How did submarine warfare work in ww1?
What were the tactical differences compared to ww2 considering the shorter range and slower speed of most torpedos, contact detonators being the detonators available and sonar only becoming a thing very late in the war?
How did submarine warfare work in ww1?
Aaron Bailey
Austin Parker
WWI: Much slower and less effective. Torpedoes were straight running and extremely difficult to use due to a lack of computer aids. Hydrophones were extremely crude and incapable of detecting vessels at long ranges. The convoy system made it difficult to find ships on shipping lanes and those that were sat behind a screen of escorts. Subs were basically commerce raiders that could duck under enemy patrols by diving.
WWII: Hydrophones were much better and allowed for the detection of convoys at relatively long ranges. Sophisticated torpedo data computers that, along with better gyro's in the torpedoes, meant underwater attacks could be carried out with a much higher degree of success. Technology differed heavily depending on the country, but the sub was becoming a far more versatile weapon. The US developed extremely effective radar sets and torpedo data computers, the Dutch developed the snorkel, and Germany had very good pressure hulls, hydrophones, and developed the first submarine designed to operate almost exclusively underwater.
Chase Morgan
Jayden Davis
german subs were actually comparably more effective in WW1 than WW2
tons of cargo sunk in WW1 was roughly equal to amount sunk in WW2
but since there was so much more vessels in WW than 1, total percent sunk is paltry
like wise, u-boat losses in WW1 never reached critical levels, while losses increased in 17 and 18 subs were also larger and so proprtionate losses stayed the same
by 44 and 45, u-boats were effectively nullified and had taken the largest proportionate loss of any branch of the german armed forces, about 75% lost
Zachary White
>while losses increased in 17 and 18 subs were also larger and so proprtionate losses stayed the same
They damn near put Britain in the poorhouse in the process. When we came into the war we brought the convoy system with us. In the months before it was a very, very near-run thing.
William Fisher
Totally straight running?
Not even the slightest ability to steer a tiny bit to the left to the right?
Parker Anderson
Nope. Getting it to run straight at a given depth was an engineering triumph unto itself.
Lincoln Anderson
The deck gun was the weapon of choice for WW1 U-boat captains, at least before convoys became widespread. The lack of a hydrophone meant that detection of a target was limited to the Mk. 1 eyeball. U-boats operated individually in WW1 while in WW2 advances in radio technology meant that U-boats could be put into groups known as wolfpacks and commanded from an HQ in Paris, as a scissor to the convoy's paper. While effective for a period of time, the excessive radio communications required meant that two or more Allied high frequency direction finding stations were able to triangulate a boat's position, send it to the Submarine Tracking Room which could then route convoys around sub infested waters, and then vector any nearby ASW assets onto it. This undoubtedly contributed in large part to the enormous losses the U-boats suffered in WW2. Meanwhile, in the Pacific, against an enemy much more inept in ASW, the American submarines formed decentralized groups typically consisting of 3 to 4 subs. They were under the command of a local skipper, in contrast to U-boats that received direct orders from Admiral Dönitz. They could send and receive messages via radar sets, which tended to be quite secure, and armed with a wealth of intelligence provided by code breakers, they wreaked havoc on Japanese shipping.
Zachary Sanchez
i think youd have to look at different phases of ww2 for effectiveness. up until 42 uboats were quite effective. allied asw was ramped up specifically because uboats were a huge threat
Jace Watson
Julian Collins
>until 42
1942 was one of the worst years for the Allies due to the USN ignoring the RN trying to tell them how not to get all their shit sunk. Really basic stuff like "use convoys" and "don't waste escorts patrolling random stretches of ocean" was straight ignored by King until losses forced him to accept that perhaps the Brits knew how to conduct ASW operations.
Lucas Anderson
retard, educate yourself before writing such bullshit.
krauts almost defeated bongs because not even the liberty class could compensate the amount of sunk ships, britain was a couple of weeks away from hunger unrests and surrender in ww1 due to missing countermrasures for subs.
Anthony Evans
>WWI: Much slower and less effective.
Yet much, much more terrifying than later on because of still being new and hard to counter weapon and no amount of armor would protect you
Cameron Anderson
you go under and boom!
Evan Howard
>krauts almost defeated bongs because not even the liberty class could compensate the amount of sunk ships
What the fuck is the "liberty class"? If you meant Liberty Ships they were a WW2-thing.
>retard, educate yourself before writing such bullshit.
Indeed.
Adrian Barnes
At what point does incompetence become a court martial offence? King's hubris and anglophobia cost a lot of American lives.
Cameron Ortiz
>krauts almost defeated bongs because not even the liberty class could compensate the amount of sunk ships
only about 10% of of ships were sunk per attack, and only 10% of all convoys were attacked
so only 1% of all atlantic crossings were ever sunk
1942, the worst year of the atlantic war, the germans were only able to meet the needed quota of 700,000 tons of cargo a month to counter act allied shipping
they still only reached that target once in all of 1942
>britain was a couple of weeks away from hunger unrests and surrender in ww1 due to missing countermrasures for subs.
why you talking about liberty ships in WW1?
in any case, while the U-boat campaign in WW1 was actually able to get close to starving out the UK
they were never able to bring UK rationing as bad as the UK blockade was hurting germany
Gabriel Rivera
wasnt german subs basically the reason usa got into WW1 ?
Adrian Perez
>while the U-boat campaign in WW1 was actually able to get close to starving out the UK
UK was not close to starving. Even in the worst of times only things like meat, butter, and sugar were rationed.
Adrian Butler
bump
Jaxon Stewart
Well there wasn't any guidance system at the time so any steering mechanism really wouldn't have a purpose.
Cameron Gomez
Just look at the early mk 14
Ian Stewart
>what does that one do?
Evan Stewart
With gyroscopes it allows for offset launches. This would be complicated in ww1 as there weren't any onboarding calculators to manage offset angles, range, and estimated ship and sub speed.
Pattern torpedoes were also used to course through convoys and increased the likelihood of a hit. The ladder pattern they run would course through a convoys path. Ladder pattern torpedoes don't have guidance systems either.
Jacob Powell
it was unironically the eternal anglo
Carson Howard
well obviously anglos had a lot of boys dying in france so why not get as many others fighting the krautniggers.
Grayson Butler
because civilian ships loaded with war materiel is not gentlemanly
Jaxon Hernandez
>all those different airframes on deck
Samuel Myers
Pick up a book on the subject, as it's really interesting. There's more information on the politics within the German command structure than you'd imagine.
Also, in mid WWI, boat captains were given a lot of latitude as to how they selected their targets, and whether or not to stop/notify, and allow their targets to abandon ship. Case in point, Walter Schwieger and the sinking of the Lusitania.
Hunter Lewis
Was a attack like pic related now actually possible or not?
Colton Turner
Sauce for those numbers? Fascinating if true
Hunter Hernandez
King was over confident and the usn did fumble early war shipping protection really badly, but him being anglophobic is overblown. He did have conflicts with Brooke, but the British would throw a shit fit every time any resources were diverted to the Pacific, Aussies and Kiwis be damned.
He also saved a lot of american lives pushing for the guadalcanal operation as early as he did, american forces caught the Japanese off guard with the rapid counter attack through the south pacific. Japanese strategic planners had expected to have one to three years to fortify all their island conquests. Because king pushed for gaudalcanal early, we managed to get the ball rolling on pacific offensives early enough that a lot of preparations and defenses wouldn't be complete when we arrived.
But on the other hand king was a massive asshole.
Julian King
Didn't know that. Something to look up, then.
Leo Perez
bump
Asher Carter
SM U139 bump
Robert Cooper
And they did some tests.Turn out they would be ok even if all ships carrying food were sunk;
> One egg, four ounces of fat (around five teaspoons), five ounces of sugar (that includes any sugar to be found in jam or marmalade), four ounces of cheese, sixteen ounces of meat or fish, and a little under two pints of milk. If you grow your own fruit, you could throw in another six ounces (roughly half an apple). But, crucially, as much wholemeal bread, vegetables, and potatoes as you like. That is everything. A weekly diet offering all the nutrition a human being needs. The only problem is that there is not enough calcium. In which case, fortify the wholemeal flour with a bit of chalk—the exact amount to be confirmed by subsequent experimentation.
theguardian.com
Easton Miller
Hans it's the one on the left, no! my left.