(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Nikademus -> (7/31/2003 12:08:46 PM)
exactly Mogami. While true that Britian's imports shrank through 1941, this says nothing on their capacity to survive for a period under the required tonnage, which would primarily hit the civilian sector in terms of goods and services. As with the US during Drumbeat, measures taken helped cushion this blow. This also does not clarify Britian's economic situation which is a large part of Blair's whole point regarding strategic victory. To clarify Blair's thesis, he says the Uboat threat was overblown because the oft held contention was that the Uboats brought as VR has suggested, close to the brink of defeat hence "grave peril" etc etc, but his numbers show that this was not the case. He does not deny that great damage was done but there is a big difference between that and the "great peril" suggested by saying Britian was at the brink of defeat. This is not true. Nor is it true that simple solutions such as "more uboats" would create the embargo necessary to starve out Britian's economy and it's people. VR suggests that how many convoys got through is meaningless. Disagree, i think the numbers speak just as highly as raw tonnage data and import totals. to repeat the numbers posted earlier. Out of 900 convoys created for Britian's "lifeline", the most vital North Atlantic convoys, these 900 convoys were broken down into 12,057 ships used. The boots sank 291 of them leaving 11766 ships making their deliveries. (98%) Did Britian's imports fall? Yes, Did Britian have the ability to compensate this for the required time to "get serious" about the uboats....yes. Was Britian's economy dangerously close to running down by dec 41? no. Blair's thesis stands....which says that the Uboats did not come close to acheiving decisive, strategic victory over Britian. Did they do alot of damage, "were" they a "peril" yes on both counts, but Britian weathered the storm and with her merchant fleet now bigger than it started in 39 regardless of the sources, (neutral aquisition or shipbuilding) they survived the crucial period alone until the United States was added to the conflict. A true "crisis" would not have lasted 30 months. It was a struggle no doubt, but it would have taken alot more than just a few more Uboats to win it. This discussion also leaves out the cost to the Uboats......as even during this incubative period, it was not a one sided show. Even using Evasion tactics which greatly lowered Uboat kill ratios, the British sank 54 ocean going boats or about 35% of the 153 ocean going Uboats that beset the British empire. (and the crew casualties represented the cream of the pre-war sub force)

pry -> (7/31/2003 7:27:50 PM)
I have never read Blair's work but this thread now has me looking for the book, should prove to be an interesting read. I spent a long time last night looking for import numbers and was able to find the following. Of those I was able to locate numbers on some products saw a decrease but several also saw an increase or an offset by importing a finished product instead of the raw materials. Annual British Product Imports, 1939 / 1940 / 1941 in metric tons. Oil 11,628,000 / 11,270,000 / 13,100,000 Iron ore 5,200,000 / 4,500,000 / 2,300,000 Iron & Steel 1,820,000 / 3,690,000 / 4,080,000 Scrap Iron 605,000 / 937,000 / 549,000 Bauxite 302,000 / 112,000 / 87,000 Lead 334,000 / 336,000 / 139,000 Tin 54,000 / 84,000 / 65,000 Zinc 167,000 / 204,000 / 210,000 Raw Rubber 69,000 / 200,000 / 210,000 Rice 143,000 / 191,000 / 179,000 Peas & Beans 135,000 / 147,000 / 158,000 Wheat 5,300,000 / 5,800,000 / 5,400,000 Generally speaking 1941 imports are not drastically smaller than 1939, which would indicate a country on the verge of collapse but the numbers are generally in the same range as those in 1939. Are there shortages Yes… are there hardships again yes… Is the UK on the brink Not even close… VR, you state that UK needed 43,200,000 tons annually just in food and fuel. I do not dispute the numbers I do think they are high but I can find nothing to offer in rebuttal other than that the 1937 world wheat production was 167,000,000 metric tons and oil production was 272,000,000 at the rate you quote the UK alone is using somewhere around 10% of the world's total available production. World production 1937 435,300,000 metric tons Wheat 167,000,000 Rice 93,900,000 Maize 117,000,000 Sugar Cane 17,300,000 Sugar Beet 9,700,000 Meat 30,000,000 Take Japan's rice imports from 1941 - 1944 and you see a country in dire straits. 2,100,000 / 2,250,000 / 990,000 / 652,000 I am learning allot of great stuff from this, I never really considered the effects of dispruptions to Strategic materials and foodstuffs as weapons of war before.

Von Rom -> Re: Battle of Atlantic (7/31/2003 9:55:15 PM)
Originally posted by Mogami [QUOTE]Hi, I don't think a crisis can go on for over 30 months.[/QUOTE] Assumption. Please read Richard M. Leighton's article "U.S. Merchant Shipping and the British Import Crisis" for more details. [QUOTE]I've been thinking about this, I think the real effect of more U-boats would have been felt in the Pacific. Ships used there would have been transferred as required and the operations curtailed.[/QUOTE] Assumption. Where are your facts and sources to support this contention? [QUOTE]Also during the months where your data indicates Britain had shortage in supply arrival you find they are engaged in major operations in other theaters. (Could the shipping have been otherwise occupied?)[/QUOTE] They're fighting a war, remember. You can't have it both ways. A loss of ships, and having too few ships, is part of being at war. See the article I mentioned above for more details. [QUOTE]North Africa sees the first British offensive then the battles for Greece. Once these are over the British get their required amounts (after a bit of time for the shipping to go back to work)[/QUOTE] Where's your data to support this? [QUOTE]I've never subscribed to the U-boats not being a major threat. I've also never subscribed that any action short of occupation would make Britain surrender. (I don't think they would ever surrender. They would fight on from Canada or Australia or where ever they happened to be when the Germans occupied England.[/QUOTE] Read any good history book about events after Dunkirk - the Germans could have defeated Britain, had Hitler not turned east.

Von Rom -> (7/31/2003 10:08:54 PM)
Originally posted by Nikademus [QUOTE]exactly Mogami. While true that Britian's imports shrank through 1941, this says nothing on their capacity to survive for a period under the required tonnage, which would primarily hit the civilian sector in terms of goods and services. [/QUOTE] Assumption. Where are your facts and sources to support this subjective statement? [QUOTE]To clarify Blair's thesis, he says the Uboat threat was overblown because the oft held contention was that the Uboats brought as VR has suggested, close to the brink of defeat hence "grave peril" etc etc, but his numbers show that this was not the case. He does not deny that great damage was done but there is a big difference between that and the "great peril" suggested by saying Britian was at the brink of defeat. This is not true. Nor is it true that simple solutions such as "more uboats" would create the embargo necessary to starve out Britian's economy and it's people.[/QUOTE] This is NOT what Blair has stated. I realize you want to help Blair, but please don't put words in his mouth, er book. At the beginning of the book (p. XIII) Blair states: ". . . the U-boat peril in World war II was and has been vastly overblown: threat inflation on a classically grand scale. . . the German force failed versus the Allies in the Atlantic". Up until mid-1943 the Germans had NOT failed versus the Allies in the Atlantic, and that the U-boat was VERY REAL for 4 long years. [QUOTE]VR suggests that how many convoys got through is meaningless. Disagree, i think the numbers speak just as highly as raw tonnage data and import totals.[/QUOTE] Some conoys had only 8 ships in them. You are assuming they carried everything Britain needed. I have shown otherwise. Also please rad thearticle I posted above for more details. [QUOTE]Did Britian's imports fall? Yes, Did Britian have the ability to compensate this for the required time to "get serious" about the uboats....yes.[/QUOTE] Assumptions. Where are your facts and sources to back these highly subjective statements? [QUOTE]Blair's thesis stands....which says that the Uboats did not come close to acheiving decisive, strategic victory over Britian.[/QUOTE] Where are your own facts. You are merely parroting Blair's statements. [QUOTE]Did they do alot of damage, "were" they a "peril" yes on both counts, but Britian weathered the storm and with her merchant fleet now bigger than it started in 39 regardless of the sources, (neutral aquisition or shipbuilding) they survived the crucial period alone until the United States was added to the conflict.[/QUOTE] Sources for these statements. [QUOTE]A true "crisis" would not have lasted 30 months. It was a struggle no doubt, but it would have taken alot more than just a few more Uboats to win it. This discussion also leaves out the cost to the Uboats......as even during this incubative period, it was not a one sided show. Even using Evasion tactics which greatly lowered Uboat kill ratios, the British sank 54 ocean going boats or about 35% of the 153 ocean going Uboats that beset the British empire. (and the crew casualties represented the cream of the pre-war sub force)[/QUOTE] You make lots of broad subjective statements, but do not back them with facts or sources.

Von Rom -> (7/31/2003 10:15:59 PM)
Originally posted by pry [QUOTE]I have never read Blair's work but this thread now has me looking for the book, should prove to be an interesting read.[/QUOTE] Interesting. Yet you are defending him. [QUOTE]I spent a long time last night looking for import numbers and was able to find the following. Of those I was able to locate numbers on some products saw a decrease but several also saw an increase or an offset by importing a finished product instead of the raw materials. [/QUOTE] Where are your sources for this information? [QUOTE]VR, you state that UK needed 43,200,000 tons annually just in food and fuel. I do not dispute the numbers I do think they are high but I can find nothing to offer in rebuttal other than that the 1937 world wheat production was 167,000,000 metric tons and oil production was 272,000,000 at the rate you quote the UK alone is using somewhere around 10% of the world's total available production.[/QUOTE] OK, what does that tell you? [QUOTE]I am learning allot of great stuff from this, I never really considered the effects of dispruptions to Strategic materials and foodstuffs as weapons of war before.[/QUOTE] That's what a big part of war is all about. Without sufficient supplies your war machine grinds to a halt. Doenitz understood this. Try playing UV - it's a real lesson in supply.

Von Rom -> (7/31/2003 10:18:20 PM)
This is Blair's central thesis: ". . . the U-boat peril in World war II was and has been vastly overblown: threat inflation on a classically grand scale. . . the German force failed versus the Allies in the Atlantic" (Blair, pXIII). Here I will show, using Blair's own statistics, that his thesis that the U-boat peril was overblown, simply has no merit. On page 418 of his first volume, Blair has stated that up to the end of 1941, U-boats sank 1,124 British ships and "neutral" ships for a total of 5.3 GT (Gross Tons). Further down the page he states that this shortfall is made up by new shipbuilding and the one-time "confiscation, purchase, or lease" of more shipping for a total of 6 Million GT. Then on page 420, he states that by the end of 1941 it is difficult to declare a victor between the British and Germans because although "The British had not defeated the U-boat force" they had at least "taken the necessary steps to prevent it from defeating them." In essence he was calling it a draw. However, THIS IS WHERE BLAIR MAKES A CRITICAL ERROR. What Blair has conveniently left out of his argument is the fact that although the U-boats did sink 1,124 ships, this was not all the Allied ships that had been sunk by the Germans. In addition to the 1,124 ships sunk by the U-boats, the Germans also sank an additional 1,400 Allied ships (mostly British) through the use of planes, mines, and surface raiders. Blair is aware of this fact, because he states on page 419, through obscure language, that there were "numerous other causes for the drastic loss of imports". Yet he fails to let the reader know that an additional 1,400 Allied ships have been sunk! This leaves the reader with the FALSE impression that ONLY 1,124 ships have been sunk by Germany. By using the REAL Allied ship loss total of 2,500 ships for a total of almost 12 million GT (between 1939 to Dec/41) FROM ALL CAUSES, it is very clear that even with the additional 6 million GT Blair states the British obtained, the British NOW have a SHORTFALL in shipping of 6 million GT. What this new evidence that Blair has conveniently omitted from his data means is, that on page 420, the war up to Dec 1941 IS NOT A DRAW; it is a VICTORY FOR GERMANY. Clearly, the Germans were winning up to this point. By using Blair's own data, and by using data that he has conveniently omitted, his own argument that the U-boat threat was overblown simply falls apart and has no merit.

mogami -> Battle of Atlantic (7/31/2003 11:47:30 PM)
Hi, LOL very amusing. Alot of people looking at the same data, same history and seeing two different pictures. Both sides use words like "clearly" quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also during the months where your data indicates Britain had shortage in supply arrival you find they are engaged in major operations in other theaters. (Could the shipping have been otherwise occupied?) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They're fighting a war, remember. You can't have it both ways. A loss of ships, and having too few ships, is part of being at war. See the article I mentioned above for more details. I've read every word in every post in this entire thread several times. Our points keep passing one another like ships in the foggy night. My point was Britian had enough ships to contiue operations. (you call this an assumption but I look at time line and see during the "slack" periods of supply in England they are launching offensives in North Africa. Moving a force to Greece and then removing it) The fact that Britian launched offensives in 1940 and 1941 reveals something. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, I don't think a crisis can go on for over 30 months. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assumption. Please read Richard M. Leighton's article "U.S. Merchant Shipping and the British Import Crisis" for more details. This is not an assumption. During this 30 month period there might have been periods of crisis. However it did not exist during the entire period (I see no crisis in 1939) I see no crisis during many months of 1940. 1941 things get a bit sticky. (But then I find Britain has this stockpile and can do without full requirements for several years)(It does not matter that they don't like dipping into this stockpile) Ship numbers is the least informative data. Check out some of the tonnage figures for the world merchant fleets. Sinking 1000 under 2kT ships is not as damaging as sinking 250 9kt ships. (so it is important to know what type ships had been sunk)(I find over half the quoted 2500 were actually not even cargo types but trawlers and other small coastal vessels (The British had over 6k of these type ships in 1939) So everyone seems to be using different sets of numbers and mixing them as needed. (except for me (LOL) I have no dog in this race. I only seek understanding. But it is dangerous you tell other people they are making assumptions when your whole issue is an assumption (More U-boats=defeat of Britian) Regularly scheduled British convoys contained 25-30 ships (more on occasion. You often find several convoys joining together for crossing the Mid Atlantic gap and approach to Britain. (you blew right by the 12k convoys ships losing only 291)(A ship in a convoy is not a coastal ship but a tran ocean vessel. The ones the U-boats really want to sink and out of 12k they got 291) Tricks with numbers. I doubt there were 12k ships. So it might have been 1k ships making 12 trips each (then 291 jumps up from less then 2 percent to 29 percent) One certain fact remains. Britain continued to fight. She continued throughout the 39-41 period to meet the Germans when and where ever. Never do we find the British losing because of shipping. Whats more they continue to risk shipping (Malta for example)

Von Rom -> Re: Battle of Atlantic (8/1/2003 12:30:34 AM)
Originally posted by Mogami [QUOTE]Hi, LOL very amusing. Alot of people looking at the same data, same history and seeing two different pictures.[/QUOTE] I have backed ALL my statements with facts and sources that clearly defeat Blair's thesis. [QUOTE]Our points keep passing one another like ships in the foggy night. My point was Britian had enough ships to contiue operations. (you call this an assumption but I look at time line and see during the "slack" periods of supply in England they are launching offensives in North Africa. Moving a force to Greece and then removing it) The fact that Britian launched offensives in 1940 and 1941 reveals something [/quote] Where are your facts and sources to back this statement? [QUOTE]But it is dangerous you tell other people they are making assumptions when your whole issue is an assumption (More U-boats=defeat of Britian)[/QUOTE] I have backed all statements with facts. This statement is backed by real historical events: In May 1942 German experts had produced a study which concluded that if the U-boats were able to sink a monthly average of 700,000 tons of Allied merchant ships for the rest of the year, Britain, despite all the efforts of shipbuilding yards on both sides of the Atlantic, would be doomed. Despite the steadily increasing numbers of escort vessels becoming available for the convoys, increased air support, and technological advances in anti-submarine warfare, the results of the U-boat war in the second half of 1942 seemed to justify Donitz's hopes. During the last few months of the year, aided by the diversion of many Allied escorts to support the "Torch" landings in North Africa, the U-boats were sinking a monthly average of 650,000 tons. If the vessels sunk by aircraft, mines and such few surface raiders as were still at large were added to this total, Germany seemed on the verge of achieving the sinking rate demanded by her experts. (Source: ww.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/atlantic/climax.aspx) Had more U-boats been employed sooner (1940-41), this 700,000 ton per month sinking level could very well have been achieved. This fact is also backed by Germany's successful submarine blocade of Britain in 1917, which almost led to her defeat. [QUOTE]Regularly scheduled British convoys contained 25-30 ships (more on occasion. You often find several convoys joining together for crossing the Mid Atlantic gap and approach to Britain.[/QUOTE] What you and Blair fail to take into account is this: Because the med and Suez had been closed, many convoys had to travel sometimes up to more than 5,000 extra miles. More wear and tear meant more ship repairs. More ship repairs meant less getting through. Longer travel times meant shortages would appear (since consumption and war production do not stop and must be kept at a min level). In addition, the fall of France in 1940 meant that ALL British convoys had to be re-routed, meaning this added a great deal more to their travel times. Also, ships from Holland and Denmark, etc did not become readily available in 1940. Many of these ships were scattered from the Dutch East Indies to the Atlantic and all points in between. So it would have taken time - anywhere from 3-6 months before they would become useful. In the meantime Britain still had ship shortages. [QUOTE]One certain fact remains. Britain continued to fight. She continued throughout the 39-41 period to meet the Germans when and where ever. Never do we find the British losing because of shipping. Whats more they continue to risk shipping (Malta for example)[/QUOTE] This is NOT Blair's thesis - he has maintained the U-boat threat was overblown - that its threat was inflated. I have shown it was not. Britain was fighting for her life, until America's entry into the war. Until Dec/41, Germany was winning that war. Most historians agree with this. The fact that Britain was not defeated was because of Hitler's own stupidity. Besides, I have defeated Blair's own argument by using his own statistcs. See my post above. I guess you haven't read his book either.

mogami -> Blair (8/1/2003 12:52:51 AM)
Hi, I don't give a pinch of owl dung about Mr Blair. I'm an idependent thinker. I'm only interested in two things. Would any number of U-boats produce a British collapse. Was it possible for Germany to reach this number? How soon? To that end I've studied and disscussed the following points. Amount of shipping on hand through out period. (from where ever) Effectivness of U-boats during this period. (We don't see many points being raised about U-boat troubles or loss. Only how "great" they did. (I don't think they did as "great" as some suppose or as "bad" as others. I don't need proof for certain statements. All you have to do is look at the war and see where British/CW troops were engaged. They did destroy the Italian 10th Army in early 1940 (during a period of under supply to England) This was followed by the adventures in Greece. Fact is you can not prove more U-boats would have produced a single extra ship sunk (you can assume it, but like wise others can assume the extra U-boats would have produced further U-boat loss. No one can PROVE any thing. From my limited understanding of the course of events. The U-boats are not really able to mount the mid Atlantic threat untill after the fall of France. So the "New" U-boat war would not begin before this. (As was the actual case. The U-boat numbers employed in 1939 in no way matched what similar numbers achived later (Drumroll for example) I still do not see Britain surrendering. Unless you can cancell the Invasion of Russia you lose the war in June 1941 (because no amount of U-boats will ever place a single German in London)

mogami -> More U-boats (8/1/2003 1:10:24 AM)
Hi A standard U-boat versus convoy action. Convoy #BS-1 heading for England from USA. Currently in mid Atlantic 30 ships 5 escorts. 20 German U-boat's online across mid Atlantic. U-100 spots convoy. Call it in. Other U-boats race to intercept. 8 arrive. Attack convoy sink 5 ships lose 1 U-boat. Now double the U-boat line to 40 boats. We find that no added boats arrive to attack convoy because the line was longer (and chance to encounter convoy larger) the added boats are too far away. Case two double U-boats only place them in 2 lines one behind the other. Now second line will move to intercept convoy and we can "ASSUME" a like number of U-boats arrive in time to attack. However .........Convoy has reported first attack and added escorts are racing to scene. Extra aircraft are overhead. Depending on events we could see more U-boats lost without any making attacks on convoy. (They have to run on surface to get there) Or it is possible they sink more ships (and lose more U-boats) This scenario is plausable. It does not "PROVE" more U-boats equal victory for Germany. (It is possible the U-boats over achived to start with) Like the Japanese pilot program you need more then aircraft for success. Every U-boat built after Sept 39 has a crew below those existing in 1939. (It could get to the point you are only throwing away boats and crews. Did it reach this point in the actual war?)

Nikademus -> (8/1/2003 1:30:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom Assumption. Where are your facts and sources to support this subjective statement? um.....hello, i've been asking you for three pages now to post counter data that proves that Britian was on the edge in terms of her economy and all you've replied with is 1) quotes from Winston Churchill 2) quotes from other authors that talk about how bad the uboats were, such as the most recent where one author says that the losses seemed to indicate that Doenitz's goals were being acomplished....really, lets see the numbers then Blair's got em. If this is a reference to Drumbeat....we are all well aware of the circumstances behind it 3) raw tonnage data 4) negative reviews of Clay Blair (which focus on his writing style.....his alleged love affair with the USN, and this "mistake" of his of writing post-war viewpoints as if they were wartime viewponts (which i think is ridiculous as he was not writing about perceptions but the truth behind the perceptions) 5) general import data (i was wondering when you would get to that since they are in Blair's book too) you have not shown in any shape or form that Britian's economy was teetering on the edge...thus you have not disproven Blair's thesis the the Uboat threat was inflated by post war accounts....accounts which mimic your view that the Uboats came close to defeating Britian to the point that only a few more with no other changes or considerations would have knocked her out. quote: This is NOT what Blair has stated. I realize you want to help Blair, but please don't put words in his mouth, er book. At the beginning of the book (p. XIII) Blair states: ". . . the U-boat peril in World war II was and has been vastly overblown: threat inflation on a classically grand scale. . . the German force failed versus the Allies in the Atlantic". Up until mid-1943 the Germans had NOT failed versus the Allies in the Atlantic, and that the U-boat was VERY REAL for 4 long years. Please dont insult my intelligence. I have no need to put words in Blair's mouth nor do i need you to analyise my motivations. Blair is justified in making the above statement because his central Thesis is that the UBoats never came close to obtaining strategic victory which contrasts with your view that the Uboats caused great peril i.e. they came close to knocking Britian out. You have not proven this to be the case nor have your "sources".....hence the term "Overblown" while emotionally charged can be said I prefer to stick to the more neutral terms Blair also uses in his book. I can find those quotes, if you do so desire it. Regardless, Uboats DID fail.....because Britian stayed in the war. As Blair said, Britian did not defeat the Uboats either by 12/41, but they were still in the game, and they took steps to keep the Uboats from defeating them hence Donietz and company FAILED because Germany remained fighting a two front war. All this talk of "peril", Fleet in being and "Terror weapons" are but smoke screens to hide the central issue. quote: Some conoys had only 8 ships in them. You are assuming they carried everything Britain needed. I have shown otherwise. Also please rad thearticle I posted above for more details. I have posted the numbers of ships sunk in the convoys vs the shipping runs made. I await similar data that proves them wrong. The rest of your postings are evasion. You challenge me to quote sources and bring data when you yourself have failed to do so beyond subjective quotes from historical figures, raw tonnage data which often includes non-Uboat kills, and import totals which Blair does take into account. I stuck by Blair because i was interested to see if anyone could show data that proves that Britian was reeling and ready to fold. It has not happened. Now we're talking about repair times and longer routes for convoys to avoid Uboat infested areas and making useless comparisons to WWI which are meaningless here. If i dont care to broaden the discussion to the overall war effort by Britian against Germany, then i hardly dont care to discuss an entirely different war 20 years ago! Thats where Blair has you beat. He focuses on the Uboats, in WWII because THATS what all this talk of facts and myths are all about.....how effective were the UBoats.....did they single-handedly do all that has been claimed that they've done? Was Britian pushed to the edge? Was the US? You on the other hand bounce from tactic to tactic....first implying that a handful of Uboats did all that.....false. That Uboats sank 2000+ ships by 12/41 against Britian....false, refusing to acknowlege new shipping and aquisition while repeatedly saying that the Uboats sank most of the pre-war British merchant fleet with the result that the vital fact that it ended 1941 BIGGER than it started in 39 shows very clearly that the UBoats were NOT winning the tonnage war. Then we start including data from Drumbeat while were supposed to be focused on 39-41, make references to WWI and talk about how great Churchill was and how dare i not take his word for it when he shivers at the mention of the word "Uboat" (actually i do take his word for it but i was not asking for wartime perceptions, i was asking for statistical data) and finally a bunch of source material that makes alot of proclaimations but gives no actual statisitcal data other than the import totals you recently mentioned, totals which are readily available in Blair's book as well yada yada yada...... i can go on. Until you can show me that Britian's economy by 12/41 was at the brink of destruction, your claims that you've disproven Blair are just that......claims. Its also obvious that nerves are getting frayed here and tempers are running short. Perhaps the time has come to euthenise this argument, more so since we've hijacked the thread. Finally, a word on Blair from me, the alleged "Blair Fan". I dont consider his book gospel.....however i have debated some true "fans" who do, right down to the good old USA never really committed an error of judgement and that DRUMBEAT happened due to circumstances reasonable and beyond their control. yeah....right :). Anyway i've been playing Devil's advocate because, like Mogami, i just dont see Britian having been brought to the brink by end of 41, and the arguments against Blair piqued my interest hence my repeated question throughout this mess of a thread....if Blair is truely wrong, then it should be easy to show that Britian was in the wretched state that would produce a victor in this early stage of WWII. So far, i have to honestly say i've not seen convincing proof nor do i or ever believed that simply "more uboats" would be the easy solution to a complex problem given all the other factors involved coupled with the till recently neglected fact that the uboats were hardly fighting a one sided war....they were having problems too and being hit back by the British.

pry -> (8/1/2003 2:03:28 AM)
[QUOTE]quote: I have never read Blair's work but this thread now has me looking for the book, should prove to be an interesting read. Interesting. Yet you are defending him. [/QUOTE] I am not defending him, his theory or his book; I joined into this discussion because I do not accept your premise that the UK was on the verge of collapse at any point in time. As I said time and again there were shortages and hardships but sources independent of Blair's book and Churchill's memoirs which seem to be the main sources quoted here paint a different picture than the one you are trying so hard to present. British import numbers from 39 -41 tell a far different story than the one you are trying to present, not gloom and despair but one of fighting on and by the numbers if not winning than at least holding their own. It was common knowledge that Germany and Japan were vastly increasing their fleets and corresponding building increases went on in the UK and especially the US as the 1937 - 38 and 39 building programs show. If it became clear that Germany was building U-boats instead of surface ships, UK/US building programs would have been altered to accommodate this threat. The fact the UK failed to build escorts itself shows that they did not see the U-boat numbers as a serious threat, in that they did underestimate their abilities they got hurt early on but never to the degree have you implied. [QUOTE]quote: I spent a long time last night looking for import numbers and was able to find the following. Of those I was able to locate numbers on some products saw a decrease but several also saw an increase or an offset by importing a finished product instead of the raw materials. Where are your sources for this information?[/QUOTE] Several in fact I used the lowest number available in order to not overestimate the numbers. The best source is one I mentioned earlier a great reference called World War 2, A Statistical Survey, John Ellis 1993. The others well Google is your friend. :D [QUOTE]quote: I am learning allot of great stuff from this, I never really considered the effects of disruptions to Strategic materials and foodstuffs as weapons of war before. That's what a big part of war is all about. Without sufficient supplies your war machine grinds to a halt. Doenitz understood this. Try playing UV - it's a real lesson in supply.[/QUOTE] Arrrrggggg!!! the context that I made my statement was "Strategic Materials" IE: Iron, Copper, Zinc and all the other goodies that allow you to make war, I am not talking about putting a box of K-Rats into the hands of a soldier on an island somewhere in the South Pacific there is a huge difference, The strategic materials allow you to build the resources to give to the grunt to fight the war that is what I am finding interesting. This is going nowhere, stalemate... No one is going to change their opinion, in a way this reminds me of a thread in the UV forum that I will not mention...

Nikademus -> (8/1/2003 2:20:21 AM)
no, we cant be as bad as......"that" thread :D

Chiteng -> (8/1/2003 2:36:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus [B]no, we cant be as bad as......"that" thread :D [/B][/QUOTE] If you keep bringing people into an argument they are not even part of... then it can easily become such a thread =)

mogami -> Perception and rewritting history. (8/1/2003 2:41:14 AM)
Hi, There are two great obstacles to those who wish to propose alternate paths for historical events. The first is obvious, There is a historical outcome. The second is perception of what took place and the resulting path events would have followed had the proposed change taken place. If both parties (the proposer and those analyzing the proposal) Begin with common perceptions then often they will reach the same conclusions. If they begin with widely separated perceptions then they will never concur in their conclusions. There are two starting points to this analysis. A. Britain was close to defeat in actual war. Therefore more U-boats (number undefined) would have achieved victory. B. Britain was not close to defeat in actual war. Therefore more U-boats (in any number) would not have achieved victory. (but would have increased loses for both sides). Currently the two starting points are not reconciled. This has to be addressed before conjecture one way or the other can be pursued. Unless a common starting point can be agreed on, debate concerning changes to Orders of Battle, Time Periods for change to realize the alternate outcome, Possible reactions by the other side to changes in action. Etc. cannot be examined. The burden of proof rests with those wishing to have others acknowledge their purposed changes would have the effect they believe it would have. (The audience has History on their side) So before we can really begin to debate more U-boats we have to agree on the historical condition of the economy and war making ability of Great Britain. Then we have to establish those conditions (not realized in the actual event) that would compel Great Britain to make peace with Germany. After these few minor matters we then move on to how more U-boats would fill the void between historical failure and proposed success. Only facts can give us a common starting point. We must know for certain. The amounts of material by type Britain absolutely had to have to continue the war. How long she could continue without said materials. I'm going to have to complile a complete list of Merchant ships By type, tonnage and Nation. Then I will subtract ships by day (There is a complete WW2 day by day listing online. It gives totals for all cause by day, month, year. however it only lists total tonnage (it lists ships by name but not by size.) So first we have to get to Sept 39. Decide several things. State of Britain Cause of U-boat failure. Then we back up and insert proposed changes and go back over every day one more time.

Nikademus -> (8/1/2003 2:44:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]If you keep bringing people into an argument they are not even part of... then it can easily become such a thread =) [/B][/QUOTE] what thread? :D

Nikademus -> Re: Perception and rewritting history. (8/1/2003 3:35:04 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami So first we have to get to Sept 39. Decide several things. State of Britain Cause of U-boat failure. Then we back up and insert proposed changes and go back over every day one more time. [/B][/QUOTE] Fair enough, Britian's state is after all, all i've really asked for for some time now. Its the key issue. Everything else is just static from both ends. I'll do my part. Done salvo-ing back. This is the only relevent point(s) now.

pry -> Re: Re: Perception and rewritting history. (8/1/2003 4:07:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus [B]Fair enough, Britian's state is after all, all i've really asked for for some time now. Its the key issue. Everything else is just static from both ends. I'll do my part. Done salvo-ing back. This is the only relevent point(s) now. [/B][/QUOTE] Agreed, I just looked back at this thread from the start, This debate began on page 6 where are we now 18... [QUOTE]I'm going to have to complile a complete list of Merchant ships By type, tonnage and Nation. Then I will subtract ships by day (There is a complete WW2 day by day listing online. It gives totals for all cause by day, month, year. however it only lists total tonnage (it lists ships by name but not by size.) [/QUOTE] Mogami interesting idea you have, I have a copy of Roger Jordan's The World's Merchant Fleets 1939 (Great Book) it lists over 6,000 ships with all the important data if you have a name I can get you the tonnage. Also Chronolgy of the War At Sea, Rohwer and Hummelchen 72 revised 92 is an excellent day by day resource.

Von Rom -> (8/1/2003 4:33:54 AM)
In case you missed it the first time: To pry, Nikademus and Mogami and to anyone else: The discussion about U-boats centered around Blair's thesis. It is very clear that BLAIR HAS CARELESSLY OMITTED DATA IN ORDER FOR THE DATA TO FIT HIS ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION. Blair has conveniently left out the fact that 1,400 Allied ships had been sunk between 1939 to December 1941 by German planes, mines and surface raiders. He had to do this in order to set forth an agenda: that being, by showing that the U-boat was not that big of a threat between 1939-1941, Blair then sets the stage in volume two for his defense of the American Navy's criminal neglect of not protecting shipping along the US east coast in 1942. In fact he devotes 269 pages to this defense in volume two. In effect, there is no need to either defend Blair or to argue against him, because he has effectively slit his own throat (and argument). That an author of his stature would leave out such vitally important information (such as 1,400 sunken Allied ships) in order to make that data fit a conclusion, is questionable in a historian. As such, there is simply no need to continue this debate. Here are the relevant facts: This is Blair's central thesis: ". . . the U-boat peril in World war II was and has been vastly overblown: threat inflation on a classically grand scale. . . the German force failed versus the Allies in the Atlantic" (Blair, pXIII). Here I will show, using Blair's own statistics, that his thesis that the U-boat peril was overblown, simply has no merit. On page 418 of his first volume, Blair has stated that up to the end of 1941, U-boats sank 1,124 British ships and "neutral" ships for a total of 5.3 GT (Gross Tons). Further down the page he states that this shortfall is made up by new shipbuilding and the one-time "confiscation, purchase, or lease" of more shipping for a total of 6 Million GT. Then on page 420, he states that by the end of 1941 it is difficult to declare a victor between the British and Germans because although "The British had not defeated the U-boat force" they had at least "taken the necessary steps to prevent it from defeating them." In essence he was calling it a draw. However, THIS IS WHERE BLAIR MAKES A CRITICAL ERROR. What Blair has conveniently left out of his argument is the fact that although the U-boats did sink 1,124 ships, this was not all the Allied ships that had been sunk by the Germans. In addition to the 1,124 ships sunk by the U-boats between 1939-1941, the Germans also sank an additional 1,400 Allied ships (mostly British) through the use of planes, mines, and surface raiders. Blair is aware of this fact, because he states on page 419, through obscure language, that there were "numerous other causes for the drastic loss of imports". Yet he fails to let the reader know that an additional 1,400 Allied ships have been sunk! This leaves the reader with the FALSE impression that ONLY 1,124 ships have been sunk by Germany. By using the REAL Allied ship loss total of 2,500 ships for a total of almost 12 million GT (between 1939 to Dec/41) FROM ALL CAUSES, it is very clear that even with the additional 6 million GT Blair states the British obtained, the British NOW have a SHORTFALL in shipping of 6 million GT. What this new evidence that Blair has conveniently omitted from his data means is, that on page 420, the war up to Dec 1941 IS NOT A DRAW; it is a VICTORY FOR GERMANY based on Blair's own criteria for constitutes a win or a loss. Clearly, the Germans were winning up to this point. By using Blair's own data, and by using data that he has conveniently omitted, his own argument that the U-boat threat was overblown simply falls apart and has no merit. But please do not believe me. For the years 1939 to December 1941, find out for yourself how many ships were sunk by U-boats. Then during this same period find out how many Allied ships were sunk by German planes, mines and surface raiders. Then go to any library, get Blair's first volume, then go to the pages I have indicated, and compare the data. You will see what I mean. Now that I have found this information, Blair, as an historian, has lost all credibilty for me. This information vindicates what ALL respected historians and Allied leaders (such as Churchill) have been saying all along: the U-boat posed a grave risk; Britain's tenuous ocean lifeline and existence remained in doubt for at least the first two years of the war; and that America's failure to learn from Britain's mistakes in those first years of war (and thus be prepared for U-boats along its coasts) is nothing short of criminal. Nickademus, you have this book and can read the information for yourself. I admire your defense of Blair, but his argument rests on a sinking ship, and it is going down fast. . . For those of you who wish to keep arguing the points, it really is a waste of your valuable time, since Blair had to omit data in order to reach a conclusion which is contrary to the evidence and opinions of almost every other historian. Cheers!

mogami -> Sunk Ships (8/1/2003 4:52:14 AM)
Hi, Some where we have several different sets of numbers. My sources give around 1500 ships total sunk by other then sub during entire war in all theatres. (So using the 1200 by 41 figure we are left with 300 for 42-43-44-45 ) Somethings gotta give. We all have to agree on a set of numbers and all use it. (I have nothing showing 1200 ships lost via other then sub before end of 41 and I'm going one day at a time. ) Every single ship lost is listed. (often with "on or about"( "probable cause") This lists ships sunk by running aground, collision, mine, aircraft, sub, surface, (and one that seems the ship simply broke in half on its own)

Nikademus -> (8/1/2003 4:53:26 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom blah blah, blah blah blah......:D [/quote] must.......... not.......point........out..........obvious.........flaw......... in........argument............ must........not.. :D

Von Rom -> Re: Sunk Ships (8/1/2003 5:06:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Some where we have several different sets of numbers. My sources give around 1500 ships total sunk by other then sub during entire war in all theatres. (So using the 1200 by 41 figure we are left with 300 for 42-43-44-45 ) Somethings gotta give. We all have to agree on a set of numbers and all use it. (I have nothing showing 1200 ships lost via other then sub before end of 41 and I'm going one day at a time. ) [/B][/QUOTE] Mogami: The approxiamte total of ALL Allied ships sunk (by all causes) between 1939 to 1941 is closer to 2,500 ships. The total number of ships sunk in all of WWII is closer to 5,000. Here is a site that gives several comparisons: http://www.usmm.net/battleatlantic.html Here is another site that gives an exhaustive month by month account of all Allied ship sinkings throughout the war: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsUboats.htm

Nikademus -> (8/1/2003 5:21:49 AM)
Moot in a way Mogami If one sticks to the original premise of the effectiveness of the Uboats which is what Blair's book focused on (hence his data is not FALSIFED lol) and we can accept that the boots sank 1,124 vessels in return for 35% of their wartime strength, and that despite this, the British merchant navy ended 41 with a bigger fleet than it started (in spite of other non-related losses), then the only relevent point to explore. is,....... what state the British economy? Were they at the brink? So far it hasn't looked that way.

pry -> Re: Sunk Ships (8/1/2003 5:24:53 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Some where we have several different sets of numbers. My sources give around 1500 ships total sunk by other then sub during entire war in all theatres. (So using the 1200 by 41 figure we are left with 300 for 42-43-44-45 ) Somethings gotta give. We all have to agree on a set of numbers and all use it. (I have nothing showing 1200 ships lost via other then sub before end of 41 and I'm going one day at a time. ) [/B][/QUOTE] Ok let me try this and see if it floats My main source World War 2, A Statistical Survey, John Ellis 1993 lists nearly every conceivable topic. So I'll give you 1939, 1940 and 1941 numbers. Merchant vessels lost all causes 1939 = 221 1940 = 1059 1941 = 1399 Total = 2679 It then goes to list losses by cause but does so in percentages then by doing the math we should be able to arrive at a very close number 1939 = 221 Subs 55.8% = 123 vessels Aircraft 0.4% = 1 vessels Mines 34.8% = 77 vessels Surface 8.1% = 18 vessels Other or Unknown 0.9% = 2 vessels 1940 = 1059 Subs 54.8% = 581 Aircraft 14.5% = 154 Mines 12.8% = 135 Surface 12.8% = 135 Other or Unknown 5.1% = 54 1941 = 1399 Subs 50.1% = 701 Aircraft 23.5% = 329 Mines 5.3% = 74 Surface 11.2% = 157 Other or Unknown 9.9% = 138 So given these numbers we come up with Lost to Subs = 1405 Lost to Aircraft = 484 Lost to Mines = 286 Lost to Surface Vessels = 310 Lost to Other or Unknown = 194 Total = 2679

Von Rom -> Re: Re: Sunk Ships (8/1/2003 5:39:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pry [B]Ok let me try this and see if it floats My main source World War 2, A Statistical Survey, John Ellis 1993 lists nearly every conceivable topic. So I'll give you 1939, 1940 and 1941 numbers. Merchant vessels lost all causes 1939 = 221 1940 = 1059 1941 = 1399 Total = 2679 It then goes to list losses by cause but does so in percentages then by doing the math we should be able to arrive at a very close number 1939 = 221 Subs 55.8% = 123 vessels Aircraft 0.4% = 1 vessels Mines 34.8% = 77 vessels Surface 8.1% = 18 vessels Other or Unknown 0.9% = 2 vessels 1940 = 1059 Subs 54.8% = 581 Aircraft 14.5% = 154 Mines 12.8% = 135 Surface 12.8% = 135 Other or Unknown 5.1% = 54 1941 = 1399 Subs 50.1% = 701 Aircraft 23.5% = 329 Mines 5.3% = 74 Surface 11.2% = 157 Other or Unknown 9.9% = 138 So given these numbers we come up with Lost to Subs = 1405 Lost to Aircraft = 484 Lost to Mines = 286 Lost to Surface Vessels = 310 Lost to Other or Unknown = 194 Total = 2679 [/B][/QUOTE] Yup. Those are roughly the figures I have found as well. You really have to wonder how a man of Blair's stature could have missed all those sunken Allied ships "by other causes". LOL Thanks pry. Here is another site that lists 2,299 Allied ships sunk by all causes between 1939-1941. http://www.theworldatwar.com/feature.htm Whatever the number, Blair missed it by a mile. . .

mogami -> Re: Re: Sunk Ships (8/1/2003 5:40:08 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom [B]Mogami: The approxiamte total of ALL Allied ships sunk (by all causes) between 1939 to 1941 is closer to 2,500 ships. The total number of ships sunk in all of WWII is closer to 5,000. Here is a site that gives several comparisons: http://www.usmm.net/battleatlantic.html Here is another site that gives an exhaustive month by month account of all Allied ship sinkings throughout the war: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsUboats.htm [/B][/QUOTE] No NO NO. I didn't say by all causes I said by all causes other then submarine. On your page they need to learn how to add (The totals make no sense.) Lets not mix our numbers. (from your web site) Well I tried to use that first table but none of the numbers add up to what the totals are. I used the bottom table (It had the highest ship sunk totals) Can't use it. In fact none of these tables are close to one another from 39 to 45. On one page it goes from 50 ships sunk by U-boats to 212 all sunk in 1939 by subs or in Atlantic. This is hopeless. Can't anyone agree "SS Blah of XX tons was sank by XXXX on blah blah date??? I will say more merchant men survuved being sunk then I first supposed. If 85 percent of the prewar fleet was sunk and only 30 percent of the prewar sailors were lost. (and supposing the number of ships went up (It does not matter if a ship was sunk. The merchant marine had to get a new crew for the new ship. But the total crew lost was only 30 percent of pre war number)

Von Rom -> Re: Re: Re: Sunk Ships (8/1/2003 5:49:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]No NO NO. I didn't say by all causes I said by all causes other then submarine. On your page they need to learn how to add (The totals make no sense.) Lets not mix our numbers. (from your web site) Well I tried to use that first table but none of the numbers add up to what the totals are. I used the bottom table (It had the highest ship sunk totals) Can't use it. In fact none of these tables are close to one another from 39 to 45. On one page it goes from 50 ships sunk by U-boats to 212 all sunk in 1939 by subs or in Atlantic. This is hopeless. Can't anyone agree "SS Blah of XX tons was sank by XXXX on blah blah date??? I will say more merchant men survuved being sunk then I first supposed. If 85 percent of the prewar fleet was sunk and only 30 percent of the prewar sailors were lost. (and supposing the number of ships went up (It does not matter if a ship was sunk. The merchant marine had to get a new crew for the new ship. But the total crew lost was only 30 percent of pre war number) [/B][/QUOTE] Mogami: I read you correctly. I thought that you didn't intend to mean by ALL causes. Some of the sources do vary. But one thing they all agree on, EXCEPT Blair, is that the total number of Allied ships sunk between 1939 to 1941 BY ALL CAUSES is at least double to what Blair has indicated it to be in his book. I think you are close to the mark with 1500 ships sunk by other causes between 1939-1941. I had about 1400 ships. Pry has about 1200. So I would say anywhere between 1200 to 1500 Allied ships were sunk by other causes between 1939 to 1941. These are numbers that Blair has ignored in his data. I missed it the first time I read his book. Then I while I was re-reading it, it seemed to jump off the page at me. So the total number of all Allied ships sunk by all causes (U-boat, plane, mine, surface raider) between 1939 to December, 1941 is between 2,300 to 2,600 ships. These figures are more than double those indicated by Blair.

mogami -> ships (8/1/2003 5:59:18 AM)
Hi, Ok. But these numbers don't really tell us what we need to know. For instance. I've found ships sunk in Atlantic by U-boat are normally at least twice the tonnage of ships sunk else where by other then sub.

Von Rom -> Re: ships (8/1/2003 6:06:05 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Ok. But these numbers don't really tell us what we need to know. For instance. I've found ships sunk in Atlantic by U-boat are normally at least twice the tonnage of ships sunk else where by other then sub. [/B][/QUOTE] It can get confusing. But if we just use the total number of ships sunk, it still begs the question as to why Blair would omit this rather large number of Allied ships sunk by "Other Causes". Taken together, 2,500 Allied ships sunk between 1939 to December 1941 by all causes represents the equivalent of Britain losing 83% of its pre-war merchant fleet (of 3,000 ships).

pry -> Re: ships (8/1/2003 6:11:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Ok. But these numbers don't really tell us what we need to know. For instance. I've found ships sunk in Atlantic by U-boat are normally at least twice the tonnage of ships sunk else where by other then sub. [/B][/QUOTE] Ok I think I now know what you are looking for... September 3 1939 U-26 Lays minefield which sinks 3 ships of 17414 tons U-27 sinks 2 ships of 624 tons U-28 sinks 1 ship of 4955 tons U-29 sinks 3 ships of 19405 tons U-30 sinks 2 ships of 9625 tons Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. If this is what you are looking for I have the info but it going to take a while and I mean long while to compile it all thru 1941

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.343994