Originally posted by Mogami
Now the tricky part is deciding how close I came to collapse. If it was never lowered below the starting 1-3 month (it is unclear to me just how much slack there was) Then I can say truthfully the U-boat was an utter failure. (no matter how costly or bitter the struggle was, it was not sufficent to achive it's aim.
Well, Mogami, it seems that you are the only person who subscribes to the U-boat threat to Britain in this way.
NO historian, not even Blair, says this.
No one ever says "On 29 Aug 1940 England was 27 days from collapse. If convoy OB-5 had not arrived on Sept 3 England would have been forced to surrender on Sept 4th. Material stockpiles were so low industry had to halt production. A condition that lasted for 87 days. (1-3 months) But on the 88th day (2 days from surrender) a convoy fought it's way into port
Better get out the watch and ruler, so we can record the exact moment. . .
BTW, what was the exact day of:
1) the turning point on the East Front?
2) the victory of the Allied Bombing Campaign?
3) etc, etc. . .
Then we look at production month by month and see it maintains or increases never stops/halves/quarters or even drops a tenth.
Imports dropped every month of the war.
You make the false assumption, that an increase in production, means the British are winning, or will not collapse.
Britain was rationalizing its production, just as Germany did in 1943-44. It was struggling to cut every corner, and it was using up any surplus it had, quickly.
German production actually peaked in 1944. From this, would anyone argue that Germany was not near defeat?
In fact 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 hear of 1400 ships being sunk by U-boats and 1400 by other means. We are told this is 83 percent of the starting merchant fleet. Never have things been so bad for England they are holding on by a thread. Gasp gasp gasp.Then we start counting these ships and find over 700 of them are not even merchants. We find the on hand stockpiles of material used for war production higher then at wars start. We find the number of merchants sailing on the Atlantic and far flung ports of the Empire more numerous and larger then at wars start.
First, from 1939 to December 1941, Britain and neutrals lost 2500 ships BY ALL CAUSES. This represented 50% of ALL Allied ship losses in the ENTIRE WAR.
Second, total number of merchants mean nothing. As you well know, many ships are travelling empty back to their loading point, meaning that up to half of all merchants available could be empty. This does not include those that are under repair; the crews are resting; etc, etc. . .
You just look at ship totals and accept that they are all working on the very first day. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even ships from allied nations such as Norway and Holland, might take up to 6 months before they are integrated into a convoy and become useful, even though the ledger says they are now under British control.
Third, you are the only person who would attempt to do a highly subjective survey of Allied ship losses and exclude destroyers, trawlers, etc from the ship list. The only person.
No other authority, including Blair himself, excludes these types of ships.
Yet, we are to believe, that only you will come to the correct Allied ship loss totals.
Let's examine this issue:
1) Merchant Ships
Here is a source provided by pry:
World War 2, A Statistical Survey, John Ellis 1993
Merchant vessels lost all causes
1939 = 221
1940 = 1059
1941 = 1399
Total = 2679
It then goes to list losses by cause but does so in percentages
then by doing the math we should be able to arrive at a very close number
1939 = 221
Subs 55.8% = 123 vessels
Aircraft 0.4% = 1 vessels
Mines 34.8% = 77 vessels
Surface 8.1% = 18 vessels
Other or Unknown 0.9% = 2 vessels
1940 = 1059
Subs 54.8% = 581
Aircraft 14.5% = 154
Mines 12.8% = 135
Surface 12.8% = 135
Other or Unknown 5.1% = 54
1941 = 1399
Subs 50.1% = 701
Aircraft 23.5% = 329
Mines 5.3% = 74
Surface 11.2% = 157
Other or Unknown 9.9% = 138
So given these numbers we come up with
Lost to Subs = 1405
Lost to Aircraft = 484
Lost to Mines = 286
Lost to Surface Vessels = 310
Lost to Other or Unknown = 194
Total = 2679 merchant ships lost between 1939 to December 1941
Yet Blair records only 1,124 Allied ships were sunk during this period. Less than half of the above source. He conveniently excludes about 1,400 ships. Just an oversight I am sure. . .
2) Escort Carriers, Destroyers and Escorts
You want to exclude these ships.
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.
3) Rescue Tugs
You want to exclude rescue tugs from your survey as well.
But here are some facts about them:
During the war years the Rescue Tugs were responsible for saving 750 British & Commonwealth, 140 American, and 245 allied and neutral Merchant ships, saving 3 million tons of supplies and equipment as well as 254 allied Warships.
In other words, these tugs saved 1,135 merchants ships as well as 245 warships that would otherwise have been lost at sea and sunk.
If these ships had not been towed to safety, then the Allies would have had to build another 1,135 merchant ships as well as the additional 245 warships.
To put it another way, these tugs saved the equivalent of one third of Britian's pre-war merchant fleet of 3,000 ships!
To try and put this in to some perspective, the Tanker Athelviscount was towed 750 miles in ten days with the whole of her aft end blown away, was rebuilt, and then traded for another 15 years which would of been impossible without the work of these men and ships.
This is why the Germans tried to sink these tugs. Because a sunk tug, means more damaged allied ships will be lost at sea.
If you exclude all the tugs that are sunk from your list, then you would have to place ALL the ships they saved in the lost column of your ledger.
You can't have it both ways. These tugs were worth their weight in gold.
To equate a single tug to a merchant is to do a dis-service to the tug. A single tug is worth many merchant ships.
A single destroyer is worth many merchant ships. Without them, the merchants won't get through.
You cannot seperate these ships - they all have a job to do.
And no reputable authority does exclude them.
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.
