO a landward attack is not a great idea.

However, the US has two achilles heels pre-war, and continuing for many months into the war. Its ASW capability is abysmal. Less well known is its hopeless minesweeping capability. My idea would be to exploit those two weaknesses to the maximum.

The ASW weakness would require many more U-Boats to be sent to the western hemisphere immediately upon hostilities breaking out. This would require a re-deployment of the 62 boats in the med, and the 15 boats from the arctic for as rapid as possible re-deployment to the US and carribean. I would also push forward as many of the boats currently under training, about 90 to the US as soon as possible, even if those boats are not fully trained, or trained to quite the samer high standards as are usually demanded in the Km.


The result of all this expediancy is that instead of having just 6-10 boats with which to undertake Drumbeat, the germans have 60-100. Sure, some of them arent fully trained but they are carrying mines rather than torpedoes, or spares and fuel for the front line subs. The aim here is to produce a submarine equivalent of a "thousand bomber raid", to create an event of such shock value, that it is likley to affect allied nerves and planning, and thereby give germany and Japan vital breathing space.

To assist in this effort, I would augment the minelaying effort by prepareing as many fast blockade runners as I could with as many mines as they could covertly carry. In late 1941, I believe there were as many as 30 German controlled blockade runners still at sea. If all of them were carrying 100 to 150 mines, and were ordered to move to various locations in the carribean, particularly off shore of Panama Canal, and rather than just blindly rush and declare war straight after PH, but rather wait a few days or a week whilst the blockade runners were put into position, then lay the mines just before the DOW, using the newer versions of mag mines, which the US could not sweep, my opinion is that utter chaos would reign in the US and carribean for many months.

Historically, the Germans only laid about 300 mines off the US coast. those few were quite devastating sinking, IIRC about 10 ships. Now, what I am talking about is a sudden minelaying effort, aimed at sowing something like 5-8000 mines, and backed up by a sub force of 50-100 U-Boats, properly supplied.

The result IMO would have been utter chaos for the US, and its allies. it is not beyond the realms of possibility to suppose the loss of 2-3000000 tons of shipping in a month. Morever, the mining of the approaches to the Canal, would have been the equivalent to the loss of a further 2000000 tons, at least.

The losses of this magnitude would not have won the war , in itself, and would not have been sustainable, but it would have had major impacts on US thinking. The possibilities, IMO might have included

1) A major reduction of Shipping for the pacific, significantly delaying the counteroffensive in the pacific.
2) Suspension or delay in the blue water navy currently under construction in favour of increase MS and small ship production.
3) A cut or abandonment of the more agressive parts of US aircraft production, such as the heavy bomber program, to free up more resources for MS and escort production.
4) Diversion of more DDs and carriers to Europe from the Pacific.
5) Reduction or abandonment of the Arctic Convoys to Russia.
6) Diversion of more RN assets to assist the USN in its coastal convoy battles. Woulds almost certainly have resulted in the loss of malta

These name just a few of the advantages that might become possible. They dont win the war, but they lead to some mighty big changes to the way the allies prioritise the war, and may possibly lead to a negotiated peace, rather than unconditional surrender.

 

[Soren]

You talk of Anchorage as if that is the climate of the whole state (territory at that time).

I have news for you Soren Anchorage is mild and that average temp you just posted is wrong.

It gets much warmer in the summe time and it gets much much colder in the winter. The average high in the winter time is around 18 F....

The chart lists the average temp for all months + the lowest highest temperatures. It is a pileup of data from 4/1/1952 to 12/31/2000, so how can it be wrong ?

Just as you say, you know what you know based off of your experience. I have been there, you have not, so I guess I know what I know based off of my experience...

It works both ways.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet or put all your faith in all of these charts you love so much.

Fair enough Adler, but I don't understand why it is written here then: Alaska.com | Weather climate



The climate of Southcentral Alaska -- the region encompassing Anchorage, Seward, Homer, Prince William Sound and Wrangell-St. Elias -- is mild, at least by Alaska standards. The temperatures are moderated by the Gulf of Alaska, and the truly cold winds of the north are often blocked by the Alaska and Talkeetna mountain ranges.
Southcentral Alaska doesn't get as much rain as Southeast Alaska, but it gets a lot more snow. On the other hand, it has a lot more clear days.

When moisture-laden air blowing off the Gulf of Alaska meets the chilly Alaska, Chugach, Talkeetna, Wrangell and St. Elias ranges, precipitation happens. In July, August and September, especially along the Gulf coast, rain falls. In the winter, there's lots of snow. This is often most apparent along Prince William Sound. Valdez, for example, averages 303 inches -- 25 feet -- a year, and Whittier gets 250 inches.

Although so much snow requires shoveling and plowing in town, it's beloved by skiers and snowmachiners. Snow in the mountains feeds the glaciers and the myriad streams that salmon come home to. Snow and rain also nurture the lush coastal forests.

Blocked from the Gulf by mountains, Anchorage's official measuring station at the international airport gets only 70 inches.

The snow near sea level generally melts away by early May. When termination dust -- the first coating of mountaintop snow -- falls in late August or early September, Alaskans know winter isn't far away.

Summer sunlight in Anchorage lasts 19.5 hours at the June solstice. At the winter solstice, daylight lasts 5.5 hours.

I would think that such research is quite accurate Adler, unless you know a more reliable source ?

PS: At the moment it's 54 degrees F in Anchorage.

 

[Soren]

Juha I suggest to read abit aboút the Kara Laptev sea before you decide in your mind what is reality and what is not.

Oh and btw, we're still talking about submarines here, not merchant ships

Do I need to quote the opinion of the German Uboat commanders regarding operating under icepacks ?

There's a reason so many Uboats successfully operated near and in the Vilkitsky strait, not a single one lost to crashing into an iceberg.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The chart lists the average temp for all months + the lowest highest temperatures. It is a pileup of data from 4/1/1952 to 12/31/2000, so how can it be wrong ?

When I was there, the average high in the summer time was 70 to 80 F and the average high in the winter was 18F. That is the temp around Anchorage.

What more can I say, that is based off of actual experience, which you are so fond of using. I guess in this case actual experience does not mean anything, because it is not your actual experience?

PS: At the moment it's 54 degrees F in Anchorage.

Yeah look what time it is there Soren...

Right now it is 10:50 in the morning and the temp is 60F. By noon the temp will be about 70 to 75 (probably closer to 70)...

Source:

Current weather from the municipality of Anchorage website...

 

[Soren]

When I was there, the average high in the summer time was 70 to 80 F and the average high in the winter was 18F. That is the temp around Anchorage.

What more can I say, that is based off of actual experience, which you are so fond of using. I guess in this case actual experience does not mean anything, because it is not your actual experience?

Adler it was a simple question, why is it you feel the need to go back to argueing again? Did I say: *You are wrong Adler!*, no I said how can data piled up over 43 years of research be wrong ?

I have no problem believing what you say Adler, you've been there, I haven't, and infact the warmer there is the better. But I'm just surprised that the website I referenced can be so terribly wrong ?(You must admit that being off by 10-20 degree's is quite substantial?)

Yeah look what time it is there Soren...

Right now it is 10:50 in the morning and the temp is 60F. By noon the temp will be about 70 to 75 (probably closer to 70)...

Source:

Current weather from the municipality of Anchorage website...

10:50 is usually cooler than midday, that's true.

 

[Freebird]

Freebird

I am not quite going to answer your question, but I will give you my opinion.

I have never said that small scale raids against the US are not impossible, or that compared to history a greater effort could not have been mounted. however, what I think is a mistake is the diversion of such a large amount of high quality assets off on what I consider to be minor operations. The primary function of the U-Boats has to be the sinking of ships, and any deviation away from that objective by ANY U-Boats, is a defeat for the Axis, and a victory for the allies. What needs to be done is to sink ships by submarine, and to sink ships (or its equivalent) using other means to augment the process.

I think you misunderstood my point, I am in full agreement with you that the U-boat campaign is # 1 priority.

I would only use a U-boat as a transport as a last resort, and only if the U-boat is going that route anyways. As we have previousl discussed there are other options ie cargo transport under Vichy flag etc.

The ASW weakness would require many more U-Boats to be sent to the western hemisphere immediately upon hostilities breaking out. This would require a re-deployment of the 62 boats in the med, and the 15 boats from the arctic for as rapid as possible re-deployment to the US and carribean. I would also push forward as many of the boats currently under training, about 90 to the US as soon as possible, even if those boats are not fully trained, or trained to quite the samer high standards as are usually demanded in the Km.

Again you make an excellent point, most of the U-boats are poorly utilized in the Med, Arctic etc.

My point with the commandos was to supplement the U-boat campaign, and to distract public opinion from the gravest threat. {shipping strangulation}

I will go over the rest of your polst a little later!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler it was a simple question, why is it you feel the need to go back to argueing again? Did I say: *You are wrong Adler!*, no I said how can data piled up over 43 years of research be wrong ?

Because I am up past my neck now....

I have no problem believing what you say Adler, you've been there, I haven't, and infact the warmer there is the better. But I'm just surprised that the website I referenced can be so terribly wrong ?(You must admit that being off by 10-20 degree's is quite substantial?)

The only thing I can think of is that it is throwing winter and summer temps together and getting an overall average.

 

[Juha]

Soren
It seems to be useless to repeat but one more go
Quote: "There's a reason so many Uboats successfully operated near and in the Vilkitsky strait, not a single one lost to crashing into an iceberg."

If you understand something on sailing you know that freely floating icebergs are not a problem if they can be seen, one can always dodge them, real problems began when the floating "flat" ice is bagged together without enough open water between floating mass, in these circumstances icebergs could be hazard to U-boats because there might be them among "flat" ice and in shallow water their under surface parts may even went down to the sea floor.

You seemed to miss from Vladimir Kroupnik. The "Komet" raider the fact that Komet found the going E of Vilkitsky strait harder than W of it or in the strait itself. And worst part of Komet passage was that of through East Siberian Sea. That was even worse than the area E of the Vilkitsky strait. So navigating W of or in the strait doesn't prove that one can do it E of the strait.

And quote from your message #307 :" During an exceptionally mild-ice summer, three Type VIIC U-boats, U-302 (Sickel),
U-354 (Herbschleb), and U-711 (Lange) of Group Viking of the 13th U-boat Flotilla, based at Trondheim, Norway,on patrol in theKara Sea during late August
1943 trailed a Soviet convoy into the Vilkitsky Strait. U-301 and U-354 sub-
sequently sank one ship each of the small convoy. A month later,U-302, U-354, and U-601 (Grau) of this same group returned to patrol the western entrance of
these straits in hopes of intercepting another convoy. During the following
summer of a much less favorable ice year, three more Type VIIC U-boats of Group
Gryphon of the 13th Flotilla, U-711 (Lange), U-739 (Mangold), and U-957 (Schaar),
succeeded in reaching Cape Chelyuskin on 18 September 1944 while attempting to
reach an assembly point for Soviet coastal convoys at Nordwik Bight to the east
of Chelyuskin. Only heavy drift ice prevented them from going farther."

So summer 43 was exceptional and in 44 the U-boats got to Cape Chelyuskin but were then stopped by drift ice. So 2 more points
1) in 44 it was possible to went into the Vilkitsky strait but not further, again, as during the Komet's passage real problems began E of the Vilkitsky strait or at the eastern end of it. So both times when German ships went through the Vilkitsky strait they found situation worse on the eastern side, contrary your claim.
2) in 44 U-boats were stopped by drift ice not by icebergs

Juha

 

[syscom3]

Soren, end the argument about the climate temps of Alaska, because you are sadly mistaken.

The interior sections of Alaska routinely get down to -50 in the winter and is bracketed by two major mountain ranges, both far larger and more extensive than the Alps, and have massive sections of swamp, marsh and bogs, which makes summer travel very difficult.

The only part of Alaska your commando's could hope to penetrate is the Pacific coastal area's. But then, the million dollar question is, why expend do much time and effort to put together a nuisence raid of no value in a backwater part of the war. And since your U-Boat couldnt sail through the arctic to get there, then why not put your sub to better use by sinking allied ships in conjunction with the IJN?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren, end the argument about the climate temps of Alaska, because you are sadly mistaken.

The interior sections of Alaska routinely get down to -50 in the winter and is bracketed by two major mountain ranges, both far larger and more extensive than the Alps, and have massive sections of swamp, marsh and bogs, which makes summer travel very difficult.

The only part of Alaska your commando's could hope to penetrate is the Pacific coastal area's. But then, the million doallr question is, why expend do much time and effort to put together a nuisence raid of no value in a backwater part of the war. And since your U-Boat couldnt sail through the arctic to get there, then why not put you sub to better use by sinking allied ships in conjunction with the IJN?

This man knows what he is talking about.

 

[Freebird]

Has anyone here actually been in this terrain in Alaska? {Adler?}

I have not been to Alaska, but I have been in the wilderness of the north coast of B.C. {~200 miles south of Ketchican} This is some of the most rugged difficult terrain in the world! Sharp coastal ridges heavily forested with old-growth forest! Even in summer it would be difficult to cross overland except by road. Your team might only make a few miles a day hacking through bush lugging gear

Has anyone else here done any work in winter at -40temperatures? I have had to repair equipment outside in {mild, balmy!} Winnipeg when it was -38 degrees {not including wind chill} In -50 you can barely survive, let alone try to make effective attacks

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Has anyone here actually been in this terrain in Alaska? {Adler?}

Yes I have visited. Me and my wife should be moving there next year.

Has anyone else here done any work in winter at -40temperatures? I have had to repair equipment outside in {mild, balmy!} Winnipeg when it was -38 degrees {not including wind chill} In -50 you can barely survive, let alone try to make effective attacks

We did some arctic weather flight training in Norway. I dont believe the temp was -40 when we were there though. I believe the coldest was about -30.