US and Soviet Union in World War II (was: From Appomatox

[Tyrannis]

you have provided your own proof in the A20 thread 

wow, what a scapegoat.

"cant prove what i said in this thread so lets mention another thread!  "

please, just go away. before you turn this thread into another stupid argument.

[Ack-Ack]

so unless you provide proof of me "being moronic" then your just trying to troll 
now shoo.

Each post you make is a pretty good example.

ack-ack

[Tyrannis]

Each post you make is a pretty good example.

ack-ack

hello ego-man.

[zack1234]

 

[Ardy123]

Hey Zack,
If it wasn't for the USA, you'd be speaking German. Even before the USA's formal entrance into the WW2, we were sending enormous quantities of supplies to Britain. Had that not happened, England would have had its production starved and would have never been able to push back any power, let alone Germany. Just remember, England has almost no natural resources.

Now that being said, the USSR took the brunt of the German offensive and was the reason for the fall of the German army.  Europe WW2 was more about the USA supplying the rest of the Allies with enormous amounts of supplies and the Russians doing the dirty work. Now the Pacific theater was totally different, the USA just out manned and produced Japan.  The USA could loose a few ships because it was making new ones at a dizzying pace, where as Japan, once it lost its carriers, it was unable to rebuild its forces. And much like England, Japan did not have any natural resources, it was forced to ship all of them from other places (which is much harder to do in war time).

[Tyrannis]

Hey Zack,
If it wasn't for the USA, you'd be speaking German. Even before the USA's formal entrance into the WW2, we were sending enormous quantities of supplies to Britain. Had that not happened, Britten would have had its production starved and would have never been able to push back any power, let alone Germany. Just remember, Brittan has almost no natural resources.

dont quote me on this because im not sure its 100% accurate, but didnt america design the radar capable of detecting german u-boats? imagine if america had never done that. germany could of quarentined britain like america did in the 60's with cuba. with no supplies coming to britain from other countries and its factories being bombed on the homeland, england would of eventually been bled of supplies untill she was forced to ether surrender or be crushed.

[Mirage]

its Sonar, and no the US did not invent it, Germany Canada and the UK however had played part in its development

[Ardy123]

dont quote me on this because im not sure its 100% accurate, but didnt america design the radar capable of detecting german u-boats? imagine if america had never done that. germany could of quarentined britain like america did in the 60's with cuba. with no supplies coming to britain from other countries and its factories being bombed on the homeland, england would of eventually been bled of supplies untill she was forced to ether surrender or be crushed.

No, the Germans were doing a damn good job stopping our convoys up till mid 1943, they just didn't have enough uboats to seal the deal. Also, it wasn't any 'american' radar (all three powers had it and even the Germans even had some basic radar jammers on the u-boats), it was air power, that crushed the uboats.  Uboats had to surface, and if you can have constant patrols of aircraft, you can sink uboats all day.

overview numbers..
Allies                               Germans
30,248 merchant               sailors    28,000 sailors
3,500 merchant vessels       783 submarines
175 warships    

details....
Date                tonnage    tonnage      uboats sunk
                        shipped    sunk
Sep. '39            3297070    153879        2
39-10Oct. '39    3576135    134807        5
39-11Nov. '39    4408689    51589        1
39-12Dec. '39    4466664    80881       1
40-01Jan. '40    4847044    111263       1
40-02Feb. '40    4348820    169566        6
40-03Mar. '40    4970525    62781        1
40-04Apr. '40    5336917    32467        5
40-05May '40    5362873    55580        1
40-06Jun. '40   284113    105193        0
40-07Jul. '40    195825    70193       2
40-08Aug. '40    267618    53283            3
40-09Sep. '40    295335    56328       1
40-10Oct. '40    352407    8752        1
40-11Nov. '40    146613    66438        2
40-12Dec. '40    212590    14890       0
41-01Jan. '41    2651399    126782        0
41-02Feb. '41    2621795    196783        0
41-03Mar. '41    2864121    243020        5
41-04Apr. '41    2620531    249375        2
41-05May '41    3466204    325492        1
41-06Jun. '41    3594684    310143       4
41-07Jul. '41    3765724    94209       0
41-08Aug. '41    4002450    80310       4
41-09Sep. '41    4267134    202820        2
41-10Oct. '41    4203224    156554        2
41-11Nov. '41    3336789    62196        5
41-12Dec. '41    3735419    124070        10
42-01Jan. '42    327357    57086       3
42-02Feb. '42    476451    133746            2
42-03Mar. '42    537980    55706       6
42-04Apr. '42    431664    82924            3
42-05May. '42    607247    59041       4
42-06Jun. '42    700235    54769       3
42-07Jul. '42    476065    74313           11
42-08Aug. '42    544410    60532       9
42-09Sep. '42    485413    57526       10
42-10Oct. '42    619417    5686       16
42-11Nov. '42    729160    53868       13
42-12Dec. '42    330816    4853            4
43-01Jan. '43    203128    25503        6
43-02Feb. '43    359328    75                    19
43-03Mar. '43    627377    65128        15
43-04Apr. '43    327943    3034            15
43-05May. '43    264853    20942            41
43-06Jun. '43    97753    6083       17
43-07Jul. '43    242145    106005       37
43-08Aug. '43    86579    14133       25
43-09Sep. '43    118841    22905       10
43-10Oct. '43    97407    22680       26
43-11Nov. '43    66585    62452       19
43-12Dec. '43    86967    75471       8
44-01Jan. '44    92278    24237       16
44-02Feb. '44    92923    21616       20
44-03Mar. '44    142944    0               25
44-04Apr. '44    62149    19755       21
44-05May. '44    24424    2873       24
44-06Jun. '44    57875    9008       25
44-07Jul. '44    63351    0                24
44-08Aug. '44    98729    0               35
44-09Sep. '44    43368    0               22
44-10Oct. '44    7176    0                13
44-11Nov. '44    29592    7247        8
44-12Dec. '44    58518    35920        15
45-01Jan. '45    56988    7176        14
45-02Feb. '45    65233    7177        21
45-03Mar. '45    65077    0              33
45-04Apr. '45    72439    22822        53
45-05May. '45    11439    7176        3

[MiloMorai]

Something I picked off the inet a few years ago.

***********
1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823
Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)
British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1
Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)

Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)

1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310
Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0
Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)

Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.

1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226
Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6
Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)

Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.

1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618
Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7
Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)

Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.

1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794
Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)
US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2
Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)

Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.

So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war.

Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476

US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT

U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171

U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. <http://www.onwar.com/ubb/smile.gif>

At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk (see my previous reply).

[Have]

Also, it wasn't any 'american' radar (all three powers had it and even the Germans even had some basic radar jammers on the u-boats), it was air power, that crushed the uboats.  Uboats had to surface, and if you can have constant patrols of aircraft, you can sink uboats all day.

Partially correct. To sink the u-boats, you have to detect them. Having constant patrols alone don't help. The key to detection was the new radar using centimeter wavelength. It was a British radar, but it was American scientists who developed the cavity magnetron required to fit the centimeter range radar to aircraft. Previous technology for centimeter radar could not be fit into an aircraft, but the new cavity magnetron was small enough. You need short wavelength to accurately detect u-boats at good range.

With accurate airborne radar the anti-submarine aircraft could hunt and kill enemy submarines also during night time, which had traditionally been safe for u-boats. These radars were also installed to escort ships and they were extremely effective.

This new radar technology became available in significant numbers to allied anti-submarine forces in 1943. Coincidelly the german losses increase dramatically that year. Radar was a very significant factor in it.

Excellent site about the whole u-boat campaign:
http://www.uboat.net/index.html

[Tyrannis]

Partially correct. To sink the u-boats, you have to detect them. Having constant patrols alone don't help. The key to detection was the new radar using centimeter wavelength. It was a British radar, but it was American scientists who developed the cavity magnetron required to fit the centimeter range radar to aircraft. Previous technology for centimeter radar could not be fit into an aircraft, but the new cavity magnetron was small enough. You need short wavelength to accurately detect u-boats at good range.

With accurate airborne radar the anti-submarine aircraft could hunt and kill enemy submarines also during night time, which had traditionally been safe for u-boats. These radars were also installed to escort ships and they were extremely effective.

This new radar technology became available in significant numbers to allied anti-submarine forces in 1943. Coincidelly the german losses increase dramatically that year. Radar was a very significant factor in it.

Excellent site about the whole u-boat campaign:
http://www.uboat.net/index.html

while we're on the topic of radar ive allways woundered, how did the germans figure out what radarn was and how o make it? from what ive seen so fr (from history channel and limited reading online) radar was the british secret weapon at the begining of the war. so how did the germans get it?

[Mirage]

German Scientists had started developing there own early warning systems from as early as 1934

[Ardy123]

while we're on the topic of radar ive allways woundered, how did the germans figure out what radarn was and how o make it? from what ive seen so fr (from history channel and limited reading online) radar was the british secret weapon at the begining of the war. so how did the germans get it?

Not only did they have radar, they had detectors and jammers...

Here are some of the names of U-Boat radar detectors,  

FuMB 1 Metox 600A
FuG 350 Naxos I
FuG 350a Naxos Ia
http://www.uboat.net/technical/detectors.htm

and u-boat radar
FuMO-29 GEMA
FuMO-30 GEMA
FuMO-61 Hohentwiel
FuMO-391 Lessing
http://www.uboataces.com/radar.shtml

[zack1234]

I don't remember saying Yanks never gave us lease lend and their entry turned the tide of the war

My train of thought through out has been that the Axis powers were lacking in the war and thus lost

If they were good enough they would have won, again economic prowess is brought into the argument to explain their defeat.

Its like saying i have the fastest car in the world but i did not win the race because they had wheels on their car and we did not

The German Air force was not good enough to defeat the RAF try and conjour up any myth to explain it away.
The best one upto now has been the RAF outnumbered the German Airforce

[Ardy123]

My train of thought through out has been that the Axis powers were lacking in the war and thus lost :ol

True, they had four strikes against them...
1) They lacked the industrial output and natural resources that the USA had.
2) They lacked the number of people to take on the England, USA & Russia at the same time.
3) Increasingly throughout the war their crazy maniacal leaders directed the battles instead of leaving it up to the generals.
4) Their racist policies pushed some of their best and brightest out of Germany and to the USA (think Albert Einstein).

The German Air force was not good enough to defeat the RAF try and conjour up any myth to explain it away.

I'm not trying to belittle England's contribution in any way, but the Battle of Britain was won not because of shier might of Britain as your comment seems to suggest, it was because of 3 things
1) Goering stupidly directed the LW to go after cities after almost bringing the RAF to its knees.
2) England's 'chain home' radar which allowed them to direct and concentrate their forces in one area.
3) Enormous amounts of supplies to England from the USA, (esp oil, food and building materials).  The RAF could not fly its spitfires, if it didn't receive oil from the USA.