Re: Survey says

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Re: Survey says

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Survey says - 8/1/2003 9:38:55 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[
Are we all together thus far? [/B][/QUOTE]

Still here Mog-man, and waiting...

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 301

Re: Survey says - 8/1/2003 10:58:10 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]

Next time someone says "381 ships were sunk between Sept 39 and Jan 41 almost bringing Britain to her knees."

Are we all together thus far? [/B][/QUOTE]

Looks like we are not "all together".

Sorry to burst your bubble Mogami, but NO ONE said the U-boat (as it was organized in WWII) would have defeated Britain all by itself.

My part of the discussion in this thread centered round two things:

1) Blair's contention that the U-boat threat was over-inflated, and did not pose a threat to Britain.

I have shown that it did pose a threat, and it took the Allies 4 years and considerable resources to defeat it.

As I stated previously, this portion of the discussion, for me, is closed. I have satisfied myself with the information.

2) Germany could have defeated Britain before December 1941.

In saying this, the U-boat would have been ONE tool in that mission. But as it was originally conceived and put into place, it could not accomplish it on its own.

If Hitler had put the full resources of Germany to work to defeat Britain, he, in all likelihood would have accomplished it.

Here are just a few of the possibilties that were open to Germany before December 1941:

1) Failure to produce large numbers of U-boats leading up to 1939, and afterwards.

2) Failure to bag all the Allied troops at Dunkirk (over 330,000 were allowed to escape). Guderian was ordered to stop.

3) Failure to seize North Africa, instead of attacking the USSR.

4) In the Battle of Britain, the failure to continue the policy of bombing British airfields, radar stations, etc

5) Hitler's incredibly stupid declaration of war on the USA in Dec, 1941.

6) Failure to gear the economy for Total War.

7) And on, and on, and on. . . .

The failure to produce more U-boats is just part of the over-all picture of the lost potential Germany had to achieve greater success.

And no, I do not intend to be drawn into a debate on all of the above.

This is to make sure that we are all on the same page.

Anyway, have fun with all your research. I'm heading to the beach :D

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 302

- 8/1/2003 11:13:48 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

You should be a politician Von Rom.....you have changed slightly, and not so slightly your orig contention, dont back it up with the data specifically asked for, and then claim "victory" over your fellow debators and author Clay Blair

I do not recall Mogami, Pry, or myself ever saying that the Uboats were "no threat."

The goal here, is to provide what you were unable too: proof of Britian's true economic state/condition by 12/41.

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 303

Jan 1 1940 - May 31 1940 - 8/1/2003 11:16:04 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

January 1940

6 - 7 January
Destroyer laid minefield 6 ships (21617)

6 -16 January
U19 1 ship (1343)
U20 1 ship (1524)
U23 2 ships (11667)
*U24 reports massive torpedo failures

9 - 30 Jan
German aircraft sink 12 freighters off British east coast (23944)

10 January
*German Freighter Bahia Blanca (8558) sinks in Denmark Strait after hitting Iceberg

10-11 January
Destroyer laid minefield sunk 1 trawler (251)
Destroyer laid minefield 3 ships (11155)

15 January - 13 February
U25 6 ships (27335)
U44 8 ships (30885)
U51 2 ships (3143)
U55 4 ships (5742) then attacks convoy OA80G (OG16) sinks 2 additional ships (10111) damaged by convoy escorts, scuttles herself
U41 Sinks a tanker (8096) and freighter (9874) from convoy OA84 is then sunk by convoy escorts
U34 1 ship (7807) (laid minefield) then sinks 1 ship (5625)

18 - 27 January
U59 1 ship (1296)
U61 1 ship (2432)
U9 2 ships (2367)
U22 sinks destroyer Exmouth RN and 1 ship (1469)
U57 1 ship (1328) then lays mines which claim 1 ship (8240)
U18 1 ship (1085)
U19 4 ships (8855)
U23 1 ship (1000)
U14 1 ship (1752)
U20 4 ships (6848)
*U15 and U60 return because of torpedo failures, U15 then sinks as a result of collision (01-30)

27 January - 10 February
U13 2 ships (3659)
U21 2 ships (4900)
U58 1 ship (815)
U59 3 ships (2400)
U56, U24, U17 No sinkings due to torpedo failures

29-30 January
German aircraft sink 6 ships (no tonnage listed) and damage to 12 others

4 - 22 February
U26 3 ships (10580)
U37 8 ships (24539)
U48 4 ships (31526)
U50 4 ships (16089)
U53 5 ships (13298) Sunk on return voyage 23 February by RN destroyer Gurkha

9 - 10 February
Destroyer laid minefield 6 ships (28496)
Destroyer laid minefield 3 ships (11855)

11 February
French Sloop captures freighter Rostock (2542)

12 February
RN captures freighter Morea (4709)

21 February
RN captures freighter Wahehe (4709)

12 February
U33 sunk * before sinking British are able to Capture Enigma rotors #6 and #7 (these are 2 of the 3 still missing to the UK)

17 - 18 February
U54 hits mine and sinks
U37 and U53 torpedo stragglers from convoy OG18, U37 sinks 3 ships (no tonnage listed) and U53 1 ship (no tonnage listed) both U-boats report torpedo failures

18 - 20 February
U9 1 ship (1213)
U14 4 ships (5320)
U61 2 ships (5703)
U63 1 ship (4211)
U57 1 ship (10191)
U23 1 ship (4966) and sinks escort destroyer Daring RN in convoy NH12
U10 2 ships (6356)

25 February
U63 sunk by escorts while trying to attach convoy NH14

29 February - 9 March
U14 4 ships (5290)
U17 2 ships (1615)
U20 2 ships (9551)

2 March - 11 March
U29 laid minefield which sinks 1 ship (710) then sinks 2 ships (9789)
U32 laid minefield which sinks 1 ship (5068)
U28 2 ships (11215)
*all 3 report torpedo failures

5 March 2 April
U38 5 ships (14309)
U47 1 ship (1146)
U44 Sunk (03-20)

7-8 March
RN captures German (passenger/general cargo) Hannover (5537) She is converted into 1st RN escort carrier Audacity

9 March
Minelayer Schiff 11, lays minefield which claim 5 ships (14152)

11 March
* U31 sunk by RAAF Blenheim, later raised

14 - 29 March
U19 4 ships (5517)
U57 2 ships (7009)

20 March
German aircraft sink freighter Barn Hill (5439)

23 March
U22 sunk *lost to either a mine or collision with Polish Sub Wilk (depending on source used)

*Invasion of Norway ** Most all U-boats in support of this operation
** U-boats are reporting massive torpedo failure at this time
10 April
U50 sunk by RN destroyer Hero

13 April
U64 sunk by aircraft from battleship Warsprite

15 April
U49 sunk by RN destroyer Fearless

16 April
U1 sunk by RN sub Porpoise

10 April
RN sub Thistle sunk by U4

14 April
* U47 fires 2 salvos of 4 torpedoes each at anchored transports unloading 24th Guards Brigade, all fail to explode.

17 April German aircraft drop mines into Edinburgh channel, sinking 2 ships (6417)

*** RN sub Trident fires 10 torpedoes at Cruiser Lutzow, all missed****

*** U-boats take shots at BB Warsprite (3 times) Cruiser Southampton, Cruiser Aurora, BB Valiant, cruiser Effingham, cruiser Enterprise, cruiser York (2 times) and numerous destroyers all fail� And we thought the US had torpedo problems***

21 April
German Aircraft mines off harbors in Scotland, 3 ships (5540)
U26 sinks transport Cedarbank (5139)

22 April
German aircraft drop mines off Harwich, claiming 2 ships (2607)

6 - 28 May
U9 sinks RN destroyer Doris 2 ships (3838)

*10 May Invasion of Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France*

10-11 May
German aircraft sink Dutch passenger ships Statendam (28291) and Veendam (15450)

13 May
Dutch Freighters Phrontis (6181) and Texelstroom (1617), escape to England

14 May
German aircraft sink Belgian passenger steamer Ville De Bruges (13869)

16 May 8 June
U9 1 ship (3256)
U62 sinks RN destroyer Grafton
U13 sunk (mine no date given)

***17 May 3 complete Enigma machines are captured in Norway, they are in Operational in Bushy Park That same afternoon***

17 May
German freighters Durazzo (1153) and Sesostris (3987) interned in Venezuela

***May 19 - 2 June u-boats start operating in North Atlantic again***
U37 9 ships (41207)
U58 1 ship (8401)

28 May - 22 June
*U46 shoots at carrier Ark Royal, Torpedo failure*
U43 4 ships (29456) including refrigerator ships Avelona Star (13376)
U101 7 ships (42022) including refrigerator ship Wellington Star (13212)
U29 4 ships (26638)
U48 7 ships (31533)
U46 5 ships (35347) including Aux Cruiser Carinthia (20277)

** Operation Dynamo,***
German aircraft sink 8 aux ships (6201) and 7 merchants (15830) 3 large transports (no tonnage given) and 6 fishery vessels transports British Queen (807) and Scotia (3454)

1 June
German Aircraft sink Passenger ship Orford (20043)

I have some work to do I'll get back to this later...

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 304

U-boats - 8/1/2003 11:30:18 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I think we are all aware of the fact that U-boats as organized at the time would not defeat Britain alone. (Since this is a fact)

The survey seeks to establish exactly what Germany by all means accomplished. We are seeking to know the amount of material on hand in Britain at any time. The number and tonnage of merchants on hand at any time.

After we have these base points we will then know exactly how much increase in damage the Germans would need to inflict to put Britain in an actual "crisis" (Or if and when this state was ever in fact achived. And how long it was maintained)

I have no bone to pick. I only wish to know for certain myself the true record of events. No matter what the data reveals I will be content to have attained a better understanding of history.

Example of Norwegian ship in British service.
M/S Abraham Lincoln NS
Fred Olsen & Co., Oslo 5740 gt
Built in Odense, Denmark, delivered in 1929.
Captain Sverre Holmsen. Made it safely through about 50 Atlantic crossings (287,000t)
Abraham Lincoln was in Convoy HX 167 which left Halifax on Dec. 27-1941 (1st convoy?)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 305

Convoys - 8/2/2003 12:00:45 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Convoy battles I think the difference between ships sunk and ships sunk in convoy attacks will help in knowing how many unescorted ships were attacked. Also I'm tracking down what each convoy delivered to Britain.

1939
OB-4 15 Sep, 1939 1 U-boat 1 ship sunk for a total of 4.060 tons

1940
HX-65 24 Aug, 1940 3 U-boats 1 ship sunk for a total of 6.666 tons
HX-65A 24 Aug, 1940 3 U-boats 4 ships sunk for a total of 23.151 tons
HX-72 20 Sep, 1940 9 U-boats 11 ships sunk for a total of 72.727 tons
SC-7 16 Oct, 1940 7 U-boats 20 ships sunk for a total of 79.592 tons (yeow out of 30 ships)
HX-79 19 Oct, 1940 5 U-boats 12 ships sunk for a total of 75.069 tons
HX-90 1 Dec, 1940 7 U-boats 10 ships sunk for a total of 69.219 tons

1941
SC-26 1 Apr, 1941 8 U-boats 10 ships sunk for a total of 51.969 tons
OB-318 7 May, 1941 4 U-boats 9 ships sunk for a total of 50.985 tons
HX-126 19 May, 1941 11 U-boats 9 ships sunk for a total of 51.862 tons
OG-69 24 Jul, 1941 8 U-boats 7 ships sunk for a total of 11.303 tons
OG-71 17 Aug, 1941 8 U-boats 10 ships sunk for a total of 15.185 tons
SC-42 9 Sep, 1941 19 U-boats 16 ships sunk for a total of 68.259 tons
HG-73 19 Sep, 1941 5 U-boats 10 ships sunk for a total of 25.818 tons
SC-48 15 Oct, 1941 13 U-boats 11 ships sunk for a total of 49.835 tons
HG-76 16 Dec, 1941 10 U-boats 4 ships sunk for a total of 18.383 tons

1942
ONS-67 21 Feb, 1942 6 U-boats 8 ships sunk for a total of 54.750 tons
ONS-92 11 May, 1942 6 U-boats 7 ships sunk for a total of 36.284 tons
ONS-100 8 Jun, 1942 6 U-boats 5 ships sunk for a total of 20.478 tons
PQ-17 1 Jul, 1942 16 ships sunk for a total of 102.311 tons
ON-115 29 Jul, 1942 12 U-boats 3 ships sunk for a total of 21.456 tons
SC-94 5 Aug, 1942 17 U-boats 11 ships sunk for a total of 53.421 tons
ON-127 9 Sep, 1942 12 U-boats 8 ships sunk for a total of 51.562 tons
PQ-18 12 Sep, 1942 5 U-boats 3 ships sunk for a total of 19.689 tons
SC-100 18 Sep, 1942 17 U-boats 5 ships sunk for a total of 26.331 tons
QP-14 20 Sep, 1942 7 U-boats 6 ships sunk for a total of 23.474 tons
SC-104 12 Oct, 1942 17 U-boats 9 ships sunk for a total of 44.113 tons
HX-212 26 Oct, 1942 13 U-boats 10 ships sunk for a total of 52.490 tons
SL-125 27 Oct, 1942 10 U-boats 12 ships sunk for a total of 80.005 tons
SC-107 30 Oct, 1942 16 U-boats 15 ships sunk for a total of 82.817 tons
ONS-144 15 Nov, 1942 13 U-boats 6 ships sunk for a total of 26.321 tons
ON-153 15 Dec, 1942 13 U-boats 3 ships sunk for a total of 13.334 tons
ONS-154 26 Dec, 1942 19 U-boats 16 ships sunk for a total of 69.913 tons

1943
TM-1 3 Jan, 1943 14 U-boats 7 ships sunk for a total of 56.453 tons
SC-118 4 Feb, 1943 20 U-boats 12 ships sunk for a total of 59.908 tons
ON-166 21 Feb, 1943 19 U-boats 14 ships sunk for a total of 87.901 tons
UC-1 22 Feb, 1943 11 U-boats 3 ships sunk for a total of 26.682 tons
SC-121 6 Mar, 1943 26 U-boats 14 ships sunk for a total of 55.947 tons
HX-228 10 Mar, 1943 19 U-boats 6 ships sunk for a total of 25.658 tons
UGS-6 12 Mar, 1943 17 U-boats 4 ships sunk for a total of 28.018 tons
HX-229 16 Mar, 1943 43 U-boats 13 ships sunk for a total of 93.502 tons
SC-122 17 Mar, 1943 43 U-boats 9 ships sunk for a total of 53.094 tons
RS-3 27 Mar, 1943 7 U-boats 3 ships sunk for a total of 15.389 tons
ONS-5 28 Apr, 1943 55 U-boats 13 ships sunk for a total of 61.958 tons
TS-37 30 Apr, 1943 1 U-boat 7 ships sunk for a total of 43.255 tons

http://www.uboat.net/ops/convoys/index.html

lists ships sunk gives nationality and tonnage.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 306

- 8/2/2003 12:14:19 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]You should be a politician Von Rom.....you have changed slightly, and not so slightly your orig contention, dont back it up with the data specifically asked for, and then claim "victory" over your fellow debators and author Clay Blair

I do not recall Mogami, Pry, or myself ever saying that the Uboats were "no threat."

The goal here, is to provide what you were unable too: proof of Britian's true economic state/condition by 12/41. [/B][/QUOTE]

I was not going to make another post in this thread, but I cannot let these statements stand.

1) I have not changed in my stand. Nowhere throughout this entire thread will you find any comments made by me that the U-boat, as it was organized in WWII, could win the war all by itself.

2) Almost every opinion I have stated in this thread has been backed with quotes and sources by some of the best academics and leaders I could find. And I have stacks of books at my disposal that I have not even touched yet.

3) I have shown the fact that Blair fails to include in his book, 1,400 Allied ships sunk by other causes, which defeats his own argument according to HIS own criteria and statistics. YOU have his book and can read the pages I indicated in my previous post on this matter.

It was over HIS contention that the U-boat threat was overblown, threat inflated, etc, etc, that this discussion centered.

4) I never claimed "victory" over anyone, least of all the other people in this discussion. In fact, after I found those allied ships were missing from Blair's data, I said that you guys shouldn't waste "your valuable time" debating something which this omitted data defeats.

I just wish I had found it sooner - it would have saved us all a lot of typing - LOL

5) I have indicated in numerous posts, with sources from qualified academics, including Blair himself, about the state of Britain's economy. These have NOT been my opinions.

If you guys think you can do better - then go to it. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 307

Re: U-boats - 8/2/2003 12:45:27 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I think we are all aware of the fact that U-boats as organized at the time would not defeat Britain alone. (Since this is a fact)

The survey seeks to establish exactly what Germany by all means accomplished. We are seeking to know the amount of material on hand in Britain at any time. The number and tonnage of merchants on hand at any time.

After we have these base points we will then know exactly how much increase in damage the Germans would need to inflict to put Britain in an actual "crisis" (Or if and when this state was ever in fact achived. And how long it was maintained)

I have no bone to pick. I only wish to know for certain myself the true record of events. No matter what the data reveals I will be content to have attained a better understanding of history.

Example of Norwegian ship in British service.
M/S Abraham Lincoln NS
Fred Olsen & Co., Oslo 5740 gt
Built in Odense, Denmark, delivered in 1929.
Captain Sverre Holmsen. Made it safely through about 50 Atlantic crossings (287,000t)
Abraham Lincoln was in Convoy HX 167 which left Halifax on Dec. 27-1941 (1st convoy?) [/B][/QUOTE]

No problem Mogami. I generally respect your opinion. And I am also interested in the data you find.

BTW, the Norwegian ship AL is an example of what I had mentioned earlier. Although Norway is close to Britain, the fact that its first convoy of supplies may have been in late Dec 1941, indicates the long times periods involved between a ship "coming over" to the British side, and its actual use in supplying Britain. In this case it MAY have been a year and a half.

So additional total tonnage and ship numbers don't mean anything if we don't know where those ships are and when they became "useful".

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 308

missing data - 8/2/2003 12:46:47 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"4) I never claimed "victory" over anyone, least of all the other people in this discussion. In fact, after I found those allied ships were missing from Blair's data, I said that you guys shouldn't waste "your valuable time" debating something which this omitted data defeats."

Hi, It has not been established that this missing data shows anything other that more ships were sunk then this fellow quoted in his book. If these extra (or missing) ships were not related to the maintenance of material levels in Britain then there ommision means nothings (since we will omit them as well except to note their loss in the ship totals. If they contained tonnage relevant it will be included. One way or the other we will know the exact facts. A lot of conjecture concerning ship totals has already been revealed as meaningless.

The Royal Navy lost 381 ships in 1939 and 1940. Only 16 of these had any direct impact on the supply levels. (They amount to almost 3 million tons of material not being delivered in the remaining period of the war)

I'm going to work through 1941 today. So I will have final data on the Royal Navy during our period of study.

1941 Royal Navy first pass

350 ships sunk 10 ships counted towards survey

1939-1941 totals 730 ships 26 keepers

Still need to sort out those sunk by U-boat from those sunk otherwise.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 309

Re: missing data - 8/2/2003 1:15:03 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, It has not been established that this missing data shows anything other that more ships were sunk then this fellow quoted in his book. If these extra (or missing) ships were not related to the maintenance of material levels in Britain then there ommision means nothings (since we will omit them as well except to note their loss in the ship totals. If they contained tonnage relevant it will be included. One way or the other we will know the exact facts. A lot of conjecture concerning ship totals has already been revealed as meaningless.

The Royal Navy lost 381 ships in 1939 and 1940. Only 16 of these had any direct impact on the supply levels. (They amount to almost 3 million tons of material not being delivered in the remaining period of the war)

I'm going to work through 1941 today. So I will have final data on the Royal Navy during our period of study. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami:

The way your study is being conducted is flawed. It is being conducted by your definition of what should be included.

Your say that the Royal Navy lost 381 ships in 1939 and 1940. Yet only 16 of these had any direct impact on the supply levels.

This type of thinking is wrong. Let me explain.

Many of these ships (destroyers, trawlers, etc) played a vital role in defending against U-boats and protecting merchants and harbours, etc.

In other words:

What is more important:

"The bomber or the fighter escort?"

What is more important:

"The merchant ship or the convoy escort (destroyer)?"

Since even Blair contends that most ships that were sunk were unescorted ones, it follows, that it was with the help of the escorts that merchants made it through the U-boats in one piece.

This means that the destroyer is as valuable as the merchant, since you cannot have one without the other. Well you can, but then the number of your merchant sinkings go up, involving more shipbuilding, etc.

This is why the allies had to divide their shipbulding priorities between destroyers and merchants and minelayers, and minesweepers, etc, etc.

Almost all studies of Allied ship sinkings INCLUDE lost destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc, because these warships were part of the Battle of the Atlantic, as it was their job to protect merchants AND sink U-boats. A lost destroyer is a cost of the convoy system, just as much as the merchant ship is.

You cannot have protected convoys without destroyers and escorts.

You cannot have a harbour free of German mines without minesweeping trawlers. This means that destroyers and trawlers must be commissioned instead of more merchants.

If you don't have destroyers, then you don't have protected convoys, and therefore the supplies don't get through.

If all destroyers are lost, then sinking merchants becomes easier. This is why Britain wanted those 50 WWI destroyers so bad.

Even trawlers performed a vital service by attacking U-boats attempting to lay mines near ports and harbours where merchants might run into them.

A lost trawler means that the British must forgo building another merchant because they have to re-fit another ship to serve the same puropse.

This is why the Germans also attacked and sank these "warships". They knew less destroyers, meant more unprotected merchants. Less trawlers, meant more mines could be laid.

Without these additional ships included in your "study" your data will be fatally flawed. It will be interesting, but flawed.

All researchers have understood this. Even Blair does.

I agree that some ships like blockships, etc shouldn't be included, but many of the others should be.

Let me cite an example from UV. We all know how important supply is in the game. That merchant ships are important. But who in their right mind would send these ships into enemy held territory without heavy escort and carrier cover? This is all part of the cost of getting the supplies through.

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 310

Ship totals - 8/2/2003 1:25:35 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I don't think you understand our line of reasoning.

In previous posts we have seen quotes like

Britain began with 22,000,000 tons of shiping.

In 1939-1941 she lost 2500 ships totaling XXXX tons
She was on the brink of collapse.

Then we go and examine the facts and find at least 700 of the 2500 ships had nothing to do with carrying supply to Britain.

That the tonnage subtracted from the total is not even the same ships used to arrive at that total.

Since this is not a live event it does not matter for our purpose.
(It would be important to keep track of escort loss if this were taking place at this time. It would influence planning. We will even note when a Allied ship is lost as a result of escort shortage. however it is not important for knowing what the tonnage on hand on any date was)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 311

Re: Ship totals - 8/2/2003 1:33:09 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I don't think you understand our line of reasoning.

In previous posts we have seen quotes like

Britain began with 22,000,000 tons of shiping.

In 1939-1941 she lost 2500 ships totaling XXXX tons
She was on the brink of collapse.

Then we go and examine the facts and find at least 700 of the 2500 ships had nothing to do with carrying supply to Britain.

That the tonnage subtracted from the total is not even the same ships used to arrive at that total.

Since this is not a live event it does not matter for our purpose.
(It would be important to keep track of escort loss if this were taking place at this time. It would influence planning. We will even note when a Allied ship is lost as a result of escort shortage. however it is not important for knowing what the tonnage on hand on any date was) [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, fair enough. Just pointing out what most researchers have discussed.

But it must also be remembered that many of those 2500 ships sunk helped to keep the supply trail open, and so were also vital, even though they may not have been in the original totals.

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 312

- 8/2/2003 2:27:53 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Von Rom.....i promised to do my part and not keep salvoing back and forth needlessly so i'll just let readers of the thread decide for themselves regarding the variability of your "stand" and the other items you've recycled.

Regarding your claim though that you've provided the economic data I requested; ***WHERE?**** All i've seen you give is raw tonnage data, followed by #'s of ships sunk, followed by the total level of imports.....usually attached with dramatic adjetives about how bad it was for Britian......none of which tells us what we want to know about Britian's *actual* state in terms of her vital industries and stockpiles.

Had you provided this, then we wouldn't still be here trying to piece the puzzle together. Had it shone a Britian on the verge of defeat, I'd have said Blair was wrong in his contention that the Uboats did not come close to achieving ******strategic, and decisive victory******* and hence their threat was overinflated and we could all go to the beach together!

For what it's worth, i dont think counting ships will do the job either. Roughly 2500 ships were destroyed, we know this. We also already know that her merchant fleet ended 41 *bigger* than it started in 39 which makes dramatic talk (by you) of how much % of the prewar British merchant fleet those 2500 ships represent not only misleading, but liable to being the example of the "threat inflation" you say you've proven is false. LOL You also have carefully skirted the fact that this was hardly a one sided blow and that Britian struck back sinking 35% of Germany's *wartime* (not prewar) Uboat fleet up to that point.

The only question worth pursuing that remains is : what is the true state of Britian's economy, based on her stockpiles, and how well her industries are running......as i've said many times....were they at the brink? were they critically short of what they needed? If they were not.....then i'd say thats all the proof needed. Noone denies the Uboats, oh sorry, the Uboats and the entire German armed forces :) "Hurt" Britian, the "question" is, how much did these Uboats hurt in real terms to a Britian now running on war economy with it's belt tightened and the hatches battened down......

No quotes from famous figures

No "opinioins" from authors about how bad the situaiton looked or felt.

no references to the BoB, Dunkirk, or WWI.

data......tabulated would be nice. showing the state of Britian's economy.

I fail to see why this simple request is so hard fullfill?

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 313

wrong ships - 8/2/2003 4:26:56 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]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). [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Are we showing you somewhat at least that these 2500 ships were not in fact 83 percent of prewar merchant fleet? (since I've shown over 700 of the 2500 were not even merchant ships)

As far as their being important to keeping supply line open I agree. I also think they did their job. I'd prefer my escorts to be sunk rather then my merchants.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 314

- 8/2/2003 5:36:42 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Von Rom.....i promised to do my part and not keep salvoing back and forth needlessly so i'll just let readers of the thread decide for themselves regarding the variability of your "stand" and the other items you've recycled.

Regarding your claim though that you've provided the economic data I requested; ***WHERE?**** All i've seen you give is raw tonnage data, followed by #'s of ships sunk, followed by the total level of imports.....usually attached with dramatic adjetives about how bad it was for Britian......none of which tells us what we want to know about Britian's *actual* state in terms of her vital industries and stockpiles.

Had you provided this, then we wouldn't still be here trying to piece the puzzle together. Had it shone a Britian on the verge of defeat, I'd have said Blair was wrong in his contention that the Uboats did not come close to achieving ******strategic, and decisive victory******* and hence their threat was overinflated and we could all go to the beach together!

For what it's worth, i dont think counting ships will do the job either. Roughly 2500 ships were destroyed, we know this. We also already know that her merchant fleet ended 41 *bigger* than it started in 39 which makes dramatic talk (by you) of how much % of the prewar British merchant fleet those 2500 ships represent not only misleading, but liable to being the example of the "threat inflation" you say you've proven is false. LOL You also have carefully skirted the fact that this was hardly a one sided blow and that Britian struck back sinking 35% of Germany's *wartime* (not prewar) Uboat fleet up to that point.

The only question worth pursuing that remains is : what is the true state of Britian's economy, based on her stockpiles, and how well her industries are running......as i've said many times....were they at the brink? were they critically short of what they needed? If they were not.....then i'd say thats all the proof needed. Noone denies the Uboats, oh sorry, the Uboats and the entire German armed forces :) "Hurt" Britian, the "question" is, how much did these Uboats hurt in real terms to a Britian now running on war economy with it's belt tightened and the hatches battened down......

No quotes from famous figures

No "opinioins" from authors about how bad the situaiton looked or felt.

no references to the BoB, Dunkirk, or WWI.

data......tabulated would be nice. showing the state of Britian's economy.

I fail to see why this simple request is so hard fullfill? [/B][/QUOTE]

As I mentioned in my last post to you - this subject of debate is CLOSED.

I have already found the information I need to explain why Blair's argument is faulty.

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 315

Re: wrong ships - 8/2/2003 6:39:16 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Are we showing you somewhat at least that these 2500 ships were not in fact 83 percent of prewar merchant fleet? (since I've shown over 700 of the 2500 were not even merchant ships)

As far as their being important to keeping supply line open I agree. I also think they did their job. I'd prefer my escorts to be sunk rather then my merchants. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami:

Hi

I said the 83% is equivalent to the total of British pre-WWII ship totals. I know they are not the same ships.

It is the equivalent.

My disagreement is not with you; it was with some of Blair's findings. You have nothing to prove.

It is admirable that you are doing this work.

However, you are doing this survey based upon what you have subjectively defined will be included in it. That's your privilege. It's your survey. But the results will hardly be "scientific".

As you know, convoys work. That's why the British built escort ships, and that's why the Germans tried to sink them.

It costs resources to build escorts, just as it costs resources and supplies to build merchants. For each one of these ships that is sunk, another must be built to take its place. In addition, if the crew goes down with their ships, then new crews must be found and trained, and fed and clothed. All of this is the cost of war; of convoying; and of the struggle for the Battle of the Atlantic.

How else were the allies going to defeat the U-boat? Ram them with merchant ships?

The allies poured a lot of resources into building escort carriers, destroyers, sonar, etc to help sail the ocean to hunt for U-boats. This is all part of the cost of getting supplies through and of defeating the U-boats and Germany.

There is a cost for building destroyers - it is the cost of giving up building an extra merchant ship. Plus, some of the supplies that merchant ship is carrying is in part helping to build some of those escorts.

Why do you think there was a "shortage" of ships among the allies? Do you think all the authors of these books make this stuff up? It's because there were competing demands for SHIP TYPES, to do all types of different jobs. All the shipyards weren't building the same type of ships. Look at all the ship types in UV and WiTP. There is a cost involved whether we like it or not.

To his credit, Blair understands all this and has factored this into his data.

There is so much information that must go into a study of this type, that simple numbers will not do.

For example:

In 1939 we know there were 3,000 British merchant ships of 17,000,000 tons. However, of these 3,000 ships, how many were stationed in the Pacific? How many in the Atlantic? Were they ALL operational at the same time? or were many of them "dry-docked? How many were under repairs? How many were being converted into troop ships? Etc, etc. . .

Well, you know what I mean.

All U-boats were not operational at the same time. It is the same with these 3,000 ships. One simply cannot say,"We have 3,000 ships, therefore we XXX capacity." Simply doesn't work that way.

Using UV as another example:

You have 2 BBs and 2 CVs at Noumea. You learn that in three months you will get 1 BB and 1 CV from Pearl. Even though on paper you have 3 BBs and 3 CVs in existence, you know that in reality all you have operationally, are your original 2 BBs and 2 CVs, and must plan your operations accordingly.

This is also the way it works with merchant ships, etc.

It is a very, very complicated thing to work out, and will simply not yield any relevant results from a quick study of this type.

Heck, economists have studied this question. What a job that would be. . . ack

I think playing UV would be far more enjoyable. :)

In the final analysis, Mogami, you have nothing to prove. Either does pry or Nikademus. We all see things a little differently. Hopefully, because of our friendly discussions, it will spur others to do some extra reading on the subject.

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 316

Re: wrong ships - 8/2/2003 8:50:27 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 317

Re: Re: wrong ships - 8/2/2003 11:03:35 AM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE][B]
Regarding the number of merchant ships being available: I just thought of something.

I will use a simplified example to illustrate:

Say Britain has 3,000 merchant ships. Let's assume they are ALL available for our convoy purposes. And let's assume they are all available for the Atlantic.

Next, let's assume we have a convoy route setup between Halifax, NS and Portsmouth, England. Let's assume it takes 30 days to complete the trip one way.

This means that fully half of those 3,000 ships (1,500) will be empty at least 6 months each year (they are empty when making the return trip from Portsmouth to Halifax).

I think just this one example illustrates how shortages could occur even though there appear to be lots of ships available.

Cheers! [/B][/QUOTE]

VR, This may seem strange to hear but to a point I agree with parts of what you are saying here...

1st of all let me get the part I disagree about out of the way
Your number of merchant hulls (3000) for the UK at the start of the war is too small by half. I think we have all agreed ([I]have we actually agreed on something after all this time..[/I] ) the starting tonnage is 17,000,000 give or take a bit. No offense but I can not accept this 3000 number because that would make the average vessel size around 5500 tons each this is far too big. As my "Little Project" has been showing the average vessel size is closer to 2500 tons. I believe a starting number of 6000-6100 vessels is correct. I know your sources say 3000 but those numbers do not jive to the data being shown by Mogami and myself.

Now to the part I do Agree with (At least in principal) You are absolutly correct in your suggestion they would not all be available on day 1, most would not be available until October - November. Now that I have your undivided attention i'll explain why, The British merchant Marine was privately owned and plying trade to the 4 courners of the world. They were Militarized on Sept 2 1939 with UK's declaration of War on Germany and would have to assemble in British or Canadian ports for convoy duty. This would take time... So the total fleet could not have possibly been brought to bare until Late 39 maybe even Early 1940. One has to understand from the start that the required amount of vessels were already on steady runs to the UK keeping her supplied the excess capacity and there was a large one would take time to assemble in order to pitch in and start bringing in additional supplies and materials. This is a point I think everyone is missing not every English merchantman was bringing supplies and material to the UK, they were trading all over the world.

I also agree that these ships would not be available 100% of the time, general upkeep overhauls and yard time would keep some out of action at times. UK did not need 100% she had excess capacity.

Your statement about being empty half the year is also to a point correct, The only time a ship will willfully deadhead is in time of war... in real life if they are not loaded then they are not making money. If you assume all vessels travel at the same speed then what you say is correct but !!! Part of how they dealt with that was by forming Fast and Slow convoys the faster ones would lap the slower ones and as a result MORE was being delivered than if all were traveling at the same speed. Think about for a bit i think you will see what i mean.

To give you an example look at it like a car race, if all were going the same speed then all would be bunched up on the same lap on the same part of the oval. Now with faster cars they lap the slower ones and cars are all over the oval so say the race is 100 laps the slowest cars cross the finish line 100 times but the faster ones got there 2 laps ahead of the rest but if they had kept going until the others finished their 100 laps they would have done 102 a crude example but i think you can get the idea.

Anyway I also think this research is interesting will it prove anything no but i think we can come away from this with a much better understanding of UK's economic situation and if she was in as much trouble as your take is or Mogami, Nick and myself's that she was not in that bad a spot.

The one thing we all seem to forget is that history is always written by the winner and they ALWAYS slant that history to shed the brightest light on their side. So MR. Blair can be forgiven for his biases as can S.E. Morrison, great writer i own the 15 volume set of his history of WWII and read every volume cover to cover many times but still roll my eyes at some of the things he has to say.

had a little family problem today that I had to deal with I'll get my part finished over the weekend, I also found another source that i forgot I had that does a much better job of naming ships when sunk, I'll use it to expand my current data.

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 318

Stop The Presses New Info Discovered - 8/2/2003 10:03:19 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

Just ran across a very important paper that just might put this thread to bed once and for all.

I urge anyone who has an interest in this thread to download the .pdf file Especially Von Rom, Mogami and Nikademus

1 meg, 44 pages with tables and sources
http://www.jmss.org/2003/spring-summer/documents/rev-weir-cdfai2.pdf

Central Thesis is this

Lost wartime imports reduced British military output only by a very small amount. In the face of VASTLY REDUCED imports, adjustments within Britians import program and it's larger economy supplied the war economy with MORE steel, MORE of the most important non-ferrous metals, MORE of some non-metallic materials, MORE staple crops, and MORE of some other foods than Britian had comsumed in peacetime.

Although Britain had to make do with less timber and less of some other non-metallic materials and foods, these losses did not significantly hinder it's war economy. Even if it cannot be precisely quantified, the immediate cost of reduced imports was very small.

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 319

Re: Re: Re: wrong ships - 8/2/2003 10:47:34 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

Originally posted by pry
[QUOTE]Your number of merchant hulls (3000) for the UK at the start of the war is too small by half. I think we have all agreed (have we actually agreed on something after all this time.. ) the starting tonnage is 17,000,000 give or take a bit. No offense but I can not accept this 3000 number because that would make the average vessel size around 5500 tons each this is far too big. As my "Little Project" has been showing the average vessel size is closer to 2500 tons. I believe a starting number of 6000-6100 vessels is correct. I know your sources say 3000 but those numbers do not jive to the data being shown by Mogami and myself. [/QUOTE]

Well, I don't make anything up, especially something as important as the amount of British pre-WWII merchant shipping.

You and Mogami say the British had 6,000 merchants? What is your source for this amazingly high number?

Nowhere, in ANY source I have checked, has the number of British merchants come anywhere near 6,000. I would really double-check my numbers if I were you.

The statistics I used come from Blair himself:

Page 99, 1st volume:

Grand Total of ALL British controlled shipping in 1939 = 2,999 ships of 17,784,000 GROSS Tons.

Blair's source for this information is Hancock (1975) - a well-respected international statistical source.

Remember not to confuse GROSS tonnage with NET Tonnage. Gross Tonnage is LARGER than NET Tonnage. This may be why you think the size of the hulls is too big. It's simply a different way of measuring the SAME THING.

As you can see your study is ALREADY in error.

[QUOTE]Now to the part I do Agree with (At least in principal) You are absolutly correct in your suggestion they would not all be available on day 1, most would not be available until October - November. Now that I have your undivided attention i'll explain why, The British merchant Marine was privately owned and plying trade to the 4 courners of the world. They were Militarized on Sept 2 1939 with UK's declaration of War on Germany and would have to assemble in British or Canadian ports for convoy duty. This would take time... So the total fleet could not have possibly been brought to bare until Late 39 maybe even Early 1940. One has to understand from the start that the required amount of vessels were already on steady runs to the UK keeping her supplied the excess capacity and there was a large one would take time to assemble in order to pitch in and start bringing in additional supplies and materials. This is a point I think everyone is missing not every English merchantman was bringing supplies and material to the UK, they were trading all over the world.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE]Your statement about being empty half the year is also to a point correct, The only time a ship will willfully deadhead is in time of war... in real life if they are not loaded then they are not making money. If you assume all vessels travel at the same speed then what you say is correct but !!! Part of how they dealt with that was by forming Fast and Slow convoys the faster ones would lap the slower ones and as a result MORE was being delivered than if all were traveling at the same speed. Think about for a bit i think you will see what i mean. [/QUOTE]

The example I used was very over-simplified to illustrate something that most writers seem to have diffculty in explaining. But I think it helps us to visualize the problem better.

[QUOTE]Anyway I also think this research is interesting will it prove anything no but i think we can come away from this with a much better understanding of UK's economic situation and if she was in as much trouble as your take is or Mogami, Nick and myself's that she was not in that bad a spot.[/QUOTE]

True up to a point.

While Britian was JUST able to maintain itself (Blair states from 1940 imports dropped drastically for each successive year), it is very clear from my simplified illustration what would happen if the U-boats were able to stop or impede the convoys for 3 months, or sink enough merchants to cause a further drop in supplies getting through.

It was a very tenuous lifeline. Everyone agrees on this. But no need to get into all this again.

[QUOTE]The one thing we all seem to forget is that history is always written by the winner and they ALWAYS slant that history to shed the brightest light on their side. So MR. Blair can be forgiven for his biases as can S.E. Morrison, great writer i own the 15 volume set of his history of WWII and read every volume cover to cover many times but still roll my eyes at some of the things he has to say.[/QUOTE]

This is also true to a point.

This is why certain topics make for great debates.

The reader should be aware of biases if they are present. While much of Blair IS informative and worth reading, the reader should also be aware of the fact that he neglects to include data into his statistics. He also spends 269 pages defending King's decisison not to escort merchant ships in 1942, which led to the easy sinking of 585 vessels along America's east coast.

People can agree with Blair, or they can disagree with him. Hopefully, whatever decision they reach is based on informed opinion.

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 320

Re: Stop The Presses New Info Discovered - 8/2/2003 11:03:52 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pry
[B]Just ran across a very important paper that just might put this thread to bed once and for all.

I urge anyone who has an interest in this thread to download the .pdf file Especially Von Rom, Mogami and Nikademus

1 meg, 44 pages with tables and sources
http://www.jmss.org/2003/spring-summer/documents/rev-weir-cdfai2.pdf

Central Thesis is this

Lost wartime imports reduced British military output only by a very small amount. In the face of VASTLY REDUCED imports, adjustments within Britians import program and it's larger economy supplied the war economy with MORE steel, MORE of the most important non-ferrous metals, MORE of some non-metallic materials, MORE staple crops, and MORE of some other foods than Britian had comsumed in peacetime.

Although Britain had to make do with less timber and less of some other non-metallic materials and foods, these losses did not significantly hinder it's war economy. Even if it cannot be precisely quantified, the immediate cost of reduced imports was very small. [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you really wish to keep dragging all this back to the surface again?

We all know Britain continued to fight.

What this whole debate has centered around is Britain's TENUOUS lifeline. If it was cut for just 3 months (according to all the sources), Britian would be unable to continue to fight on. Both Britain and Germany understood this.

This is why the Battle of the Atlantic raged mercilessly for 4 long years.

The fact that Germany did not engage in this action earlier and with more U-boats, is something for which we can all be thankful.

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 321

Re: Stop The Presses New Info Discovered - 8/3/2003 12:48:11 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pry
[B]Just ran across a very important paper that just might put this thread to bed once and for all.

I urge anyone who has an interest in this thread to download the .pdf file Especially Von Rom, Mogami and Nikademus

1 meg, 44 pages with tables and sources
http://www.jmss.org/2003/spring-summer/documents/rev-weir-cdfai2.pdf

Central Thesis is this

Lost wartime imports reduced British military output only by a very small amount. In the face of VASTLY REDUCED imports, adjustments within Britians import program and it's larger economy supplied the war economy with MORE steel, MORE of the most important non-ferrous metals, MORE of some non-metallic materials, MORE staple crops, and MORE of some other foods than Britian had comsumed in peacetime.

Although Britain had to make do with less timber and less of some other non-metallic materials and foods, these losses did not significantly hinder it's war economy. Even if it cannot be precisely quantified, the immediate cost of reduced imports was very small. [/B][/QUOTE]

I read that paper before.

But you must be cautious here:

German war production INCREASED in the years 1943-44, even though Germany was being pounded from the air by the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign often involving raids of 1,000 planes or more.

However, does this fact suggest:

1) that the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign was ineffective?

2) that Germany was winning the war by 1943-44? or

3) that this period of the war was even a DRAW between Germany and the Allies?

I think we all know the answers to the above questions.

We need to be careful about drawing assumptions from a few statistics.

We also must remember that after the evacuation of troops from Dunkirk in May, 1940, Britain was basically left with almost NO protection on land. All heavy military equipment had to be abandoned on the beaches. All Britain had was the Royal Navy and several hundred fighters.

So ANY increase of weapons will be seen as an increase in military production. When you start at zero, you only have one way to go, and that's up. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 322

- 8/3/2003 2:35:36 AM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

Mogami, Nikademus and I have been trying to determine Britain's true economic state and if she was as close to collapse as Mr. Von Rom has opined time and time again, if one takes the time to read the paper as I respectfully asked the reader would have noticed the tables of resources by category so thoughtfully provided and they would have also noticed in nearly every category for years in question 1940-41 her stocks of on hand resources exceeded her consumption even though her import numbers were down by a large margin this surplus was achieved by adjustments to production and her economy. Most of the economic numbers come from either the British government or Oxford University as is seen from the source citations so they can be taken to have a high degree factual evidentiary value.

We are not dealing with mythical fleets of 300 U-boats or now from way out in left field sudden 3 month interruptions of all imports, The question on the table is this, Was Britain historically on the verge of economic collapse at any point during the war because of the U-boat blockade and loss of both vessels and imported materials.

The answer is no she was not Britain produced a surplus in nearly every type of resource in every year in question. Her civilian population while suffering spot shortages from time to time was provided with the food and resources needed to keep them productive and healthy (well as healthy as one can be with bombs falling on your head) and at the same time resources were available to feed her military needs and STILL have surplus for strategic reserves. It is now proven to my satisfaction that Britain was not at any time on immanent verge of economic collapse.

I apologize to the readers of this forum for the last 20+ pages of back and forth nit-picking, the question is now answered to my satisfaction and with that I will depart this discussion

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 323

Re: Re: Stop The Presses New Info Discovered - 8/3/2003 2:42:07 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]Do you really wish to keep dragging all this back to the surface again?

We all know Britain continued to fight.

What this whole debate has centered around is Britain's TENUOUS lifeline. If it was cut for just 3 months (according to all the sources), Britian would be unable to continue to fight on. Both Britain and Germany understood this.

This is why the Battle of the Atlantic raged mercilessly for 4 long years.

The fact that Germany did not engage in this action earlier and with more U-boats, is something for which we can all be thankful. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bring back to the surface? This is what it's all about! LOL Finding out if Britian was "at the brink" and just how TENUOUS her lifeline was in actuality. All this talk about tonnage, the defintion of Deadweight tonnage, Gross tonnage, Net tonnage, its all prime ground for endless debate and controversy. Getting to Britian's true economic condition cuts through all this static.

So far it looks like Britian was not in critical shape by 12/41, and her merchant fleet was still in being, and larger than it started in 9/39.

If you want an example of "resurfaceing" its this conjective 3 month supply cut thing you keep bringing back up. I still want to know how the Germans will acomplish this when in real life they never came close to doing so at any period 9/39 - 12/41. Not to refocus on Blair but you can try to interpret his statistics any way you want but you cant escape the fact that most of the ships in the 900 convoys that constituted the North Atlantic lifeline made their runs successfully. Imports did shrink....but there was never anything close to an embargo.

Even Drumbeat didn't totally cut off US trade on the East coast.

THANK YOU Pry....finally an answer to my question. Obviously we will see this article disputed, but at least we have something to go on now. "If" :D one is willing to accept this article, even tentatively, then we can at least understand now Blair's point regarding the "inflation" of the Uboat threat and his assertation that they never came close to achieving strategic victory even if one choses not to agree with it. There is no great conspiracy or FALSIFIED data....heh. Also his very netural stance in declaring the first phase a draw. Yes the Uboats did great damage, and yes the British in turn did signifigant damage back to the Uboats, but the most important factor was that Britian took the steps to prevent the Uboats from defeating her while not as great as "defeating the Uboats themselves" (which would have to wait until 43) at least allowed her time while the US got into things.

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 324

- 8/3/2003 5:15:06 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pry
[B]Mogami, Nikademus and I have been trying to determine Britain's true economic state and if she was as close to collapse as Mr. Von Rom has opined time and time again, if one takes the time to read the paper as I respectfully asked the reader would have noticed the tables of resources by category so thoughtfully provided and they would have also noticed in nearly every category for years in question 1940-41 her stocks of on hand resources exceeded her consumption even though her import numbers were down by a large margin this surplus was achieved by adjustments to production and her economy. Most of the economic numbers come from either the British government or Oxford University as is seen from the source citations so they can be taken to have a high degree factual evidentiary value.

We are not dealing with mythical fleets of 300 U-boats or now from way out in left field sudden 3 month interruptions of all imports, The question on the table is this, Was Britain historically on the verge of economic collapse at any point during the war because of the U-boat blockade and loss of both vessels and imported materials.

The answer is no she was not Britain produced a surplus in nearly every type of resource in every year in question. Her civilian population while suffering spot shortages from time to time was provided with the food and resources needed to keep them productive and healthy (well as healthy as one can be with bombs falling on your head) and at the same time resources were available to feed her military needs and STILL have surplus for strategic reserves. It is now proven to my satisfaction that Britain was not at any time on immanent verge of economic collapse.

I apologize to the readers of this forum for the last 20+ pages of back and forth nit-picking, the question is now answered to my satisfaction and with that I will depart this discussion [/B][/QUOTE]

pry:

Britain's economy was stretched to the limit. There was almost NO more give within it. It's surplus stocks were running at dangerously low levels. Blair concurs on this.

Britain had NO money and gold to pay for armaments. The US supplied them "on loan", so to speak. This is well known.

If Britain HAD collapsed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The REAL problem, which All authorities (including Churchill) agree on, is that Britain was ALWAYS 1-3 months AWAY from catastrophe. By that I mean, if the U-boats had stopped the Allied convoys from getting through for this period, or sank enough ships to reduce this inflow of supplies, then Britain would have faced a crisis.

It was tough going as it was.

There is no doubt on this point. Consult any reputable text or opinions of ALL Allied leaders.

The question then becomes: Just because the British economy didn't collapse, does that mean the U-boats were a failure?

Clearly, the U-boats posed a grave risk to Britain's lifeline, especially in the 1939-Dec/1941 time period.

Also remember that Hitler had ordered 1/3 of ALL U-boats in the Atlantic in 1941, to be sent to the Mediterrranean and Arctic which further diluted Doenitz's U-boat activity against the convoys.

And I also hope that readers will look into this matter themselves.

Farewell, pry. I enjoyed our discussions. :)

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 325

Re: Re: Re: Stop The Presses New Info Discovered - 8/3/2003 5:40:14 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

Originally posted by Nikademus

[QUOTE]Bring back to the surface? This is what it's all about! LOL Finding out if Britian was "at the brink" and just how TENUOUS her lifeline was in actuality. All this talk about tonnage, the defintion of Deadweight tonnage, Gross tonnage, Net tonnage, its all prime ground for endless debate and controversy. Getting to Britian's true economic condition cuts through all this static.[/QUOTE]

LOL

Yes, why worry about tonnage. ;)

Britain's economy was stretched to the limit. There was almost NO more give within it. It's surplus stocks were running at dangerously low levels. Blair concurs on this.

Britain had NO money and gold to pay for armaments. The US supplied them "on loan", so to speak. It propped up the British economy. This is well known.

If Britain HAD collapsed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. LOL

What you seem to fail to grasp is:

The REAL problem, which All respected authorities (including Churchill) agree on, is that Britain was ALWAYS 1-3 months AWAY from catastrophe. By that I mean, if the U-boats had stopped the Allied convoys from getting through for this period, or sank enough ships to reduce this inflow of supplies, then Britain would have faced a crisis.

This is what the whole Battle of the Atlantic was about: keeping that vital lifeline open.

[QUOTE]If you want an example of "resurfaceing" its this conjective 3 month supply cut thing you keep bringing back up. I still want to know how the Germans will acomplish this when in real life they never came close to doing so at any period 9/39 - 12/41. Not to refocus on Blair but you can try to interpret his statistics any way you want but you cant escape the fact that most of the ships in the 900 convoys that constituted the North Atlantic lifeline made their runs successfully. Imports did shrink....but there was never anything close to an embargo[/QUOTE]

Conjecture?

Oh, boy. . .

[QUOTE]THANK YOU Pry....finally an answer to my question. Obviously we will see this article disputed, but at least we have something to go on now. "If" one is willing to accept this article, even tentatively, then we can at least understand now Blair's point regarding the "inflation" of the Uboat threat and his assertation that they never came close to achieving strategic victory even if one choses not to agree with it. There is no great conspiracy or FALSIFIED data....heh. Also his very netural stance in declaring the first phase a draw. Yes the Uboats did great damage, and yes the British in turn did signifigant damage back to the Uboats, but the most important factor was that Britian took the steps to prevent the Uboats from defeating her while not as great as "defeating the Uboats themselves" (which would have to wait until 43) at least allowed her time while the US got into things.[/QUOTE]

Well, this one author, who wrote this one paper, and should obviously be accepted over hundreds of other historians. ;)

But I will accept that ALL his facts are correct.

So?

Britain was rationalizing its production, just as Germany did in 1943-44.

In fact German production peaked in 1944. From this, would anyone argue that Germany was not near defeat?

Britain was always 3 months away from running out of vital war supplies, etc.

It was an island nation and had to import almost everything, remember?

That's why there was the Battle of the Atlantic that raged for 4 years.

Again, I would urge everyone to to look into this matter for themselves.

Please don't take my word for it.

Nor accept Blair's argument (for the 1939-1941 time period) at face value.

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 326

U-boats - 8/3/2003 5:49:21 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"The REAL problem, which All respected authorities (including Churchill) agree on, is that Britain was ALWAYS 1-3 months AWAY from catastrophe. By that I mean, if the U-boats had stopped the Allied convoys from getting through for this period, or sank enough ships to reduce this inflow of supplies, then Britain would have faced a crisis."

Hi, Britain was always 1-3 months away from crisis. She remains that way today. This is the reason Germany built the U-boats.
They failed to bring about the crisis.
Germany did not make England aways 1-3 months from crisis. Nature did. Britain and her allies overcame nature in two wars.

On the other hand if it was not for nature Britain might have been invaded.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 327

Re: U-boats - 8/3/2003 6:05:10 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]
Hi, Britain was always 1-3 months away from crisis. She remains that way today. This is the reason Germany built the U-boats.
They failed to bring about the crisis.
Germany did not make England aways 1-3 months from crisis. Nature did. Britain and her allies overcame nature in two wars.

On the other hand if it was not for nature Britain might have been invaded. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly.

However, in peace time, Britain didn't have U-boats trying to severe that lifeline. In addition, the introduction of the U-boat forced down British imports every year to dangerous levels.

In 1917 Germany almost successfully blockaded Britain and thus defeating her. But America entered the war.

In WWII, Germany started out very poorly to accomplish this. We can only thank our lucky stars for this.

The Battle of the Atlantic raged for 4 years. It was only through the super-human efforts of allied production AND Hitler's incredible stupididty that avoided reaching Britain's critical mass.

As for invasion: Hitler never really wanted to fight Britain or defeat her until after the Battle of France was over, and realized that Britain would not compromise with him.

If Hitler had planned the war from the beginning in 1939 to wage unrestricted U-boat warfare against Britain (since this did not happen until Aug/40); had prepared the proper ships/paratroops; had captured all the allied troops at Dunkirk; and had devoted just a few more resources to capturing the oil fields in the middle east, the picture would be vastly different.

There is a reason why they call it "The Miracle at Dunkirk".

Rommel's pleas for just a few more troops fell on deaf ears.

Few people realize how tenuous Britain's situation was in 1940-41, and not just in the Atlantic.

This is not von Rom's opinion; it is historical fact.

Again, I would urge people to read up on this if they have not done so.

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 328

- 8/3/2003 6:48:52 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

For me, this whole discussion has centered on Blair's contention that the U-boat threat was overblown and that it never posed a strategic risk to the Allies in the period 1939 to December, 1941.

For some reason, the discussion then seemed to drift in the direction whereby, if Britain didn't collapse, then the U-boat was not a threat.

These are two different arguments.

My concern is for the first one, not the second. We all know Britain didn't collapse.

The question is, was the U-boat threat overblown?

I have proven, especially for myself, and using Blair's own data (he leaves out 1,400 sunken Allied ships from his data), that he defeats his own argument, based on his own criteria.

Just the fact that the Battle of the Atlantic raged for 4 long years, and consumed prodigious amounts of lives, resources, ships and materiel, is proof, in and of itself, of the importance of the threat the U-boat posed to Britain.

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 329

Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop The Presses New Info Discovered - 8/3/2003 8:20:39 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]Originally posted by Nikademus

LOL

Yes, why worry about tonnage :rolleyes:

Britain's economy was stretched to the limit. There was almost NO more give within it. It's surplus stocks were running at dangerously low levels. Blair concurs on this.

I see, so now that we've been given the data you weren't willing to give that indicates that Britian was nowhere near the brink of collapse, you now say that Britian was stretched to the limit. Interesting. Well if one is talking about Britian's ability to produce all the weapons and munitions she needed to fight a World war, i would agree. I'd also point out that with or without Uboats this would be true....as Britian never had the industrial might to do all 3 things simotaniously. (build a huge airforce, build a huge continental army, and build/maintain the world's most powerful navy) Your angle here is a smoke screen

quote:

Britain had NO money and gold to pay for armaments. The US supplied them "on loan", so to speak. It propped up the British economy. This is well known.

Its also well known that this is irrelevent. We're not talking about Britian's treasury which was trashed by WWI and then a Depression. With or without Uboats, she'd have had to come knocking on America's door for aid particularily after Dunkirk wiped out much of her pre-war equipment for her army.

quote:

If Britain HAD collapsed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. LOL

If my father hadn't met my mother.....we wouldn't be having this discussion :D

quote:

What you seem to fail to grasp is:

The REAL problem, which All respected authorities (including Churchill) agree on, is that Britain was ALWAYS 1-3 months AWAY from catastrophe. By that I mean, if the U-boats had stopped the Allied convoys from getting through for this period, or sank enough ships to reduce this inflow of supplies, then Britain would have faced a crisis.

This is what the whole Battle of the Atlantic was about: keeping that vital lifeline open.

I shake my head over the fact that you simply fail to grasp this.

I shake my head at the audacity of your slipperyness. The only thing i've been focused on in this whole thread was countering your original assertation that a "handful of Uboats" nearly "brought Great Britian to the brink" thereby opening the way to the "if only we'd had a few more Uboats" argument. You may recall my repeated requests for you to provide economic data on Britian's state after i absorbed your transcriptions of the negative reviews of Clay Blair. Thanks to Pry's efforts....I am now satisified that the Uboats did not come close to obtaining strategic victory over Great Britian.

quote:

I am appalled at your lack of understanding of what was at stake in the time period of 1939-Dec/1941.

I understand very well thank you. Britian was hard hit by the Uboats, but she had successfully taken the steps to prevent her defeat by said Uboats and had also hit them back hard, sinking 35% of their wartime fleet up to the end of 41 and killing a large share of her pre-war Uboat crews. Her merchant fleet ended 1941 bigger than it started the war in 39, the US was now in the war, and thanks to Pry's efforts, we now see that Britian was indeed far from being "at the brink" of economic defeat.

quote:

Well, this one author, who wrote this one paper, should obviously be accepted over hundreds of other historians.

But I will accept that ALL his facts are correct.

As i said previously, I knew you would dispute the article....I also find it very interesting that you claimed to have read it before it was posted here, yet in 12 pages of bantering back and forth you failed to mention this to me through all the 50 billion times i asked you to provide me with economic data that proved your contention that Great Britian was at the brink of ruin. I see why now. :D

Dispute it all you want. Its still more than you've provided....save the printed fears of Winston Churchill, raw tonnage data i never asked for and already knew about, import totals that were already in Blair's book but do not by themselves tell us about the true state of Britian's industries and stockpiles and ancedotal opinions by authors backed by no data that we and the studio audience can compare to what is said in Blair's book.

quote:

Britain was rationalizing its production, just as Germany did in 1943-44.

In fact German production peaked in 1944. From this, would anyone argue that Germany was not near defeat?

Smokescreen. Britian didn't have two massive armies closing in on either of her borders....armies belonging to nations who's combined production made anything Germany did "economically" quite irrelevent. You yourself have admited this.

Germany had not the practical means to invade Britian after losing the BoB...hence the need for Uboats to starve her people and her industries into submission....a mission which failed. A very different situation entirely.

quote:

Britain was always 3 months away from running out of vital war supplies, etc.

See Mogami's post.....i cant say it any better than that.....goes hand in hand with your fictional 3-month complete embargo which never came close to happening.

quote:

It was an island nation, remember? It had to import almost everything, remember?

That's why there was this little thing called the Battle of the Atlantic that raged for 4 years.

I understand. Had Britian and the US not taken the effort to protect their merchant fleets during this 4 year period, then yes, I'm sure the Uboats would have won. Thanks for enligtening me on that vital point. Japan took that attitude.....gee look what happened to her! :D

quote:

Again, I would urge everyone to to look into this matter for themselves.

I agree 100% with you on this point VR....because, like Pry....i am done. I finally have some data that justifies Blair's thesis that the threat was overblown and that the uboats never came close to achieving the strategic victory they needed to knock the UK out of the war. Thats all i care about because i was honestly interested in seeing if Blair was full of it after listening to your arguments and reading the reviews (not just the negative ones you posted)....I knew all along you would never accept the findings. (oh wait! cant call them "findings" because you told Pry you've already read the article so you were aware of it but kept silent about it this whole time)

You yourself provide physical proof of why Blair wrote his book and says what he says....sometimes a bit too obnoxiously perhaps, but then again, no more so than your dramatic attempts to prove your point as you bounced from one angle to another and to another....which is fine because it only proves Blair's point that personages tended to inflate the threat!

The Uboats were indeed a "threat" just as Nazi Germany itself was a "threat"....the Uboats just wern't as big a threat as you originally contended....that a "handful" of Uboats pushed Britian to the brink of disaster....or as Blair put it....."images of one convoy after another being savaged by Uboats"....to the point that Britian was nearly isolated and her economy at the brink of ruin. We now see that it was rather more than a "handful" of Uboats, and that most of the convoys made it through ....a state of being which is backed by the size of Britian's merchant fleet and the fact that her industries were still going strong by the end of 41.

Yes, the Battle of the Atlantic forced the Allies to devote tremendous resources to the fight.....but they had the means to do it and once the US was in the war.....it was over because the US had the economic muscle to build the tonnage to levels so high that Hitler believed they had to be "propaganda" figures, and the rising technology gap on sea and in the air made Germany's Uboat force "the hunted" instead of "the hunter" Newer generation Uboats might have made a difference here, but thats a different discussion (for another thread!!!!)

Bye folks.....its been fun and most informative :D

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 330