pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I totally agree
the eastern seaboard is really the only option
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I totally agreeSoren doesnt know anything about the size or terrain for Alaska and Northern Canada.
Therefore we should concentrate on these potential spy teams for deployment on the eastern seaboard, maybe even Gulf Coast.
Soren doesnt know anything about the size or terrain for Alaska and Northern Canada.
Therefore we should concentrate on these potential spy teams for deployment on the eastern seaboard, maybe even Gulf Coast.
Yes I do. Remember people live there Syscom, so you can get there.
proves that your not familiar with those regions,
I'm quite interested into seeing how you get guys to Alaska the only road was the several thousand km long gravel Alaska Highway which was built solely to supply troops to Alaska so it was run by the military
Mosquitos and No see ums (blackkflies) I don't believe it was possible to drive across Canada at tha point in time let alone get up north that was all done by boats and aircraftTundra, mountain ranges, vast malarial marshes impassable during the summer, bittter cold .... plus the hundreds of miles they would need to travel to get to any military or industrial target worth hitting.
Very, very few people lived in the northern reaches of the continent. And the few that did were such expert survivalists and trackers, they would simply find and then pick off the commando teams one by one.
Soren, stick to an eastern seaboard or gulf attack.
Parsifal, study the Type IX boats abit mroe before making blanket statements like that. The Type IX boats could carry more than just 14 additional men, infact 25 extra men was easily carried, and then there was still a lot of room for the equipment. Did you miss the top cargohold ?
The japanese i-boats were about 2.5 times the size of the Type IX, and after full modification could transport 24 fully armed soldiers. they could also carry a 46 foot Daihatsu LCI that was lashed to the deck, or up to 10 tons of cargo, located in the seaplane hangar, which was many times the size of the cargo spaces in the Type Ixs.
I was being generous when I said that the Type IX could carry an additional 14 men. Unlike the I-Boats which were known for their capacious dimensions (which worked against them in terms of their survivability), German subs were designed with an absolute minimum of habitability in mind. That limited their endurance (until later in the war, from the latter part of 1942, with the introduction of the Type VII/42, and the later Type IXs like the IXD2), AND their ability to carry extraneous cargo, like troops and mines. They could do it, but their capability was limited. With 14 troops embarked, and say 5 tons of supply, your team is going to arrive at their destination after
nearly a month at sea, tired, cold, hungry, probably sick, and much weakened by the journey. NOBODY, not even the Japanese carried that number of troops that far by submarine
Oh, and by the way, I do know German Submarines, very well in fact.
Now as for missing out on 80000 tons of Allied shipping, are you suggesting that this is what the boat which set off spies in Labrador did ?? Your ignorance is becoming laughable Parsifal.
If you look at the average number of Boats at sea in 1941, and then subtract from that the numbers of Boats you will need for your proposed operation, you are going to find that you will need to deduct about 800000 tons of shipping losses from the Atlantic. This is based on a two month absence, and four boats being unavailable for that duration
And as for the Abwehr being the laughing stock of Europe, you don't know what you're talking about Parsifal. Or are you trying to suggest that all those Allied spies caught executed by the Abwehr just walked right into their office headquaters with their arms in the air yelling *I surrender!* ?? You're right Parsifal, this is getting abit silly.
You are referring to the SOE failure in Holland I believe. Compared to that, the ABwehrs failures are legion. I wont bore you with the details, but put it this way, whereas SOEs and Bletchley Parks efforts materially affected the outcome of the war, the Abwehrs achieved hardly anything of note.
The proof is in the pudding. The Soviets completely compromised the German security system, starting with the likes o Sorge, and culminating with the "Lucy" Ring, which delivered the attack plans for the Germans at kursk onto Stavkhas desk. Abwehr was unable to do anything about this and other acutely embarrassing gaffs, basically because it was incompetent.
I will concede that there were other German efforts like BDienst, and Gehlen who did make a big contribution to the Axis war effort, canaris' organization only made some minor effects. They assisted in the invasion of Poland, and in Yugoslavia, just about every other effort ended up being compromised in some form or other. There is a book on this, I believe from memory it is called "Hitlers Secret Armies", or similar. You should read it.
Like I said, the Abwehr no doubt knew about the Mailie, but seeing there was no use for it a procurement of one was never planned.
Fair enough, but how then do yoou explain the fact that after November 1941, the germans and everybody else, except the US, spent a lot of resources trying to obtain and use the technology????
Also I'd lke to know from where you got the info that the Italian secret service got the landings of the Allies right whilst the Abwehr was in the woods ???[/
I cant remember, but it was one of the naval histories, it may have been Roskill and/or Bragadin. I also think Corelli Barnett mentions it in his work on the Royal Navy. I will see if I can dig something out.
Again the proof is in the pudding (at least in sofar as the German failure is concerned). They knew nothing of Torch landings until after the event. In relation to the attacks into Sicily, there was never any inkling about where or when they were to occur, if they had, the units forced out of the Kursk battle as a result of the invasion would never have been undertaken.. The Germans also were not "allover" the Italians as you put it, if they had, they would have taken steps to avert Mussolinis deposement QUOTE]
No, there should be no doubt about it, the abwehr was one of the most incompetent spy networks around, small wonder it was taken over in 1943 by the SD. I know that you are not going to accept that, but any cursory reading of the spy wars will reveal that. Another good read on this subject is called "The Ultra Secret" I know i have a copy of it somewhere, and it very clearly documents the the failure of the German Secret Service
Parsifal you keep claiming that the proof is in the pudding yet you have no sources to back up your claims.
And no you obviously don't know German Uboats Parsifal, and your weird attempt at comparing them to Japanese boats only verifies this.
The std. type IX could easily accommodate an extra 25 men with no problems what'so'ever , esp. If the number of torps were reduced. A Type IXD could hold over 252 tons of cargo Parsifal!.
I take it you can support the statement that the Soviets got most of their intel from the western allies. I say this as I have a couple of very good books on the intelligence war and assure you that as far as they are concerned, your statement couldn't be more wrong if you tried.As for the Abwehr, again no proof or sources from you. Also the Soviets got most of their intel from Western Allied intelligence gathering, the Soviets had nothing to do with it themselves.
I have suggested some sources incidentally, but we are yet to see the colour of any of your source material. I would very much like to see it if you have anyParsifal you keep claiming that the proof is in the pudding yet you have no sources to back up your claims.
And no you obviously don't know German Uboats Parsifal, and your weird attempt at comparing them to Japanese boats only verifies this.
The std. type IX could easily accommodate an extra 25 men with no problems what'so'ever , esp. If the number of torps were reduced. A Type IXD could hold over 252 tons of cargo Parsifal!
Hi soren
This is an extract from a magazine article about operation drumbeat. It illustrates the problems of trying to extend the range of a standard Type IX B submarine so as to operate with a 48 man crew off the coast of the US
In U-boat pens all over the coast of western France, German shore personnel and seagoing crews loaded torpedoes and 88mm shells into designated boats. Hardegen's boat was a long-distance Type IX. Type IX boats would do most of the heavy lifting early in the operation; medium-sized Type VII boats would join in later.
Every inch of space on the cramped U-boats was given over to supplies. One toilet on U-123 was turned into a storage room, leaving only one other for the crew to use. Canned foods were stowed away deep, followed by fresh foods that would be eaten early in the cruise, much of it bearded with mold by the time it was served. The fuel bunkers were filled with diesel fuel, adding to the stench in the boat. Soon there was a medley of noxious odors and deadly fumes—combustion gasses from the diesel engines, body fluids and waste, rotting food, ripe sweat (bathing and shaving were discouraged), and stale air that had not managed to go through the primitive carbon-dioxide scrubbers.
As the men loaded the boats for what obviously would be a long cruise, excitement grew. In time the men were told that Dönitz had ordered that each boat in the force attack shipping in American waters on the same day—January 13, 1942.
Now, given that the Uboat was hard pressed to find enough space even for the standard crews, how do you propose to fit another 25 men in that space, feed them, arm them, rest them, for a voyage like to be at least twice as long as a standard patrol.
I know that Type IXs could carry more than 14 men, but it was difficult in the subtypes available in 1941, and it was never possible to accommodate that many extra men for 30 days or so.. The numbers you are considering was possible for short journeys only, if the deployment was a mediterranean crossing or shorter, I would say "fine," no problem, but we are talking a 30-60 day cruise here. To accommodate the 14 men I have nominated, the torpedo rooms would need to be empty. Ever served on a submarine Soren???/ I have. Ever tried to squeeze passengers and cargo into a submarine Soren??? I have. I spent a short while serving in Oberon Class Diesel Electrics, and during a number of excercises there were a number of instances where three or four extra commandoes were carried in the sub, for a maximum of a day or two. It was very uncomfortable. And it would have been even more so in a Type IX, where many of the crew were already bunked in the torpedo rooms. So "uncomfortable" in fact, that I doubt your elite commandoes would even be fit for combat at the end of it. Funny what a lack of sleep can do to a person....
So again Parsifal, study the German subs before making blanket statements about them.
I have studied, dont worry. Whilst i do not consider myself an expert, at least I dont go around pointing to types that were not even available in December 1941......
You mentioned something about the Type IX D2s somewhere. They were special long range Type IXs not developed until the latter part of 1942. There were also two Type IX D-1, U180 and U-195, again not available in 1941, which were designed to carry up to 252 tons of cargo. These boats were nearly twice as big as the standard Type IX, and still could not carry large numbers of pesonnel.
Its worth comparing your proposal against the japanese, because they were the only nation to attempt long range reinforcements using submarines. The Italians and the germans used subs to move cargo, but did not use them extensively to move troops. this was because moving troops by Sub is an inherently innefficient excercise. Moving cargo is slightly more efficient, because you can use external cargo spaces like hangars and LCIs lashed to the deck. So I think looking at the Japanese is very relevant because they were the ones who tried to move troops on the scale you are suggesting. There are two other nations that I know of who also used submarines for "large" scale reinforcements....the US used their Narwhals to land Raider detchments, on several occasions, and the Free French used the Sirene to reinforce and arm the resistance on Corsica. But the best people by far to lk at when investigating this issue are the japanese, why, because they did it, unlike the germans (well mostly), who had better, more important thngs to do with their subs
Soren, i do know quite a bit about german submarines. When you start to try to introduce sub types that were not even available in 1941, and which still could not carry the troop numbers you are suggesting, I would suggest that it is yourself who should start checking facts before debating.
As for the Abwehr, again no proof or sources from you. Also the Soviets got most of their intel from Western Allied intelligence gathering, the Soviets had nothing to do with it themselves.
Err, there are numerous exceptions to that thesis, starting with Richard Sorge, who most definately was not a western source. Then of course there is the Lucy Ring, which the Germans never found out about. There are numerous others. Just to dwell on the Lucy issue for a bit there may well have been some allied assistance, but the truth is no one actually knows. Rosselers post war statements dont ring true thats for sure, and the identity of the mole in OKH has never been revealed, It is certainly possible that Philby or his mate working at Bletchely may have been passing secrets to the Russians, but officially at least the Allies did not share ultra secrets directly with the Russians. If you have a source that says differently, by all means bring it forward, but I know that you cant, because the source of the Lucy rings information remains a secret, in the "never to be released category". Unless you are going to say that you have seen those records, you are just blowing hot air i would suggest.
I believe the onus is on you Soren to explain why they could carry an additional 25 men without any problems. Parsifal has supported his contention with the example of the Japanese Submarines which were twice the size of a Type IX. I have mentioned that the only other Submarines that carried raiding parties were the thre USA submarines that used their mine hold for soldiers and were 50% bigger than the Type IX. I have been on a submarine similar in size to a Type IX (the Oberon Class) and can promise you that there was no way you could get many exra's on board, if your interested there were four of us.A type IX D could take 252 tons of cargo but only if all the torpedo tubes and torpedos were taken out and it was converted to transport configuration. This doesn't mean that you could get 25 men on as men already slept in the torpedo rooms.
I take it you can support the statement that the Soviets got most of their intel from the western allies. I say this as I have a couple of very good books on the intelligence war and assure you that as far as they are concerned, your statement couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Syscom,
The target area in effect needed to hold no more than half a thousand civilians, as the goal of the attack on Alaska was but to cause terror, nothing else. But besides that you could land men in both Fairbanks Anchorage, both of which housing thousands of people. And as for dealing with the terrain, the German commandoes were trained by the Gebirgsjäger to travel, fight survive in such terrain.
And as for Canada, look at the map, one can land men in or close to all the major cities there, Quebec, Torronto, Montreal etc etc no problem.
Take a look at the map Syscom.