German vs. Russia - No England.

All right guys, British-Empire obviously has a massive case of selective learning so it would be smartest just to ignore him now.

 

Thanks mate I had a great little giggle over that post/.

I love that ROFL smilie.

 

Important? It's irrelevant. We aren't talking about the whys we're talking about whether the US sub force was effective in sinking Japanese warships.

I've seen nothing to indicate the fuel shortage was causing IJN ships to slow down and become bigger targets. As far as the DD attrition earlier in the war note that US subs were responsible for a significant part of it. But again we aren't talking about the whys just that it happened.

That is a tautology. And again your point is irrelevant to what happened. Certainly subs had a hard time targeting warships moving at speed although they were on occasion successful even at that. But there were times as well when warships couldn't move at full speed or didn't have good ASW escorts or enough of them. At which point they could be quite effective.

Depends on what you call a handful. And is somewhat less relevant to the question at hand i.e. sub performance vs warships than a more general study would be. It looks to me like you are trying to prove your point by both narrowing the question and changing it to one where you are correct. My original point was that in WWII the US sub force was effective vs Japanese warships and you have not refuted that.

 

No, I am relating the issue to the original issue raised by B-E; that German U-boas would be able to sink large numbers of USN vessels in the Atlantic. Every book on submarine warfare I have read emphasizes that subs in WW II were NOT effective against warships primarilay because of the relative speed issue and effective naval ASW.

Historically the fact is that no submarine arm, including the US submarine arm, was able to sink large numbers of any naval force, including the IJN. The few Japanese naval vessels that US subs were able to sink were sunk only in the last twelve months of the war, after important attributes of naval forces were stripped from the Japanese Navy.

In fact, the 22 major Japanese Naval vessels sunk by US subs is not a large number considering the length of time it took to sink them. Whether you've seen it or not, the IJN vessels were steaming more slowly in the final year of the war to conserve fuel. The Shinano, for instance, was lost because, on it's final voyage it never exceeded 20 knots. And the attrition of destroyers was mainly caused by losses against surface and air forces in the Southwest Pacific fighting.

Your assertion that there were times that subs could be "quite effective" against warships is absolutely true in the abstract, but not in practical terms. Yes, subs did occasionally catch warships in situations where it was possible to make successful attacks, but that is not relevant when speaking of the totality of WW II. What is relevant is the numbers of warships sunk by subs, and that proves that few warships fell to subs. B-E is arguing that subs could, at will, successfully attack warships, and I am arguing that was not true. Read Blair, or read Padfield, and you will find that for every successful sub attack against warships, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds that failed abjectly.

 

No body but BE had anything to say in support of that and he didn't have any foundation for what he said.

And the Japanese seldom had effective ASW. As for the speed issue a lot of the sinkings were when the vessels were not at full speed. Often however this was because they were already damaged rather than lack of fuel. The fact that the US subs were waiting near harbors in many cases for merchant men put them in a good postion to pick off cripples.

Then your defintion of large numbers is different than mine I consider 100s of warships to be large numbers.

And the subs had a big part in stripping these away.

It's a substantial porportion of the total number sunk.

Got some referances? But in any case the subs were to a large part responsible for that.
[qutoe] The Shinano, for instance, was lost because, on it's final voyage it never exceeded 20 knots.
[/quote]
She also thought she was safe. She wasn't even zig zaging. Of course she also wasn't in commision yet.

A significant number were also to subs. Furthermore the smaller escrots lost put a greater bind on Japanese ASW assets.

I think 1/3 constitutes more than a few.

I argued the same. It was the overall situation that made the US boats effective. The Japanese couldn't devote the resources they needed to ASW.
[/quote] Read Blair, or read Padfield, and you will find that for every successful sub attack against warships, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds that failed abjectly.[/quote]

The same is true of shells and bombs.

 

Germany v's Russia?

This is a toughy. Germany would have been just ahead of Russia all round,Russia was lucky that there winter holted the germans advance.
If you take way bad weather,Germany was on top of Russia in all ways apart from population of Soldiers.

 

Take away the bad weather? Weather was not the major factor that the Germans lost. Logistics was one of the major factors for the Germans defeat in the East. As the war ground on the Soviet military became more and more improved and experienced. In weapons and tactics and leadership.

 

Yeah Ok.I see were you are going with this. Russia had more of an advatage than Germany by being on home turf,therefore Russian supplie lines were much easier to refuel and reload. Ok i understand you're information.

 

Thats just a small part of what happened. Logistics is more then just fuel and ammunition. I may suggest that you go to the part of the Forums dedicated to the Eastern Front as this is for "What If?"s scenarios. There is way more information there.

 

Regardless, you appear to be trying to argue both sides of the issue. I'm merely pointing out that no submarine arm in WW II lived up to pre-war expectations against major warships, nor had great success in sinking them.

I suppose you can document your assertions? How many major Japanese warships were already damaged by some other agency when sunk by a US sub? Names Please? How many Major Japanese warships were sunk by subs waiting off Japanese ports? Names please?

In fact, both Blair and Padfield report that most Japanese warships which were sunk by US subs, were the subject of ULTRA reports, especially later in the war., and Blair specifically criticizes this doctrine of sending subs out after warship ULTRA contacts because it so often resulted in failure and a resultant waste of the submarine's patrol time.

Actually I believe our definitions are quite comparable; I too, would consider "hundreds" of major warships a "large" number. However, I am unaware of any submarine arm in WW II that was able to sink hundreds of major warships. If you are, I would appreciate seeing the data quantified.I believe tghe US submarine service was the most successsful at this task and it managed only 22 major warships throughout the entire war.

Yes, particularly in sinking oilers, thus depriving the IJN of critical fuel reserves. But that still doesn't mean the subs themselves were praticularly effective against major warships

Which still doesn't make 22 a large number.

I've been quoting Blair and Padfield, two acknowledged experts on WW II submarine warfare. Who have you been referencing?

No, the Shinano's skipper did NOT think she was "safe". And Shinano WAS zig-sagging, the only thing which allowed Archerfish to stay in contact. The Shinano had only six boilers online, and was doing her best speed, 20 knots, on two shafts. Then when Archerfish's skipper had almost given up, Shinano was forced to reduce speed to 18 knots because of a bad shaft bearing, and then she zigged directly toward Archerfish.

Incidentally, the Shinano had been in commission for ten days when she was sunk.

See; Battleships: axis and neutral ... - Google Book Search

So what? I never claimed anything relative to subs and escorts, just major warships. Trying to confuse the issue isn't helpful.

Not in absolute terms, 22 is still 22, a rather indignificant number considering the size of the IJN.

Read Blair, or read Padfield, and you will find that for every successful sub attack against warships, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds that failed abjectly.[/quote]

Except that shells and bombs sank the majority of major Japanese warships.

 

No I was pointing out the one possible counter example and indeed looking at how it was possible grants even more insight into why BE's expectations were highly unreasonable.

It will take me a bit to look it up. Will try to post it in the next day or two.

This is a bit of a bait and switch. Your original statment was:

No mention of major warships jsut warships. US subs were credited with over 200.

Given that Japan lost less than 100 major warships that's still a very signficant number in my book.

The total number of major Japanese warships and the total number sunk are what make it a large or at least a signficant number.

Ok I got some of the details wrong but it doesn't appear from the above that fuel supplies were the reason for her going slowly. Indeed 20 knots wasn't an unheard of cruising speed was it?

Made a silly assumption. Assumed that since I remembered that she was still under construction that she wasn't in commission yet.

Check your quote above as to what you said.

Considering the size of the IJN you could make that case but if you are consdiering the size of the IJN the relevant number is 200+. As stated above considering the number of major warships I'd say it is.

Then why bring up the percentage of successful attacks at all if that's what you meant? I also suspect if you restrict it to bombs you no longer have a majority. But of course that's pretty much irrelevant also.

 

I have always been speaking of major warships. You are the one trying to expand the numbers by bringing in subxhasers, minesweepers and picket boats. I have qualified my statements by adding the term "major", but of course, that gets tiresome. So when I say "warship", I'm not talking about PT boats, landing craft, or sampans.

Well, go ahead and consider it so. In fact not many historians do, and neither do I.

Can you say that for sure? Any references?

In fact, a cruising speed of 20 knots was often chosen because it was just above the surface speed of almost all submarines in WW II. Only a handful of subs had a toop surface speed of 20 knots or more. The only reason Archerfish was able to keep up with (but not gain a firing position) was that Shinano was zig-zagging.

You seem to be making ba lot of assumptions.

I didn't raise the issue, you did.

If the whole thing is irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

 

You originally did not qualify it. Furthermore by the context there is no reason to limit it. Especially if you are making the case that inadequate ASW allowed the latter sinkings then sub induced attrition on ASW vessels should clearly be considered. However let's take a look at major combat vessels and see what the numbers really say.

BBs - I count 12 battleships. Of these subs sink 1 and damage another. Not very effective so far.

Carriers (not counting Sea plane Carriers) - I count 25 of these subs sink 8 and damage 5 one of which is never goes on another war cruise. That looks pretty effective to me.

Heavy cruisers - I count 18. Of these subs sink 4, damage 4 directly (3 of which never make another war cruise), and 2 more are damaged in a collsion istigated by USS Tambor. Again pretty effective.

Out of 55 vessels 13 are sunk and another 4 out of the war that's almost 1/3 pretty effective as far as I'm concnerned.

Got any referances to show that "not many historians" consider that not very effective?

No you don't. You claimed that they were cruising slower due to the oil shortage. I merely said I'd seen nothing to indicate it. Proveing it is in your court not mine.

Which implies the fuel shortage was not why she was going at that speed and not why she was vulnerable to being torpedoed.

On the contrary you did when you brought up the number of failed sub attacks. I was merely pointing out that bombs and shells miss a lot as well.

You did. I guess I should just stop responding to your irrelevancies.

 

Weather can be such a bugger. Pity the Germans didnt consider this upon crossing the border. In fact they hadnt considered their own logistics either, nor Russian industry capabilities, nor the ferocity of the "IVAN" fighting to defend his family and homeland, nor even the weapons with which "IVAN" fought with or the amount. They hadnt even thought of how they would replenish the hundreds of thousands of their men which they lost in the "warmer" days. They also werent very familiar with size of the Russian army or in some cases the terrain.....


Now that I think of it, why did the Germans attack??

 

So now you're trying to count damaged ships (even those damaged in collision!!), as well as sunk. Why not count ships whose skippers were scared by sub sightings? And don't forget rumors and tall tales.

Even by your numbers, 13/55, subs weren't all that effective, no matter how concerned you are.

Well, not sure how to count a negative, maybe I should list all historians who fail to say subs were effective against major warships?

At least I have listed two historians who say they weren't; Padfield and Blair. I'm getting a little tired of listing references all the time and having them ignored, then seeing you make completely unsupported assertions without referencing a single source.

Although not giving specific instances, it's mentioned in Dull, "Battle History of The Imperial Japanese Navy", and also given as a very strong possibility in Prados, "Combined Fleet Decoded". As a general rule, navies experiencing extrem oil shortages, as was the IJN, will operate at slower speeds to stretch their oil supplies.

I never said it was.

I believe the reference I quoted on the loss of the Shinano, says she was steaming on six boilers because four of her ten boilers had not been completely connected yet. Her top speed was 20-21 knots. You would do well to actually read the references I supply.

No, I most emphatically did not raise the issue.

You claimed that subs often made successful attacks on major warships, and I reponded by pointing out that for every successful sub attack on a major warship, there were dozens of unsuccessful sub attacks.

Then you, not having any counter to that fact, tried to muddy the waters by saying the same thing was true of shells and bombs.

So if anyone is introducing irrelevancies in lieu of cogent agruments, it is you, not I.

 

Maybe you two should agree to disagree before this goes any further.

 

I have some important questions to Devilsadvocate.

1, Since America is out of the war how does America violate her Neutrality Act to declare war on the Axis and if she can't how does FDR justify the billions of dollars of appropriations to expand the US armed forces.?

2, Prior to the entry of the US the lend lease act only allowed a cash and carry system, meaning that The Soviet Union has to provide all the means to transport the supplies, can you supply me with the strength of the Soviet Merchantile and Naval Marine as of 22nd June 1941 to man both the Soviet Atlantic and Pacific convoys.?

3, With the Kriegsmarine blocking the Soviet Atlantic convoys and the Royal Italian Navy blocking the Soviet Mediterannean convoys (remember no interdiction of the OKM or RM by the RN) and that the IJN is blockading the Soviet Pacific convoys where are the Soviets going to be able to find a place to deliver too.?

4, With the British out of the war how are the Greeks and Jugoslavs able to get the political will to fight the Italians, remember that Jugoslavia had a coup a day after they signed an alliance with Germany because a still fighting Britain urged the opposition to take over and they did, but a defeated Britain the Jogoslavian Opposition has no western political support and the same is said of the Greeks, so how are the Greeks and Jugoslavia going resist both German and Italian pressure without Britan's back-up.?

5, Without any lend lease reaching their ports due to interdiction how does the Soviets overcome their total isolation against the entire Axis.?

v.R

 

Why do we need to agree on disagreement?

We're doing a fine job of disagreeing without any agreement at all.

 

I have enjoyed reading the discussion between the two of you, I think you both make good points, just seems to be getting a bit heated.