|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 15, 2023 6:50:01 GMT
Do they win the battle of the Atlantic?
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 15, 2023 10:07:08 GMT
Do they win the battle of the Atlantic? No.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966 
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on May 15, 2023 13:56:51 GMT
Do they win the battle of the Atlantic?
There is the Frivolous ASB thread for these kind of post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 18, 2023 2:04:42 GMT
There's the question whether they'll find enough competent men to man them. But if... OTL was bad enough, but here the British food imports might be hurt enough to force them to make peace.
And the B-29 only was ready in 1942.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 18, 2023 2:22:10 GMT
There's the question whether they'll find enough competent men to man them. But if... OTL was bad enough, but here the British food imports might be hurt enough to force them to make peace. And the B-29 only was ready in 1942. 1. 40,000 coal miners divided by 53? They had enough for 755. How many U-boats died? 783. 10% by mechanical failure, and 705 remainder killed in combat. net theoretical survivors? -45. The B-29 was functionally ready in 1950 after a many many fixes. Before then; it was the American version of the Greif, only with better maintenance. Still had exploding engines and 7% mechanical induced loss of mission throughout WWII. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 18, 2023 12:31:40 GMT
There's the question whether they'll find enough competent men to man them. But if... OTL was bad enough, but here the British food imports might be hurt enough to force them to make peace. And the B-29 only was ready in 1942.
I would agree in terms of both suitable men to operate them and also possibly to construction more/provide spares. OTL while a number were produced before the war ended many were non-operational due to poor workmanship given the process of constructing them in sections in fairly isolated locations then seeking to put those sections together at the shipyards so a lot would depend on what condition those 300 boats are in.
However even if they could only get a fraction of them operational and working its going to be very bad for the allies and as you say Britain could be forced to make peace. Both in terms of imports and the heavier losses of merchant shipping. Which would leave Germany with only a single front war against the Soviets so at the least that's going to be even more costly for the latter. The US might end up at war with Japan at some stage but there's a danger that the war in Europe would be over before they are shaken out of their isolationist stupor,
While miletus12 way be exaggerating a bit the B-29 wasn't OTL ready until 44-45 and still had some problems then. Plus the devastating fire bomb attacks on urban areas were only really possible because Japanese air defence had been pretty much destroyed. This enabled the B-29 attacks to be made at fairly low level and with many defensive guns removed to cut the weight. German cities won't be as flammable and their air defence if war comes between the two nations is likely to be significantly more powerful. It would need nukes, which likely wouldn't be around until 1945/46 and some base near Germany to allow concerted nuclear attacks.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 18, 2023 13:55:25 GMT
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on May 18, 2023 13:59:26 GMT
This thread is about Germany geting 300 Type XXI u boats in 1939, not the B-29, so lets get back to topic.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 18, 2023 15:38:11 GMT
The Germans were not going to get 300 Type XXI U-boats in 1939. They did not have the tech. As was correctly as a tangential comment pointed out, their hull welding was sloppy. In addition, their battery tech was "incompetent" and I can add their ergonomics were not at all acceptable. They had a built-in 10% loss of missions with the Type VII, a WWI design somewhat updated. With the Type XXI; it was more like 40% based on post-war examination of their defective design.
Miletus
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on May 18, 2023 15:42:34 GMT
The Germans were not going to get 300 Type XXI U-boats in 1939. They did not have the tech. As was correctly as a tangential comment pointed out, their hull welding was sloppy. In addition, their battery tech was "incompetent" and I can add their ergonomics were not at all acceptable. They had a built-in 10% loss of missions with the Type VII, a WWI design somewhat updated. With the Type XXI; it was more like 40% based on post-war examination of their defective design. Miletus This is a ASB thread, even with 300 subs, in 1939 Germany did not have the crew to manned them all. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 19, 2023 13:54:32 GMT
I think the problem is we're using different terminology here. There were still problems with the B-29 failing to meet operational aims, hence the change in tactics for the fire bomb attacks. Sounds like from the NACA article this was being investigated towards the end of the war and it seems to suggest that the problems were largely solvable. As it says
As such while it needed some tweaking it managed to achieve its required aims. The development of the B-50 seems to have built on the knowledge gain to enable a more successful replacement fairly quickly which suggests that the air force was still unhappy with the modified B-29 but the US was the one nation at the time with the resources available to do that.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 19, 2023 21:52:09 GMT
I was told the B-29 was not on topic. But as a general comment, on this subject topic as the example: when "I" use the term "unacceptable" it means that a system like the U-XXI was "unacceptable" when its loss rate exceeded the damage return on enemy inflicted ratio.
And static test stand is not "operational use" for something like a defective battery or torpedo tubes or periscope sheers or dive planes or pick a system on the Type XXI that did not actually correctly work.
To be sure the Germans were "desperate" in their case, and they would use the normally unusable and unreliable because they had nothing else at all for the role, but do not confuse desperation with "acceptable".
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2023 10:08:22 GMT
I was told the B-29 was not on topic. But as a general comment, on this subject topic as the example: when "I" use the term "unacceptable" it means that a system like the U-XXI was "unacceptable" when its loss rate exceeded the damage return on enemy inflicted ratio. And static test stand is not "operational use" for something like a defective battery or torpedo tubes or periscope sheers or dive planes or pick a system on the Type XXI that did not actually correctly work. To be sure the Germans were "desperate" in their case, and they would use the normally unusable and unreliable because they had nothing else at all for the role, but do not confuse desperation with "acceptable".
True sorry, I forgot that point. Apologies.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on May 20, 2023 10:23:44 GMT
I was told the B-29 was not on topic. But as a general comment, on this subject topic as the example: when "I" use the term "unacceptable" it means that a system like the U-XXI was "unacceptable" when its loss rate exceeded the damage return on enemy inflicted ratio. And static test stand is not "operational use" for something like a defective battery or torpedo tubes or periscope sheers or dive planes or pick a system on the Type XXI that did not actually correctly work. To be sure the Germans were "desperate" in their case, and they would use the normally unusable and unreliable because they had nothing else at all for the role, but do not confuse desperation with "acceptable". True sorry, I forgot that point. Apologies. Steve
Is okay. Going back to the topic, the Kriegsmarine had 57 U-boats is service in 1939, even with all the crews of those U-boats going back to port and convert to the Type XXI, wich i asume will take time, there will still be some 240 + Type XXIs that will not enter service for a while and will be good targets for the RAF to hit. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2023 11:13:54 GMT
True sorry, I forgot that point. Apologies. Steve
Is okay. Going back to the topic, the Kriegsmarine had 57 U-boats is service in 1939, even with all the crews of those U-boats going back to port and convert to the Type XXI, wich i asume will take time, there will still be some 240 + Type XXIs that will not enter service for a while and will be good targets for the RAF to hit.
Unfortunately in 1939, even if the allies find out about those new boats and where they are Bomber Command isn't in any type of state to attack them.
Definitely it will take time to convert from existing boats to the type XXI - even assuming that the latter come with any instructions, manuals and the like. Let alone trying to get new ones constructed or even repairing any flaws or providing new spares.
|
|
