U-Boot, a possible German WWI victory?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Now, I've heard some say that if Germany had forty to sixty more U-Boots then WWI would have been a German victory. My reasons for thinking this is possible are:

-Britain's supply ships were being ripped to pieces. IMHO it is quite possible Britain would have been forced to leave the war if Germany had more U-Boots. According to numerous sources, they were lucky enough to escape as it is. What if Germany had more?

-If Britain had been forced to surrender, and possibly withdraw their support from France, the Lusitania may not have been sunk, and the Americans, though they arrived too late to do much damage anyways, would perhaps not have joined the war.

-Without British support, Germany could crush France, and Austria-Hungary would be able to divert forces from the Russian Front, as that may have finished more quickly, as Britain would be out of the war.

What are your opinions on this?

[Watchman]

Germany was still totally starving, though.

[Kraxis]

But unrestricted submarine warfare came late, and that was an absolute must to really cut off Britain. So I don't know.

But if Britain was out the blockade against Germany would be lifted and she would be able to import foo and the likes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Britain was centrel tto winning the war because she dragged the Common Wealth with her. No Britain? No Africa, Australia, Canada or Africa.

Since Churchil was the one who told the Germans about the Lusitania the Americans would not have entered the war.

So yes, I'd say so. Added to the fact that shortening the war would have been good economically for everyone. There might not have been a Russian revolution and the British would have maintained their trade monopolies over America.

From where I'm sitting that all soulds good.



(Is it just me or are the Jersey and NI flags switched?)

[Upxl]

That’s utter nonsense.
Even with 60 more boats they wouldn’t be able to stop the massive supply line from the Americans etc.

Besides after 1942 the allies where really blowing those u’s to smithereens.
Paste another zero behind that 60 and then it may have made a difference in the outcome.
And still…
The air supply line over Island/Greenland was still getting there..

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Upxl we're talking about WWI (1914-1918).

I have no idea if 60 more U-boats would have made a huge difference, it is possible, but I think success in the Spring Offensive of 1918 would have done much more for a German victory. Especially since with France out there would only be Britain to use as a staging ground, and amphibious warfare wasn't exactly advanced.

[Meneldil]

Hum, one could think the main reason that pushed the US into war was the Zimmerman telegram rather than few ships sunk by the Germans.

In my opinion, the Lusitania's sinking was way less decisive than the Telegram.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, the Zimmermann telegram was probably the reason for the declaration of war, but the Lusitania, IMO, really turned public opinion in America against Germany.

Upxl: World War One.

[Upxl]

Upxl we're talking about WWI (1914-1918).

I have no idea if 60 more U-boats would have made a huge difference, it is possible, but I think success in the Spring Offensive of 1918 would have done much more for a German victory. Especially since with France out there would only be Britain to use as a staging ground, and amphibious warfare wasn't exactly advanced.

oh

Think I should pay more attention next time I want to play the smartass

Well I say one thing about WWI
Ferdinand had it coming.

[KrooK]

Telling the truth without American support GB would loose WW1. Even without 60 additional U-boots.
When America joined war, GB had supplies for 3 weeks. On 4 ships leaving porst, 1 has been destroyed by U-boots. American army saved GB not because of skills but because of thousands new ships and hundreds of destroyers.
In my opinion it was clear that sooner or later America join war. They just need good reason like "they sunk our civil ship" or "they want give a piece of America to Mexico".

[English assassin]

Telling the truth without American support GB would loose WW1. Even without 60 additional U-boots.
When America joined war, GB had supplies for 3 weeks. On 4 ships leaving porst, 1 has been destroyed by U-boots. American army saved GB not because of skills but because of thousands new ships and hundreds of destroyers.
In my opinion it was clear that sooner or later America join war. They just need good reason like "they sunk our civil ship" or "they want give a piece of America to Mexico".

No disrespect but I think this is running WW1 and 2 together.

In WW1 the UK did not have American support, it paid for American supplies. Lend lease was support, selling munitions and butter was not. it was the cost of financing WW1 that ended the UK as a world power (though the corpse took another 30 years to lie down)

This is not particularly a dig at the USA. Even in WW2 they were (IMHO unreasonably) paranoid about helping the UK being seen as helping the British Empire. WW1 being a much murkier affair between various imperial powers its not so surprising they took some time to decide who the "right" side was. The fact that they may have realised a defeated UK would default on her war loans must have had nothing to do with it.

The main factor in ending the U boat menace in WW1 was the admiralty's incredibly belated redicsovery of the convoy system, which predated the US entry into the war and more or less solved the problems. WW1 u boats speed, endurance and their command and control were just not good enough for convoy warfare

My guess, for what it is worth, is had the germans held back from unrestricted U boat warfare until they had the extra 60 boats or so, and then introduced it and stuck at it, rather than trying it, changing their minds, and trying again, i would guess there would be a very good chance they would have starved Britain to an armistice in about 1916 and so won the war. After all they came bloody close as it was

[KrooK]

Maybe GB paid for help - but without this help they would probably loose.
And USA gave GB and Germany credits for war supplies - but german one was about 5 times lower :) In GB's situation in WW1, it was simply help.
And don't foget that at the end of WW2 germans invented "wolf pack" tactic.
This tactic was being used in ww2 but it was invented in ww1.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Well one reason the US sold so little to Germany was also that the British stopped most shipments going to Germany. This was actually in direct violation of the rules of war, which I believe stated that belligerents were not to stop shipments of food and such items, but had every right to stop shipments of arms and similar materials.

Kind of puts the UK's whining about unrestricted submarine warfare and sinking convoys without warning them into perspective doesn't it?

[Papewaio]

I don't think that increasing one amount of any service would have been a single decisive stroke... short of ICBMS.

Also just increasing the fleet of submarines by 60, what knock on effects would it have had to other areas of the military. Supplies for the subs and the means to get those supplies to them... the support infrastructure and transport would have had to come from somewhere. Then there is the infrasture to create the munitions, weapons, crew training etc all these would come from somewhere.

So the question is what gets swapped out so the subs can be put in?

If you were dropped in the German High Command what decisions would you make to make it possible to field 60 submarines?

Was it possible without significantly weakening the frontlines... or would you sacrifice a few kilometres of depth to win the war on the high seas?

[Kraxis]

Since I have been forced to dig into the German Imperial Navy of WWI (for obvious reasons) it is clear to me that Germany could easily have built 60 more U-Boats... EASILY!
Take into account the amount of resources that got poured into the surface fleet (only major units) during the war. A battlecruiser and two battleships built, not much eh? Well what about the two more battleships unfinished (basically only lacked the guns, which had been sent to the front) and the six unfinished battlecruisers and the five unfinished light cruisers.

The complexity of these ships would outweigh the larger amount of steel needed (if at all).
It would have been far cheaper to not build them and concentrate on U-Boats. But how fast those 60 extra boats would come, I have no idea.

[Spino]

I don't think that increasing one amount of any service would have been a single decisive stroke... short of ICBMS.

Also just increasing the fleet of submarines by 60, what knock on effects would it have had to other areas of the military. Supplies for the subs and the means to get those supplies to them... the support infrastructure and transport would have had to come from somewhere. Then there is the infrasture to create the munitions, weapons, crew training etc all these would come from somewhere.

So the question is what gets swapped out so the subs can be put in?

If you were dropped in the German High Command what decisions would you make to make it possible to field 60 submarines?

Was it possible without significantly weakening the frontlines... or would you sacrifice a few kilometres of depth to win the war on the high seas?

Starving Britain's population and limiting its ability to resupply and feed its soldiers stationed in France was a key ingredient to the Central Powers' success. Cutting off or limiting an enemy's access to his supply lines is a sound strategy provided you're able to carry it out. The value of hindering the enemy's ability to field well supplied troops of good morale cannot be overlooked. A successful blockade of Britain would have also placed enormous strain on France as it would have been relied upon to feed and supply Britain's armies, thus undermining its own armies' effectiveness as well.

What gets swapped? A large, highly effective surface fleet of questionable value. During WWI the Royal Navy was much larger than the Kriegsmarine, an advantage which greatly improved its chances in large fleet engagements as well as a guaranteeing a victory during a long war of attrition. This obvious and glaring numerical disadvantage lead the German High Command to carefully limit the use of its surface fleet by deliberately avoiding major engagements and instead concentrate on wearing down the Royal Navy in smaller engagements where the Kriegsmarine possessed the initiative (an incredibly optimistic strategy which failed miserably). Despite the fact that the Kriegsmarine proved at Jutland that ship for ship, it was as good if not better than the Royal Navy the German High Command remained adamant against risking its surface fleet in these kinds of engagements. After Jutland Germany's precious surface fleet spent the rest of the war in port where the inactivity and sheer boredom played havoc on morale and ultimately sparked the massive mutiny at war's end. Now if material concerns limited or prevented Germany from deploying a navy capable of defeating or negating the Royal navy what was the point to building all those capitol ships in the first place?

U-Boats are complicated vessels but they don't require nearly as much manpower and material to build and operate as a capitol ship. A single dreadnought or battlecruiser required 1,000+ men to operate, tens of thousands of tons of steel and materials to build, not to mention the sheer number of munitions, supplies, fuel, etc. needed for your typical deployment. For the same amount of men, materials, supplies & fuel needed to build and deploy a single capitol ship you could have upwards of 15-20 U-Boats, all built and deployed in a fraction of the time. In terms of cost effectiveness a U-Boat is hard to beat, especially when you consider that torpedos are far more devastating than a single large caliber shell fired from a capitol ship. Furthermore U-Boat survivability was much higher in WWI than in WWII, the Allies simply didn't possess the sufficient technology and tactics to effectively deal with underwater threats.

Oddly enough this same alarming lack of strategic vision regarding how to conduct a naval war against Britain doomed Germany's efforts against Britain in WWII. Hitler's incredibly ambitious 'Z' plan called for the building of a massive surface fleet which would be complimented by no less than 300(?) submarines. It's clear Germany learned its lessons from WWI but once again, submarines were given low priority and at the onset of the war the Kriegsmarine possessed a fraction of the U-Boats needed to effectively blockade Britain.

Edit - Just realized my post is simply an unabridged version of Kraxis' post! Unintentional on my part, I started this post late this morning and didn't get to finish it until now. Busy day at work...

[Papewaio]

Good answers.

=][=

You are now in charge of the British High Command.

You have reports that the Germans have slowed down the building of capital ships and that there is increased frequency of submarine attacks on your merchant fleets.

What would your response be to this change?

[ShadesPanther]

You are now in charge of the British High Command.

You have reports that the Germans have slowed down the building of capital ships and that there is increased frequency of submarine attacks on your merchant fleets.

What would your response be to this change?

Pump out more destroyers (Britain had more capacity to build destroyers than Germany had building U Boats) with improved ASW equipment and new ASW tactics. Also have greater protection on convoys as much as possible.

I read 1914 1918 by David Stevenson, which is an excellent book, which says just how much Britain spent on the war. They were also the Alliance's bankers as basically all transfers were done through them. I'll try to find the figures.
Here we go:(in current billion $)
Britain and her empire spent : 49.6
Germany : 47
France: 28.2
USA: 36.2
Total Allies:147.0
Total Central powers: 61.5
Overall: 208.5
(I missed some out)

ell one reason the US sold so little to Germany was also that the British stopped most shipments going to Germany. This was actually in direct violation of the rules of war, which I believe stated that belligerents were not to stop shipments of food and such items, but had every right to stop shipments of arms and similar materials.

True it was against the rules of war but so were many things in that war, ie. Gas.
The British intercepted the supplies and also paid for them and then used them for themselves. The merchants were happy because they at least recieved the price they asked (sometimes double if the Central powers paid upfront)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe GB paid for help - but without this help they would probably loose.
And USA gave GB and Germany credits for war supplies - but german one was about 5 times lower :) In GB's situation in WW1, it was simply help.
And don't foget that at the end of WW2 germans invented "wolf pack" tactic.
This tactic was being used in ww2 but it was invented in ww1.

Everything else said here is very lucid and points to more U-Boats causing serious problems at the least but I feel compelled to address your lack of knowledge here.

in 1914 Britain was the world power with an Empire that still covered around 1/4 of the globe, she could supply herself from her colonies and Canada and Australia. By contrast America was a large but still very insular and even slightly backward country which did not begin it's rise until after the war during the '20s.

[Atilius]

in 1914 Britain was the world power with an Empire that still covered around 1/4 of the globe, she could supply herself from her colonies and Canada and Australia. By contrast America was a large but still very insular and even slightly backward country which did not begin it's rise until after the war during the '20s.

Britain was certainly the world's leading power at this time, but I think you mischaracterize the US. Backward it wasn't. I would say that it had yet to translate its industrial power into military power, and that the insularity you mention prevented it from playing a greater role on the world stage.

Here are some figures from Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:


Per Capita Levels of Industrialization (Britain in 1900=100)

...........1880....1913
Britain....87.......115
US........38........126


Steel Production (millions of tons)

............1900....1913
Britain.....5.0.......7.7
US.........10.3.....31.8


Relative World Shares of Manufacturing Output:

............1880....1913
Britain ...22.9.....13.6
US.........14.7.....32.0


At the outbreak of WWI, the US was already the world's foremost industrial power.

[EDIT: fix table formatting]

[ShadesPanther]

It was thought that The USA would overtake Europe in ~1926 but instead it occured in 1918 because of the First World war. From Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

[Don Corleone]

I think the role the USA played in the final outcome of WWI is debatable. I'd say we hastened allied victory, not ensured it, which by the time we joined it already was.....Sure, fresh troops and equipment are always helpful, and the morale hit to the Germans couldn't have helped, but I think the slow siphoning of support from their Austrian and Turkish allies hurt the Imperial German command a lot more than the arrival of the Yanks.

I also think the role of U-boats at that point in time would have had limited affect. The British were already developing tactics and weaponry (destoryers) for dealing with U-boats. These weren't the Type V you see in WWII, the U-boats from WWI had their own flaws and drawbacks. It would be another 20 years before a reliable magnetic detonator would be fielded (25 if you were the US submarine force )

If you want to talk about scenarios in which the Germans fight to a draw, possibly even win, they actually could have. The Winter Revolution and the withdrawal of the White Army actually put them in a very strong position. They just didn't capitalize on it. IMHO, they should have launched a new offensive in late Fall/early Winter of 1916/1917. It's entirely possible with a few new victories under their belt, they might have persuaded Blackjack and the boys to stay home, possibly even consider joining the Axis side (assuming blunders like the Zimmerman telegraph & the civilian U-boat casualties had been adverted). IMHO, the 1918 Spring offensive came a year too late.

[ShadesPanther]

Yeah, the Germans wasted troops advancing further into Russia to set up satelite states and taking part in the start of the Russian Civil war. If they had transfered a larger number of troops instead of only a few for a final punch through the lines.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, of course your navy did arrive to help, however, I'm estimating the effect of the physical changes. Not diplomatic changes either...

[ShadesPanther]

True the Germans went the all or bust route when America joined. The amount of American troops arriving was very low though, but it was really the potential of the USA's Manpower and industry that made the Germans risk it all.
The Germans did have a false sense of hope with Wilson's Fourteen points, but since the British and French judged that the Americans didn't contribute as much as they did (in terms of sacrifices it is true to an extent.) they really just ignored Wilson at Versailles.

[Papewaio]

Wilson wasn't helped by being bombastic towards the Australian Prime Minister William Morris Hughes. Hughes was one of the people who pushed hardest for reparations and he demanded that Australia retain control of German New Guinea... which they did.

Wilson questioned the right of a nation with a population of five million to have such strenous opinions. Hughes replied that he represented 60,000 dead... which put a plug in Wilson... and meant Australia kept New Guinea... also it helped maintian the momentum for reparations... which in turn probably went overboard... nothing like looting.

[English assassin]

You have reports that the Germans have slowed down the building of capital ships and that there is increased frequency of submarine attacks on your merchant fleets.

What would your response be to this change

MY response would be to institute a proper convoy system immediately, build corvettes for escort duties and dirigibles for observation, and start planting lots of potatoes.

The Admiralties' response would have been to observe that building so many useless and damned unbritish weapons just showed the Germans weren't a proper naval power anyway, when everyone knows battleships will rule the seas for 100's of years to come. Back to the brandy, chaps.

The thing with any new military technology is to exploit it to its fullest before countermeasures are developed. The germans should have carried out dummy attacks only until they had enough U boats to strike a real blow, and then, having announced unrestricted warfare, they should have seen it through to the end. By tipping their hand too soon they gave away surprise.

They made the same mistake with gas, which only ever cleared a way right through the trenches on the very first time it was used, and that was not exploited, and we made the same mistake with tanks. The difference was the impact of tanks was ignored, thus gifting the allies the chance to use them en masse against an effectively unprepared enemy in 1918. If the Germans had taken the appearance of tanks seriously in 1916 and developed proper artillery tactics to break up tank attacks, or equipped the infantry with a direct fire weapon more effective than the K bullet, I very much doubt their front would have collapsed in the summer of 1918.

Though the planned 1919 offensives with all the american divisions arriving would probably have done the trick.

[Franconicus]

I think the issue is how low was moral in Britain. It is wellknown that Russia collapsed, the Turkey and Austria were finished, that Germany revolted finally too. I also know that there was a time when the French soldiers refused to attack the German positions. I think in 1917 most of the ordinary soldiers were tired of this foolish war.
Was there a similar situation at the British corps? Would they have revolted if they had no more supply? And what about the French?

[Pontifex Rex]

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, America lost more than 60,000, no?

I'm not sure of the actual number of US dead (less than 100,000?) but per capita, the loss of 60,000 Australians equated to millions of Americans. If you add in Canda's 65,000 dead to Australia's 60,000, these two small nations (5 million and 7 million?) paid a huge price in comparison.

Not a criticism of the US,...theYanks simply arrived at the front very late.

[Kraxis]

I also know that there was a time when the French soldiers refused to attack the German positions.

Yup. They simply went on strike. They would defend but not attack. But it started much earlier than this, I think it started all the way back to the Verdun counterattacks. When whole divisions were wiped in a day the soldiers began to sound like sheep whenever high ranking offiers came by their marching columns. Imagine being a general and having to endure that for perhaps half an hour as the soldiers march by. Sadly for the soldiers the point wasn't understood until they went on strike.