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.

[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.

[Papewaio]

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

As noted the amount in combat was less, the proportion per capita was less etc.

Overall Wilson came across as arrogant, got his arguement that decisions should be made on input turned around on himself and essentially diminished the sway USA had by doing so.

Of those mobilised Australia, Canada and New Zealand suffered about 140,000 dead, almost half a million wounded. As percentage casualties they ranged from 40 to 66% of those mobilised. Compared to 8% for USA.

... Mind you the Aussie soldiers liked the Americans that they took under their wings... Monash certainly used them to good effect and in a manner that the American's approved of.