Hitler scrapped the surface Navy fleet in 1934. No more ships were built but Hitler allowed the U-Boats to be built up, after the victory of 1940 the Navy personnel clicking there heels were now put to work in Fortifying Europe. And all that lovely metal that was earmarked for a surface fleet went on Tanks and Coastal guns along with some more U-Boats.

Basically Hitler's plans lay in a war on land, and what is the point building up a surface fleet that could not really challenge the Royal Navy.

__________________
Regards, Richard


"Open channel D"

An interesting point!

By American Naval standards a surface fleets purpose is to compliment and protect it's aircraft carriers. As the Graf Spree never saw past 80% completion the Kreigsmarine was a Battleship Navy and used them to intimidate thier foes. The Admirality wasted many vessels in vain in my opinion. ie. The Bismark obviously and the Blücher lost to Norwegian coastal defences. Dedicate the science to upgrading the Unterseeboot flotillas with more effectrive weaponry. In all reality the majority of the commerce raiding was done by U-boat anyways. and dedicate the raw steel and manpower to the real fortification of Western Europe. Now if only they had remembered how cold it can get in Russia we might all be living in a Nazified global Reich.

Nevertheless I think the point is valid. They tried to do to much instead of being really great in certain aspects.

I think this is something Hitler should have learned in WWI, and that was just how effective unrestricted submarine warfare can be, it almost brought Britain to it's knees. I think this would have made a huge impact on the war, with Britain maybe even being forced to surrender or starve.

Hitler was a suicidal idiot that started a war he could never have won, no matter what. Between the Red Army and America's tremendous industrial might, Germany never had a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. A whole lot of people died because of Hitler's idiotic ideas and the world will never forgive or forget.

No offense but I don't see what that has to do with the topic, if the U-Boats were focused on rather than a surface fleet, Hitler might have got his peace in 1940 or 1941, which would allowed him to solely face the USSR, and I severly doubt that the US is going to allie itself with Stalin's Russia.

A more effective submarine force can do a lot of damage, but it would take more than just building more and better subs. They would have to have a completely new top leadership for it to work. I agree that eliminating the worthless efforts on capital ships could redirect efforts elsewhere, but it should be realized that this would not do more than delay the inevitable. And not all German surface ships were ineffective. The E-boats performed a vital service.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

If the Bismark had deployed with a much larger taskforce with radar and wolfpack escorts a lot of damage would have been done. How much and the long term effects are hard to say. The brits are stubborn and lucky. I've been to the Bismark memorial. It was a good ship. I've been to the Belfast in London and it was a nice cruiser. I worked at Navy gun school at Great Lakes before I retired and I like big guns. The bigger the better. Germany didn't have the resources for a big surface and sub fleets.

Oops over looked them.

OK, well I see these nifty boats would be useful so I would say yes they can still be made. So with more man power and all that steel would the Atlantic wall been built faster and better?

As for better I'm not sure but the building faster looks possible.

__________________
Regards, Richard


"Open channel D"

The Brits were not ignoring German developments in the 1930s. Building submarines vs large ships means the Brits cancel a few of their capitol ship projects and bild more escourt vessels. After a war starts then some of the the aircraft carriers can be used for ASW rather held back in case the German heavy ships sortie.

It will be a lot easier to defeat the Italian navy and to deal with Japan without a German surface threat.

This time period represents the shift in thinking among the German naval staff from building a coastal defense navy to one that was more capable of "Blue water" operations. Up to this point the Germans had built ships intended only for local operations in the North Sea, Baltic, and Channel.
U-boats alone, or in combination with a handful of surface raiders is not a war winning combination. Instead, it is an admission that one's navy cannot compete with the enemy. By resorting to just a Guerre de Course campaign the Germans give up winning at sea. Their naval staff knew this and put their plan to build a full surface navy by 1944 in place as a result. Yes, this was overly optimistic in its goals but, it represents the only chance Germany has to win at sea.
Now, if the Germans had opted for just merchant raiding and coastal defense in 1934 and continued on that course with the intention of just harrassing England into a peace eventually it might have worked....so long as Hitler doesn't start a war with the Soviets. In this case, England doesn't have the means to win on land, the Germans cannot win at sea but they can make persuing a long war very costly to England by merchant raiding. Thus, there is the likelihood that England will eventually tire of fighting and negotiate an end to the war.
This might have been a realistic option and certainly less expensive than trying to build a new fleet for Germany.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Actually Roosevelt and his close advisors sucha as Harry Hopkins looked very favorably at Stalin as a partner and ally.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I know Roosevelt liked Stalin as an Ally, but I can't see even him allying with Stalin once Britain had made peace with Germany. Hess said that Hitler wanted to eventually give France back most of it's territory, whether this is true or not is questionable, but what would be the purpose of the US going to war with Germany? The Americans really didn't have a beef with Germany, remember it was Germany that declared war on the US, the isolationist feeling was still strong and I doubt Roosevelt could have convinced the American people to go to war to save Communist Russia

As Johnnyreb mentioned Hitler did not remember the U-boat's role in WWI but the British would have. A submarine is an offensive weapon and Great Britain would have monitored the build up of the U-boat fleet and viewed at as a major threat since the British would know that they could be starved to death by a numerical superior U-boat fleet. No way she would have stayed out of Hitler's way.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I seriously doubt that if Hitler declared war on the Soviet Union without first obtaining a peace with Britain that the British would have abandoned the war. With the Soviets fighting Germany Britain gains exactly what she needed as an ally: A land power. With the US also backing Britain the British position would now have been very strong and Germany would be in the same position they were originally.
For Germany changing their maritime strategy only works if, and only if, they finish their war with Britain and France before starting anything else. If Hitler forces a war with the Soviets before Britain surrenders Germany is finished.

Also note: Submarines are spoilers not winners in naval warfare. They are not a weapon of decision in naval warfare, at least not in WW 2. What they can do is wage war on merchant shipping as raiders. They cannot defeat a navy on their own. The best Germany can hope for in a U-boat war is that Britain decides the cost of fighting is not worth the economic losses inflicted by the U-boats.
An alternate for Britain is to do what happened with the US (Northern) merchant fleet during the Civil War. That is, the British start relying on foreign hulls for shipping and force the Germans into sinking neutral shipping that ends with the neutral powers declaring war on Germany over their sinkings.
On its own, a merchant war at sea (a Guerre de Course) historically is never successful on its own. A nation persuing one needs eventually to put a fleet at sea to defeat their enemy and gain naval supremacy for victory.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Weren't some major surface ships sunk by U-boats too?

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

I was speaking in terms of Great Britain not doing anything which of course they would not do because as Terry has stated, their sole purpose would be to wage war against the merchant marines. I do not think that the Royal Navy could have fended off the U-boats on its own. The addition of the Escort carriers, and the flying boats doomed the u-boats to a watery grave.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Yes, a few were. But, this never did result in decisive sea control by a submarine force, any submarine force. The occasional win does not equate to sea control which is the strategic objective of naval power.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Well, its still a feat to drop like a heavier ship with a submarine!

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Building more U-boats would only threaten one nation, Britain, which is exactly what Hitler didn't want.
Hitler didn't want war with Britain, he wanted to control mainland Europe and conquer large area's of Eastern Europe, but he wanted the British to look the other way while he did so. Building U-boats would only provoke Britain, but building a few battleships and a small number of other vessels wouldn't, as Britain's navy was well capable of dealing with them.

If Hitler had started to build up his U-boats in 1934 its unlikely that Britain would have gone along with a policy of appeasement, and instead taken a more pro-active role against the rise of German militarism, possibly reacting against the German army's move into the Rhineland in 1936

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

I would agree in essence with Britian being an island and all, but in the sphere of a Global War which was the reality in this era, U-boats threatend the vital existance of everyone. Here is an example of how Russia relied on the Atlantic Crossing for survival..

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Although that list would be tiny compared to Soviet production figures...

__________________

Build up the U-boat fleet, For a war against the Soviet Union ????????

In 1934 it would have needed a really good crystal ball to have knowledge that the capitalist USA would supply war materials to the communist USSR in a war against Germany !!!!!

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!