Super Battleships and the progress of technology.

[Guest]

Filipe Ramires wrote:

Yes they could. For some reason both navies had quite a number of submarines ahead of their fleets in that battle. Nautilus got a "dud" hit on Kaga and I-68 finished off Yorktown.



Both Kaga and Yorktown were already abandoned and dead in the water.

It is technically possible for a WWII submarine to achieve what the USN dive bombers achieve against IJN first air fleet. Just like it is technically possible for WWII submarine to sink 4 modern Sea Wolf class nuclear powered attack submarine. But the required circumstances which could bring that possibility to actuality - The opponents are surfaced, slow or dead in the water, and the WWII submarine somehow manage to be near by - is extremely unlikely.

[Guest]

I will stick my neck out on this one a say that the submarine was indeed the main naval weapon of WW2 . It nearly brought Britian to its knees and in the case of Japan the USN submarine force achieved what the U-boat did not . I base this on the premiss that naval air power did not have the same direct impact on the civil population, supply and war production as that of the submarine . Therefor as a strategic weapon of blackade as apposed to a theatre weapon like the carrier the submarine could be seen as the much more effective naval vessel .
Dave Wooley

That's like saying tank is the main army weapon of WWII, as if the tanks would have done any good without infantry and artillery.

[Laurence Batchelor]

I will stick my neck out on this one a say that the submarine was indeed the main naval weapon of WW2 . It nearly brought Britian to its knees and in the case of Japan the USN submarine force achieved what the U-boat did not. .
Dave Wooley

It's a long held popular war myth than the U-boats, nearly brought Britain to her knees.
When a proper analytical study was done after WW2 by Roskill, the numbers don't support this.
Sinkings in terms of tonnage sunk were small at all stages of the war in relation to the tonnages which actually got through.
It was in part a progoganda myth constructed for Britain's own ends for support from her Colonies and America.

Also Churchill's famous words of "it was the only thing which really worried me during the war" has largely been taken out of his true meaning.
What he was trying to say was that it was the pivotal battle which all others depended and this is why he really worried about it.
Win it and you most likely win the war.
Lose it and you might as well go home packing.

The fact was that it was the rate of sinkings offset against new merchant ship construction which was the worry.
Basically during the happy times the rate was too high and if left unchecked and not reduced then that would have nearly forced Britain to her knees.
But at no actual stage of the war was that ever reached.
I think the worse it ever got was that Britain 'only' had 6 months oil supply left at the worse stage of sinkings in the war.
Which by anybody's standards that doesn't sound that close does it to bringing Britain to her knees when you think of the sheer volume of oil she's using!

Dave, I agree

naval air power did not have the same direct impact on the civil population, supply and war production as that of the submarine.

That could be said for both WWI & WW2 for the submarine.
However Air Power in a general sense in WW2 did.
Strategic bombing wrecked germany industry, in reverse the Blitz on England, Dreaden raids or the Japanese fire raids all killed more civilians than submarines ever could.
These also disrupted production at their very centres of existence.

Therefore as a strategic weapon of blackade as opposed to a theatre weapon like the carrier the submarine could be seen as the much more effective naval vessel

The question I posed was solely airpower ever used as a form of blockade?
No it wasn't given a chance and thus can never prove its worth in that sphere as a weapon.

I pose this point though, how effective was a British Blockade on Germany in both WWI & WW2?, they did not use submarines.
But rather a distant blockade with surface vessels, good intel, aircraft, and also a good use of economic warfare, it works just as well and also builds up over time as the situation for Germany gets progressively worse and she cannot easily break the blockade.
The submarine only comes into its own when you have a big fat juicy merchant fleet to prey on, nothing else beats it until air power can come along and suppress its effectiveness.

Right time to watch the rest of my Das Boot DVD again!

[Filipe Ramires]

Still too simplistic an arguement!
Numbers are not a true measure of effectivess, many more submarines were built than carriers.

Sorry but it is that simple in fact. Number of sinkings, tonnage....most of it go to the submarines. There's no argument about that.
More submarines were built then carriers because submarines are cheaper weapons in all ways. A submarine can operate alone therefore its cost is limited to its production and maintenance cost. A carrier doesn't benefit of that. A Carrier alone costs much much more then a submarine, not to speak the resources you will be spending to put a task force around it. Submarine needs nothing of that other then a home base or a submarine tender.

History doesn't speak for itself it is written by the victors and merely interpreted by scholars or armchair historians, often without an appreciation of the circumstances/contexts these mere numbers were accumulated.

When strong facts and numbers are presented then History speaks mostly for itself leaving little margin of error. History that way can hardly be interpreted...History happens in one way only...regardless of what we wanted to happen. True historians and true armchair historian seek for the truth not for what they wanted to happen and the truth is on the sea floor practically all over the planet full of ships mostly holed by torpedoes launched by submarines.

Well I seem to remember the Doolittle raid early on in the Pacific war, is that close enough for Tokyo for you?

Yes, the "Do Little" Raid like the Japanese called it...barelly had any impact in the Japanese war effort at all. It was more a moral blow to Japan and a political victory to the USA then anything else.

Lack of aircover over New York is due to a lack of the necessary resources not because aircraft could not forefil this role.

War lessons!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Interms of flexabilty, could submarines sink Yamato & Musashi with the expenditure that aircraft did?

Shinano was sunk by a submarine. I don't see why Yamato or Musashi couldn't have been. Any ship afloat at the time could not survive a 5 torpedo salvo from a submarine in open sea. Tell me one example please that did otherwise?

Thats not her mission though if presented with a convoy infront of her, its to sink merchant ships!
By sinking an escort she immediately gives away her position, and if there is enough escorts, even ones with early ASDIC (as in this non-WW2 scenario) they will be rolling a few tons of TNT her way.

Not exactly. There are many cases and orders issued to take on the escorts first and shorten the enemy of them. That happened in the Pacific a lot during 1943-1944...Destroyer Hunting Season.

I think it was Italy who had the 3rd largest submarine fleet in the world in 1939, pity they couldn't get 1 carrier operational in the Med in WW2 that would would have been worth 30 of their submarines!
Look what the RN achieved with just 1 fleet carrier operating in the Med for large parts of the war.
Look at what they couldn't achieve in Crete when most of Forminable's airwing was knackered.
Thats how pivotal 1 carrier can be! 1 submarine just never could influence a war campaign in such a strategic way.

From my point of view and numbers speak a lot also...Royal Navy submarines operating in the Mediterranean did take on loads of convoys full of supplies and tanks to North Africa. I believe Mr. Montgomery was very appreciated for that. I think that's some sort of influence in a military campaign.

You and Walt need to understand there is a clear distinction between sinking largely defenceless merchant ships and warships!
If I was to list most of the key capital ships sunk by enemy action in ww2 would we find air power had the most?, surface engagements? or submarines?

It will come nearly even in terms of warships but surely not in terms of merchants. Numbers, sorry, you asking me to put here a 11.000 ships database???

How many fully laden troop ships were sunk in the Atlantic, Indian Ocean or off the coasts of North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Normandy or the South of France.
I rest my case!

Unless your troops are fighting with light equipment only then only a few troop transports were sunk but regarding general equipment cargo ships....yes, those that carry tanks, bombers, field guns, etc. I can name a few more.

[Filipe Ramires]

It is technically possible for a WWII submarine to achieve what the USN dive bombers achieve against IJN first air fleet. Just like it is technically possible for WWII submarine to sink 4 modern Sea Wolf class nuclear powered attack submarine. But the required circumstances which could bring that possibility to actuality - The opponents are surfaced, slow or dead in the water, and the WWII submarine somehow manage to be near by - is extremely unlikely.

Courageous, Ark Royal, Taiho, Shinano, Wasp, Eagle....shall I continue?????? There's quite a few more. All being escorted, taken in fact with different sizeable task forces.....all sunk by submarines...none dead in the water.

[Filipe Ramires]

Win it and you most likely win the war.
Lose it and you might as well go home packing.

The fact was that it was the rate of sinkings offset against new merchant ship construction which was the worry.
Basically during the happy times the rate was too high and if left unchecked and not reduced then that would have nearly forced Britain to her knees.
But at no actual stage of the war was that ever reached.
I think the worse it ever got was that Britain 'only' had 6 months oil supply left at the worse stage of sinkings in the war.
Which by anybody's standards that doesn't sound that close does it to bringing Britain to her knees when you think of the sheer volume of oil she's using!

And how the Germans achieved those results??? Certainly not with a CV at all but with submarines.

That could be said for both WWI & WW2 for the submarine.
However Air Power in a general sense in WW2 did.
Strategic bombing wrecked germany industry, in reverse the Blitz on England, Dreaden raids or the Japanese fire raids all killed more civilians than submarines ever could.
These also disrupted production at their very centres of existence.

I find hard to believe that the heavy bombers that did all the strategic most important bombings of the war could have been launched by aircraft carriers. One thing is throwing in 100 carrier planes...other is throwing in 100 heavy bombers.

No it wasn't given a chance and thus can never prove its worth in that sphere as a weapon.

Submarine did proved its worth that way.

I pose this point though, how effective was a British Blockade on Germany in both WWI & WW2?, they did not use submarines.

Yes, they did use submarines as a blockade in both WW's. Royal Navy submarines were operating in Skagerrak as early as 1939 for WWII. They kept there and went on to Norway all long the war to sink as many German ships they could in those waters.

The submarine only comes into its own when you have a big fat juicy merchant fleet to prey on, nothing else beats it until air power can come along and suppress its effectiveness.

And where does that fit in WWI? And again, where does that fit off Japan home islands; USA Eastern coast?

[Filipe Ramires]

That's like saying tank is the main army weapon of WWII, as if the tanks would have done any good without infantry and artillery.

Yup, I agree. It's the same that saying that a carrier would be used without cruisers, destroyers...and even submarines!!!

[Werner]

Courageous, Ark Royal, Taiho, Shinano, Wasp, Eagle....shall I continue?????? There's quite a few more. All being escorted, taken in fact with different sizeable task forces.....all sunk by submarines...none dead in the water.

Wasp for one was basically a merchant ship with minimal torpedo defense, which was mishandled by her commanders, who ought to have been drawn and quartered. They kept her in a tiny operating zone across which were the picket points of several Japanese submarines.

Ark Royal's case is a real shame of economizing on casualty generators in order to get the ship through the estimates.

What was Taiho hit by, one 700 pound aerial torpedo? Hardly as great victory for submarines as it was for inept design and operation.

Shinano I might give you had she been complete and had a combat crew aboard. As it is, she lacked much of her watertight integrity.

Eagle was a basically unmodernized 25 year old battleship attacked in confined waters by the most efficient submarine force available. Personally, I'm surprised the hit didn't rupture every rivet in the ship and cause the ship to fall to pieces immediately.

Courageous is another ship which spent years between dockings and represents light cruiser design standards. Her sinking is attributable to being in a sea awash in enemy submarines commanded by expert skippers at the start of the war. His attacker used his knowledge of carrier operations to place himself in locations where the carrier would be were the launch of aircraft to occur.

I'm surprised you don't mention Yorktown. Obviously, if the Americans had not been too timid the carrier could have been towed out of the combat area and saved. As it was she took immense torpedo damage and did not sink. What did Hornet get? 4 torpedoes and 500 or so 5-inch shells? Even then the Japanese had to scuttle her with several more torpedoes. Even Houston and Canberra in 1944 showed how tough it was to destroy a combat ship.

[Filipe Ramires]

Werner, I only pointed out carriers being sunk uniquely by submarines therefore I was not counting Yorktown since she was already seriously damaged by the Japanese planes...apart the fact she could have been recovered hadn't I-68 showed up.
Hornet is a mixed bag like you said and includes no submarines at all. Took her 4 long-lance hits to get her sunk after all the beating she suffered previously.
Regarding Taiho, she was hit by a single torpedo of a 6 salvo from USS Albacore. Not an aerial torpedo.
The other cases are just bad damage handling or strategic/doctrine errors being the last ones used as opportunities to the submarines attacking them.
Finally, since you speaked of Houston II and Canberra II. Yes, they barely made it indeed and ships can survive torpedo hits a lot but they sure have a long holiday in a dry-dock making them useless for war operations during that time. Same does not happen that often to bomb hits. Ships can remain operating after bomb hits... depending of course of the number of hits, where it hits, etc. But a single torpedo hit is enough to withdraw the ship from the battlefield.

[Dave Wooley]

It can be said the Britain was loosing the war of attrition in 1941-42 and would have been defeated strategically at sea by the U-boat at that time if we had been unable to re-direct many of the convoys away from the wolf packs. This has little to do with air power or convoy escort just good "ultra" intelligence This in confirmed in great detail in the book �Battle of the Atlantic 1939-1945� edited by Stephen Howarth and Derek Law which formed the basis of the 50th Anniversary International naval conference held in Liverpool which I had the privilege to attend. To sum up there is no doubt of the effectiveness of the submarine but good intelligence was the ace in the hole for the allies but that doesn't remove the basic premise that the submarine by 1945, was indeed confirming it's place as the supreme naval weapon of WW2, and the future, This was confirmed in the post war years with the rise in the Soviet submarine fleet . In our present time the submarine is confirmed as the most effective strategic weapons delivery system ever developed .
Dave Wooley

[Filipe Ramires]

Using Stephen Roskill's book "The Navy at War - 1939-1945" as source:

Allied Merchant Ship losses:
2.828 ships (14.687.231 tons) - Submarines
820 ships (2.889.883 tons) - Aircraft
534 ships (1.406.037 tons) - Mines
104 ships (498.447 tons) - Warship raiders
133 ships (829.644 tons) - Merchant raiders
99 ships (229.676 tons) - E-boats
632 ships (1.029.802 tons) - Other causes

I believe the difference between submarines and aicraft is significant...

[Laurence Batchelor]

Sorry but it is that simple in fact. Number of sinkings, tonnage....most of it go to the submarines. There's no argument about that.
More submarines were built then carriers because submarines are cheaper weapons in all ways. A submarine can operate alone therefore its cost is limited to its production and maintenance cost. A carrier doesn't benefit of that. A Carrier alone costs much much more then a submarine, not to speak the resources you will be spending to put a task force around it. Submarine needs nothing of that other then a home base or a submarine tender.

If one was to write an academic paper and then present it at Sandhurst, Greenwich, or West Point and used this level of analysis one would be the laughing stock of the room and thrown out!
There must be a deeper level of analysis that that.
Numbers sunk merely are showing which weapon sunk the most.
It isn't showing what is best, because the circumstances those numbers were accumulated differ for air power and for submarines.
What has to be factored in is the number of submarines built in WW2 against the number carriers and carrier aircraft built.
Then a better analysis might be along the lines of taking 1 carrier battle group and in say over a 3 month period comparing it with 1 submarine or a few submarines.
By comparing what each did acheive one could then form a deeper level of analysis with greater evidential foundations.

Let me perhaps make an easier to understand analogy.
Lets say if more troops in WWI died from artillery shells than bullets does that make the 4.5" field howitzer is a better weapon to kill troops than the rifle or machine gun?
I think not the latter are and thats what your missing from your submarine sinkings analysis.
You need to understand the numbers might show a statistical pattern which doesn't hold true wholely true on the battlefield

When strong facts and numbers are presented then History speaks mostly for itself leaving little margin of error. History that way can hardly be interpreted...History happens in one way only...regardless of what we wanted to happen. True historians and true armchair historian seek for the truth not for what they wanted to happen and the truth is on the sea floor practically all over the planet full of ships mostly holed by torpedoes launched by submarines.

Numbers can still be interrepted!
As I have shown above! They show different people different patterns.
Only if you start to break down the contexts those numbers were accumulated, do you start to get a more trurer representation of what those numbers are showing!

Yes, the "Do Little" Raid like the Japanese called it...barelly had any impact in the Japanese war effort at all. It was more a moral blow to Japan and a political victory to the USA then anything else..

I direct you to your original question again.
You asked me were was the carriers off Tokyo in 1942.
I provided you with an operation proving they were there.
You didn't ask me to give you an effective mission did you!
It was purely a symbolic and moral boosting mission in such it was successful.

Shinano was sunk by a submarine. I don't see why Yamato or Musashi couldn't have been. Any ship afloat at the time could not survive a 5 torpedo salvo from a submarine in open sea. Tell me one example please that did otherwise?

Shinano didn't have a full crew, worked up and fully trained and she didn't have her watertight integrity in place! Yamato & Musashi did!
It was aircraft which spotted these 2 battleships and it was aircraft carriers which could vector an almost instance attack onto them.
The response time of a submarine to launch such a massed attack is weak in comparison and also aircraft are more likely to spot them than submarines of course in the first place.
Who cares about 5 torps etc, thats the power of the torpedo (and the weakness of a ship when its water tight integrity is threatened) and not the submarine!

And how the Germans achieved those results??? Certainly not with a CV at all but with submarines.

Ask yourself why! They ain't got any carriers, they haven't got a choice!
If they had a choice and Raeder had stayed in Command and no WW2 they would have had some carriers.
With Donitz becoming supreme Commander it merely reinforced the U-boat arm as being the main spearhead of the German Navy.
A war using Submarines was forced on the DKM & USN not by choice because they knew as the best weapon, but by the unforeseen circumstances of the war which I've already outlined.

It will come nearly even in terms of warships but surely not in terms of merchants. Numbers, sorry, you asking me to put here a 11.000 ships database???

No no we would only look at the capital ships in each navy that were sunk.

I find hard to believe that the heavy bombers that did all the strategic most important bombings of the war could have been launched by aircraft carriers. One thing is throwing in 100 carrier planes...other is throwing in 100 heavy bombers.

I was using the examples to show how air power has a much more direct impact on Civilians than submarines can and how they can cause more casualties.
Look at the many carrier operations of the BPF for more evidence, once a Navy had built up its carrier force then late war, and quiet rightly that now became the spearhead of that Navy and its most valuable weapon.
Submarines were used by the USN to 'hold the fort' or 'stem the tide' until they could built the proper weapons they wished to use i.e. carrier battle groups.
Of course the sub proved its effectiveness more than Commanders had thought it could (once they got working torpedos), but as soon as naval air power has caught up it then takes precedence over all other things.

Yes, they did use submarines as a blockade in both WW's. Royal Navy submarines were operating in Skagerrak as early as 1939 for WWII. They kept there and went on to Norway all long the war to sink as many German ships they could in those waters.

No the submarines were there to prey on any exercising warships and for intel reasons to signal warship movements. That was their primary missions.
Of course if any target of opportunity presented itself they attacked that also, but they were not used for the great Blockade.
The Great Northern Patrol was what was used.
Which was surface ships, inlcuding a lot of the older smaller cruisers and not submarines.

And where does that fit in WWI? And again, where does that fit off Japan home islands; USA Eastern coast?

Airships by the end of the war escorting convoys, aerial observation balloons, there all there to deal with the U-boats.
The point is when a submarine operates in a highly hostile air environment then its effectiveness deminishs.
Its a stealth weapon! and best at preying on countries which have a large merchant fleet and have to importa alot of the natural resources.

Take the USSR vs the USA in the cold war.
Forgetting nuclear weapons for a second.
Could the USSR submarine fleet starve the USA? a country which is highly self-sufficent.
A country which has overproduction and exports large parts of its grain output, and of course industrial output.
Basically the USA (in the late 40s or 50s) is not highly dependent on imports from a large merchant marine.
So then how effective would a submarine campaign be against them?
So parking 50 subs off her East Coast is going to achieve what exactly, sink a few coastal drifters?

Then reverse it how effective would parking 50 carriers off her coast be.
YES they cost more, that is not the debate here its about what is the best weapon. Air Power is that and why Navies spent the vast quantities of their budgets on them!

[Laurence Batchelor]

Using Stephen Roskill's book "The Navy at War - 1939-1945" as source:

Allied Merchant Ship losses:
2.828 ships (14.687.231 tons) - Submarines
820 ships (2.889.883 tons) - Aircraft
534 ships (1.406.037 tons) - Mines
104 ships (498.447 tons) - Warship raiders
133 ships (829.644 tons) - Merchant raiders
99 ships (229.676 tons) - E-boats
632 ships (1.029.802 tons) - Other causes

I believe the difference between submarines and aicraft is significant...

You fail to see it again, read !!!Allied Merchant Ships!!!
Air power was never solely directed to sink merchant ships!
Submarines were so its unbalanced ill conceived comparison!
Also what distorts the figures are what happens if an aircraft spotted the merchant and say damaged it or stopped it in the water to them give time for the submarine to then come along and put it on the sea floor.
In those figures the aircraft gets no recognition.
Therefore for that reason along with a host of others its a flawed data set to base conclusions on!

Compare the numbers of Capital Ships sunk at sea by air power and submarines, which both were specifically targetted against, then we might be getting somewhere!

The book you quote from is the abridged shortened version of his main work.
The study I mentioned does not appear in his War At Sea, it was a seperate indepth case study he did purely on the tonnage sunk in the Atlantic where he did a much deeper level analysis.
He proved that Britain statistically never really was on the brink of starvation, the rate of sinkings against the rate of new construction just got at stages more than she could hope to successfully fight the war with.

[Filipe Ramires]

Numbers sunk merely are showing which weapon sunk the most.
It isn't showing what is best, because the circumstances those numbers were accumulated differ for air power and for submarines.
What has to be factored in is the number of submarines built in WW2 against the number carriers and carrier aircraft built.
Then a better analysis might be along the lines of taking 1 carrier battle group and in say over a 3 month period comparing it with 1 submarine or a few submarines.
By comparing what each did acheive one could then form a deeper level of analysis with greater evidential foundations.

Number of ships sunk goes to submarine. Submarines were mass-produced to thousands in numbers but then they are much cheaper then a carrier and its escorts. You can hardly put a submarine action comparing to a Task Force action in 3 months. Get at least 10 submarines to compare it and you might have proper results and even so the submarines cost will be very below the lines of cost of your task force.

I direct you to your original question again.
You asked me were was the carriers off Tokyo in 1942.
I provided you with an operation proving they were there.
You didn't ask me to give you an effective mission did you!
It was purely a symbolic and moral boosting mission in such it was successful.

A risky mission above all the Doolitle Raid. The USN submarines were in those waters the entire war either gathering intelligence or sinking any kind of ships all the time.

Shinano didn't have a full crew, worked up and fully trained and she didn't have her watertight integrity in place! Yamato & Musashi did!
It was aircraft which spotted these 2 battleships and it was aircraft carriers which could vector an almost instance attack onto them.
The response time of a submarine to launch such a massed attack is weak in comparison and also aircraft are more likely to spot them than submarines of course in the first place.
Who cares about 5 torps etc, thats the power of the torpedo (and the weakness of a ship when its water tight integrity is threatened) and not the submarine!

I'll ask again...name me a ship that survived 5 torpedo hits in open sea?
Yamato was spotted by submarines first and same goes to Musashi task force of the time that was ambushed by two USN submarines that immediately sunk two heavy cruisers and crippling another one.

No no we would only look at the capital ships in each navy that were sunk.

For Royal Navy then:

BB/BC - 5 lost: 2 to submarines and 2 to planes.
CV's (all kinds) - 9 lost: 6 to submarines and 1 to planes.
CA's - 4 lost: 0 to submarines and 2 to planes.
CL's - 25 lost: 8 to submarines and 12 to planes.
DD's - 138 lost: 33 to submarines and 20 to planes.

For IJN:

BB - 11 lost: 1 to submarine and 5 to planes.
CV's - 26 lost: 8 to submarines and 18 to planes.
CA's - 17 lost: 5 to submarines and 9 to planes.
CL's - 22 lost: 10 to submarines and 10 to planes
DD's - 131 lost: 40 to submarines and 53 to planes

Look at the many carrier operations of the BPF for more evidence, once a Navy had built up its carrier force then late war, and quiet rightly that now became the spearhead of that Navy and its most valuable weapon.

The BPF did very little late in the war compared with both submarine and CV actions from the USN. Even Ashigara and Haguro, the biggest targets sunk by the Royal Navy in the Pacific were either sunk by submarine or destroyers.

Submarines were used by the USN to 'hold the fort' or 'stem the tide' until they could built the proper weapons they wished to use i.e. carrier battle groups.
Of course the sub proved its effectiveness more than Commanders had thought it could (once they got working torpedos), but as soon as naval air power has caught up it then takes precedence over all other things.

Hold the fort??? No, offensive weapon more likely. Remember that the second order given from Roosevelt when the USA entered the war was "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare against Japan" and by the time USN had lost no CV's at all.

No the submarines were there to prey on any exercising warships and for intel reasons to signal warship movements. That was their primary missions.
Of course if any target of opportunity presented itself they attacked that also, but they were not used for the great Blockade.

Well, apparently you have a wrong idea of what a submarine blockade is. Scouting, gathering intelligence, minelaying, sinking ships, all of that is part of the concept of submarine blockade.

The point is when a submarine operates in a highly hostile air environment then its effectiveness deminishs.
Its a stealth weapon! and best at preying on countries which have a large merchant fleet and have to importa alot of the natural resources.

Yes, aircraft were always a menace to submarines however that did not exist in significant numbers in the first stages of the war. Submarines went practically unchecked by that time. Plase ASW school would be very little had war lessons not be learned.
Without the sufficient natural resources being taken to a country, being most of them sunk by submarines, your carriers will not have the fuel to move. It's pure war of attriction. Without raw materials your war machine doesn't work. Japan was doomed that way and Britain certainly passed bitter times because of the U-boats also.

So parking 50 subs off her East Coast is going to achieve what exactly, sink a few coastal drifters?

Operation Paukenschlag rings any bell?? I'm sure they did sink much more then just a few coastals!!! For some reason there are high concentrations of ships sunk near Britain, USA eastern coast and Japan home islands.

Then reverse it how effective would parking 50 carriers off her coast be.
YES they cost more, that is not the debate here its about what is the best weapon. Air Power is that and why Navies spent the vast quantities of their budgets on them!

Sorry but it is the debate the cost. Like you said, compare the price of 50 CV's plus escorts and the price of 50 submarines. With much cheaper weapons and the same about numbers you can do as much or more damage with a submarine then with a carrier. That's efficiency.

[Filipe Ramires]

Air power was never solely directed to sink merchant ships!

Neither were the submarines made only for sinking merchants. In fact the submarine was supposed, in the beginning, to be either a defensive weapon against incoming enemy fleets or the eyes of the fleet and to scout ahead of the fleet and attack enemy warships in opportunity. Merchant hunting went on only during WWI...it's a doctrine presented later only.

Also what distorts the figures are what happens if an aircraft spotted the merchant and say damaged it or stopped it in the water to them give time for the submarine to then come along and put it on the sea floor.
In those figures the aircraft gets no recognition.

There was very little cooperation between Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in those terms. Shared sinkings following those terms are insignificant compared to the bigger ones. AGAIN, did you have any US planes scouting for submarines near Japan home islands, or German planes near USA eastern coast?

[Rob]

Re the Cold-War scenario.......

Firstly USA would survive due to self-sufficiency, but would have difficulty carrying the attack to the enemy. Let's say they park their carriers off Europe - how many would they be prepared to sacrifice? The USSR would not need to attack USA, but instead prevent USA from attacking them. The USSR's goal would be more likely to take Continental Europe.

Secondly - how can you discount the advent of nuclear weapons? Without Mutually Assured Destruction, then it's likely there would have been a shooting war. Most probably more land and air-orientated. The goal of a submarine would be to sink supply or landing ships, not merchant ships.

Although I would tend to agree that air power is more effective, you still cannot afford to overlook the value of a submarine, nor overlook trying to advance ASW.

Rob

[Walt]

To go back to the original post..
The Super BBs would have been built because prior to any Naval combat then there was no knowledge about how vulnerable they were to Aircraft and Submarines. Size was percieved as power.. Much like a present day Battle group. I would have thought the success of the Submarine in WW1 may have had a little influence on the fleet planner's mind sets but it was more about political perceptions than science. ( Still is eh??)

But then again back then as it still is today size only meant a bigger target..

As for the argrument about tonnage etc.. The facts are the facts.. The German Wolf Packs held a gun to the Allies heads for much of WW2.. It they ever got their later boats (type XXIs etc.) into service in numbers Goodness knows what would have happened.

As for the Pacific.. The US Submarine force was the biggest influence on Sea Combat.. They almost rendered the IJN Usless by mid 1944.. Say what you will.. The statistics are hard to argue with. Poor IJN ASW capibilities aside the facts are what they are given what was availible to both Navies back then.

Today the biggest threat to any surface fleet is still the Submarine. This is why (as Laurence points out) so many smaller Countries are trying to acquire a submarine fleet.

So yea,, I believe the Super BBs would have been built...

[Dave Wooley]

�Laurence Bachelor Wrote�
Take the USSR vs the USA in the cold war.
Forgetting nuclear weapons for a second.
Could the USSR submarine fleet starve the USA? a country which is highly self-sufficent.
A country which has overproduction and exports large parts of its grain output, and of course industrial output.
Basically the USA (in the late 40s or 50s) is not highly dependent on imports from a large merchant marine.
So then how effective would a submarine campaign be against them?
So parking 50 subs off her East Coast is going to achieve what exactly, sink a few coastal drifters?

Then reverse it how effective would parking 50 carriers off her coast be.
YES they cost more, that is not the debate here its about what is the best weapon. Air Power is that and why Navies spent the vast quantities of their budgets on them!

Laurence you need to look at other factors for a start operation Drum Beat did in fact pose a very serious threat in the spring of 1942. At that period the USN was ill prepared for the kind of blockade that only the submarine could have undertaken . The submarine can be classed as both a sea denial weapon and an instrument of blockade. During the Cold War, Europe would have relied once again on the transport of supplies and troops from the US. Reduce that and we are back into the sea denial phase, in effect strategic blockade. , If your army is starved of supplies all the carriers that Nato possessed would have made little difference and convoys would have been easy meat for the cruise missile armed submarines.
To sum up Submarines can deny the sea-lanes fleet carriers are for power projection NOT ASW. Nato never had enough ASW carriers during the cold war in fact the numbers were pitifully few, not enough to have had any impact of the prime purpose of the submarine as a sea denial and a weapon of blockade. Ultimatly the strategic trump card . in much the same way as that provided by the US submarines in WW2..

Your argument is based on the premise that naval air power is the best weapon but in war if that weapons system fails to achieve the level of impact on the course of the war then how does this compare to a weapons system like the submarine that CAN effect the out come of the conflict on the battlefield, by simply denying resources to conduct the war effectively.
Dave Wooley

[Laurence Batchelor]

To sum up Submarines can deny the sea-lanes fleet carriers are for power projection NOT ASW.

No but generally air power is, and specifically Escort Carriers & MAC ships are!
Air dominace degates one of the most important weapons of a submarine surprise and stealth! In the early war period due to air power at sea still being in its infantcy the submarine had free rain.
I think the words of J.D. Brown express things more succiently than I can after a day of reading journal papers "Conceived and initially emplyed as an extension of the big guns of the Fleet, naval aviation was developed to the point where the aircraft carrier became the vital ship in any formation, offensive or defensive [and not the submarine!]" emphasis added. Carrier Operations in WW2 Vol1.

Your argument is based on the premise that naval air power is the best weapon but in war if that weapons system fails to achieve the level of impact on the course of the war....
Dave Wooley

My arguements are based on the outcomes and experiences of the entire war not merely numbers of ships sunkl which others in this debate hide behind!
The carrier is a Navy's best weapon not the submarine. To say this does in no way negate the excellent ability of the submarine, it merely gets the balance right.
Why must we suddenly hypothetically say that air power would fail to achieve the desired level of impact on any mid-late 20th Century armed conflict? When all the evidence points to the contrary?
Air Dominace in military circles since 1945 is always the number one priority, before anything else.

...how does this compare to a weapons system like the submarine that CAN effect the out come of the conflict on the battlefield, by simply denying resources to conduct the war effectively.

So can stragetic bombing which is far more flexible!
That can take out ships on the water enroute to their destinations; in heavily defended ports or anchorages; and bombing can take out the key nodes of the Industrial infrastructure, such as oil refineries, ammunition/supply dumps, naval construction yards etc etc.
Can a submarine do all of this, simple answer is no.
What it does best is sink merchant ships, and I've said interms of cost effectiveness as a weapon at sea its the best for this.
However it's too far to state its the best weapon at sea, that is air power I'm afraid.

In the Words of Vice Admiral Sir Donald Gibson, KCB, DSC Flag Officer, Naval Air Command - one word will be enough to describe air power at sea.......................FLEXIBILITY!

[Werner]

According to the US Strategic Bombing Survey only a few percent of the bombs dropped in WW.II hit within five miles of their target.

Altitude bombing of ships underway is a fool's errand.

Submarines are excellent weapons for attacking merchant ships, a type of vessel not prepared to accept battle damage.

Submarines were extremely successful waging war in the Pacific, against an enemy who was largely unprepared to defend against their attack, and whose skills and technology did not improve significantly during the period.

The Atlantic war was far different. Doenitz withdrew his submarines at one point because with the advent of airborne microwave attack radar the submarine became a deathtrap.