Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Mogami

When someone says the Germans "almost" defeated Britain the curious among us ask "how close did they come" and we always get "it can't be measured" how then we ask can it be claimed they "almost" won. Then the numbers are posted and we are told they are proof of almost. But the numbers are never presented correctly. 2500ships 50 percent of total lost in war 83 percent of starting fleet. But never are we given evidence of this having the desired impact. And certainly not impact enough to be called "almost"

Ahh, I see.

Now we are dealing with the word "almost".

Now the entire Battle of the Atlantic, 4 long years of bitter struggle that consumed thousands of ships, and tens of thousands of lives, all comes down to one word: "almost".

I see.

I am always amazed at the lengths someone will go to twist logic on its head, in order to support a ridiculous notion, that we must see a nation in its last gasp of agony, before anything may be considered to be a threat.

According to you, the Allies could not claim victory over Germany until May, 1945. When we all know this is preposterous.

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.

Contrary to your own claim, you in fact wanted to know when Britain would have been defeated, before accepting the claim that the U-boat ws a threat.

As anyone can clearly see: to equate threat with defeat, is simply a ridiculous notion; a notion, to which no right thinking person would subscribe. And no reputable historian does accept this type of thinking.

No one is claiming it was not a hard fought battle. No one dismisses the damage and cost. We only can't see where the "almost" crowd actually shows us "almost"

This is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of comment.

Victory in Russia is very easy to point out (new can of worms) It was the day after the last German advance in 1941. Confirmed on the day the Soviets began their first offensive

You're joking, right?

If you think this thread is long, try stating that opinion on other wargame forums. Some topics are now over one year old and still going!

Most historians state that the turing point in Russia came at Stalingrad in 1942.

Others claim it came at Kursk.

But them again, this is according to your opinion.

Bombing the Reich I feel is often mistaken for the real contribution. (another can of worms) It was not the attack on German industry that proved decisive it was the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Allied bombing of Germany turned the Luftwaffe from an offensive weapon into a defensive one. Then over time it rendered it ineffective in either role. By transforming the Luftwaffe thus Allied bombing did contribute in a major measurable manner to Allied victory.

In fact bombing German industry helped to defeat the German airforce: bombing its factories, etc; reducing its oil stocks; as well as destroying thousands of tanks that would otherwise be at the front, etc, etc. . .

German production numbers are trivial. They never mattered from start to finish since it was always insufficient to maintain the offensive power of the army. Allied bombing did reduce the effectiveness of the land power by removing certain quantities of fuel. (impacting the Luftwaffe somewhat as well by reducing the training given to new pilots (the same effect was seen in the Pacific after allied submarines sank the Japanese tankers)

Your joking again, right?

What history books do you read, anyway?

We already know they did inflict damage on Britain and the allies. We would like to see where this damage went beyond what the allies could absorb.

Again, you are confusing threat with damage and defeat.

Putting aside little things like Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the well-documented Battle of the Atlantic and the well documented histories written by hundreds of historians; the documents from Allied Leaders (such as Roosevelt and Churchill), I will give you the numbers of ships sunk again between 1939 and December, 1941.

Britain was falling behind the tonnage game. It took American intervention into the war to turn the tide.

Here are the numbers again, in case you missed them:

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. . .

I tried to gracefully exit this discussion but folks feel the need to express my beliefs and motives for me. I'll expend the energy for 1 more reply and try again for a graceful get away from this mess. Be warned it's gonna be a long one…..

There is an old saying, All the If'n and wishin in the world, ain't gonna change what has already occurred.
So my friends once more into the breach……

[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.]

Above is just meaningless if'n and wishin; IF pigs had wings… If there was a second shooter on the "Grassy Knoll" If Ole Abe had not gone to see a play… VR my friend no more ifs please just the facts of what actually happened….. No more what "Might Have Been" or "Could Have Been" had so and so conditions been in place or so and so decisions made at this time or that time. I have not attempted to change history, I have attempted to understand just how close Britain was to throwing in the towel nothing less nothing more and no hidden agendas.

The simple fact is that Britain survived until 12-41 with her economy largely intact, it was a tough 2 1/4 years and many hardships were faced but the German U-boats FAILED to achieve their strategic mission, after US entry into the war any further chance for them to achieve that mission is gone. Period.

[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.]

If the economy was by your description "Stretched to the Limit" then how did the Germans fail to deliver the death blow when they "Had Em on the Ropes", Could it have been that they ran out of time and their strategic window slammed shut. After 12-41 all these points are moot; Britain is now propped up by the world's largest economy. Stretched to the limit does not mean it's on the verge of economic collapse, try something like 100% industrial utilization (sustainable or not after 12-41 it is no longer an issue) even you my wise friend will have to admit that.

I never recall seeing in the hundreds or thousands of history books I have read over the last 35+ years any mention by any historian or in any newsreel made at the time of British industry having to shut down due to lack of resources, I have never seen mention of a starving general population, I have never seen moral so low that people did not want to get out of bed to support the war effort or masses walking around with that hopeless look on their faces. These are the indications and effects of an economy or a nation on the brink of collapse.

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

YES in fact it does, they failed to achieve the objective and mission for which they were designed, built and deployed… The economic strangle hold and isolation of Britain. That does not mean in any way that they not effective at sinking ships in the operational and tactical sense they were good weapon platforms but they did fail in their Strategic mission.

[Clearly, the U-boats posed a grave risk to Britain's lifeline, especially in the 1939-Dec/1941 time period. ]
No one has ever stated anything otherwise

[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.]

See If'n and wishin above, and substitute woulda and coulda

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

[You and pry won't believe hundreds of historians or Allied Leaders or Churchill, but you will believe one unknown author and one article he has written, if it contains material you can hang your hat on.

I think that says everything.]

With all due Respect VR, this is where the rubber hits the road. Neither you nor your hundreds of historians or bubble head politicians have produced even one single piece of economic data to back up your claim that Britain was on the ropes and verge of economic collapse at any time prior to 12-41. All I have seen is ifn this happens or ifn that had happened and Churchill was a fraidy-cat when it comes to U-boats well all that does not mean squat and has nothing at all to do with the state of the British economy. I have read every single post to this discussion numerous times just because ONE historian happens to understate shipping losses by half in no way, size or shape proves Britain was "On the Ropes" Like they say in Missouri "Show Me"

This person may not be well known or have a name on a book cover but she (I believe it is a she) at least provides some solid economic data to show that Britain was not on the verge of economic collapse as you have been trying so very hard to present without providing any data to show the peril you claim she was in, nothing but if's, would have happened and could have happened. This is the whole point of my questions.

[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.]

Which they successfully accomplished and continued to accomplish through out the entire war despite huge losses to their merchant fleet. Oh that little thing in the Atlantic you mentioned, Britain was successful in that one too.

VR this is not your doing but in the interest of time ill respond here….
Now I am branded a "REVISIONIST" because I dare to ask the question how close was Britain to actual collapse at the hands of German hordes. Now I am changing history because I DARE to question the strategic effectiveness of the U-boat campaign? Get real will Ya.


[The Concept That Threat Must Equal Defeat

The dictonary defines "Threat" as: "The intent to do harm".
In other words, something is a threat, because it has the potential to hurt, harm, do damage.
The U-boat, through 4 years of war in WWII, was always "a threat in being".]

VR, Has anyone claimed otherwise? You keep rehashing this point and everyone already agrees with it…. Both the definition and that the U-boat had the ability to do and indeed did do harm…

[The U-boat had proven its destructive ability in WWI, when the Germans almost defeated Britain using submarine blockade in 1917.]
Please explain what this has to do with Britain's supposed near economic crash in WW2? For the same reasons as I stated above they strategically failed in this war also.

I find it troubling that folks today look back 60+ years and see the Axis War machine with nostalgia and endow them with super human qualities that they never possessed, give credit with accomplishments they never accomplished. Instead of looking back with marvel at how the British were able to pull it off and just how close it really was (or if it was as close as it is alleged by some) they instead marvel that the Axis were almost able to do this and almost able to do that… troubling indeed.

Originally posted by pry
I tried to gracefully exit this discussion but folks feel the need to express my beliefs and motives for me. I'll expend the energy for 1 more reply and try again for a graceful get away from this mess. Be warned it's gonna be a long one…..

pry:

Never let 60 years of history, nor hundreds of well respected historians stand in the way of your logic.

Your repetitious views hold no water as I have continually shown.

I find it incredible that you are taking this stand even though you have NEVER read Blair's books, over which this whole discussion has taken place.

But then again, Mogami has never read them either.

You both don't even know what he has written!

If either of you ever intend to be a lawyer, may I suggest you actually READ your client's case file BEFORE defending him in court.

"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. . ."


__________________

Hi, How many times do we need to show these ships were not all merchant ships?

How amny times will you ignore they were replaced by more merchant ships then were sunk? (All those neutral fleets)

(Convenient oversights?)

Oh wonder if Blair only counted merchant ships? (and then added the other fleets and said "Hey look, the Brits have more now then in 39"

Originally posted by Mogami
"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. . ."


Oh wonder if Blair only counted merchant ships? (and then added the other fleets and said "Hey look, the Brits have more now then in 39"

You see Mogami, that is the type of comment a person makes who has not read Blair. You have NO idea what he says.

You have stated an assumption of what he says (made up words and put them in his mouth) and then defended him!

:rolleyes:

Now I know how the main character in, "Alice in Wonderland", feels.

Originally posted by Von Rom
You see Mogami, that is the type of comment a person makes who has not read Blair. You have NO idea what he says.

You have stated an assumption of what he says (made up words and put them in his mouth) and then defended him!

:rolleyes:

Now I know how the main character in, "Alice in Wonderland", felt.

Hi, No I did not make up words and put them in his mouth and then defend them.

I've read over and over how he mislead people by not counting those 1400 ships. I've looked at the 1400 ships myself and found at least half of them are not merchants. I can only assume Mr Blair did the same.

What's your agenda here? It's not attaining the truth. It seems to be maintaining the 60 year old claim that Germany almost brought Britain to her knees.

In 1991 I played in the National Open in Las Vegas. During round 2 I dropped a knight on move 13 as black in a game with a 13 year old boy. Now the lad had been taught being ahead a knight was a sure win. His mentor had taught him the correct method of exploiting a piece advantage was to simplifiy the game by trading off pieces (in the end only the "extra" peice would remain and this advantage would translate into victory.)

I admit normally I would have resigned the game. However when taking the knight the lad stood up in his chair and slammed the captured piece down after holding it aloft in truimph. I decided I'd make him work to prove the win.

I went into a deep period of thought. I noticed the closed position of the board and also that it was possible as a result of the position that I could aquire a passed pawn if I worked the exchanges correctly. (still a passed pawn is not an extra piece. It would make no impact on the game if I were mated before promoting the pawn)

In the next few moves the lad traded off his active pieces for my inactive ones. We arrived at the position where I had attained my passed pawn and blunted his attacks. His extra piece was now his dark squared bishop. But it was whats known as a "bad" bishop (it's movement was blocked by it's own pawns)

I next under took to insure this bishop would remain bad. Only after this did I begin the process of moving my pawn.

Around turn 50 it was clear to everyone watching the lad was lost. (he still thought he was winning)(no one watching realized I had forseen this event way back on turn 13 when I "lost" the game.)

I mated the boy on turn 64 and during the "post mortem" the boy, his father, and his teacher asked me why I did not resign on move 13 like a good sport ought to. I explained that while I was a knight down I saw that position wise I was quite good if not better as a result. (I knew the bishop was bad) And I saw the ruptered pawn structure of my opponent as more a weakness then my material deficent. (In other words there were compensting factors )

I showed them my turn 14 plan and how every move after that was part of the plan. The trades that favoured me (his pieces had consumed tempi before being traded. Mine had not. I had to have gained a tempi somewhere as a result and it was these tempi that produced the passed pawn) Only the chess teacher understood. The father and the boy kept asking where the "blunder" was. It proved impossible to explain the blunder was his doing what was expected and what he had been taught rather then his understanding what was going on. If he had understood the position he would have realized the advantage still needed to become part of a long range plan to achive victory.
Just maintaining the advantage by trading off pieces cost him as much as me and the real advantage would have been found in giving the knight back at some point in exchange for a mating attack or someother advantage that was more potent then my passed pawn. Father and son remained convinced it was a long hard battle. The chess master and I knew the game was over on move 13 (just when the others thought it won) Now of course there were alternatives for the boy to take. However the "autowin" he thought he had did not exist without some form of conversion. When he took the path I knew he would take (it was what he had been taught) Each move after turn 13 was not important except for how they fit the 2 plans being followed. His moves were logical it was the plan directing them that was flawed.

Now that I've bored you to tears.

I don't require being told what everyone has maintained for 60 years. I'm well aware of these opinions. I was happy myself with them for many years. However they do not come out as clear to me now that I've placed them under the microscope. If your happy with them fine. You need not try to convert me and I for one am not in the bussiness or practice of converting people to my way of thinking.

My maintaining that the Germans did not bring Britain as close as claimed to defeat is nothing more then a post mortem understanding of what occured from one date to another.
What persons in place observed is not important. Many of them were wrong. We've already seen the prewar German notion that 700,000t per month would bring about the desired result. (we know it was low by almost 50 percent. Since the German prewar planner thought USA could not build more then 10mt in 1942 when they actually built 19mt) And they were off by half for other periods. And they totally forgot to add the neutrals.

So even when they get their 700,000t it has two problems.
first its too low a target goal and second people are counting non shipping tonnage into what lost.

Still 700,000t of ships in a single month can not be ignored.
But if it does not achive the main purpose of the action (isolating Britain) then it is a failure. I can't see where we part company on this.

No where do I see anyone address : The German estimate being too low. And they do not met their own estimate often enough for it to be considered meeting even their own plan. By their own estimates they are failing. Instead it is maintained what they did achive comprised a major threat to Britain. (duh)(We can see that, but at the same time we see it is failing)

It is pointless to continue. The question is being answered by ignoring the question. This raises other questions that are ignored.

I hear instead that since only 1/3 of ships are in use at any time extra ships do not matter. (this was true in 1939. following the logic I wonder why Germany did not simply wait to start the war untill after Britain collapsed on its own. Only bringing in the USA saved them.) (Now to my crazy logic if 1/3 of my starting fleet is doing the job then 1/3 of a larger fleet will still be doing it)

............

Well, this thread has become a bit overblown: claims and defenses are being made by people about a book which they have not even read.

I am going to leave this thread to others who will "dither and bicker" and "fuss and muss" over how many angels it really does take to sit on the head of a pin.

I have too many fun things to do; too many books to read; too many scenarios to create; and too many great games to play.


I'll leave you all with these thoughts:


The Concept That Threat Must Equal Defeat

The dictonary defines "Threat" as: "The intent to do harm".

In other words, something is a threat, because it has the potential to hurt, harm, do damage.

The U-boat had proven that it was a strategic threat, when it unleashed its destructive ability in WWI, and almost defeated Britain using submarine blockade in 1917.

The U-boat, through 4 long years of war in WWII (which pushed the limits of British and American production and resources; cost thousands of ships and tens of thousands of lives) was always a "threat in being"; a threat that had played its part in sinking 2,500 Allied ships (mostly British) by December, 1941.

Not only was Britain stretched to the limit in the Atlantic (through which its life-blood ran); it was battered from the air for months on end by the Luftwaffe; it was battered in the deserts of North Africa; and it stood alone against a German-dominated Europe.

But for those little twists of history that change the course of events (Hitler's failure to emphasize U-boat production earlier and in greater numbers; his failure to capture all of the 330,000 Allied soldiers at Dunkirk; his failure to reinforce Rommel and capture the Middle East; and his failure to wage all out war against Britain, rather than turning East against the USSR), things could very easily have turned out differently. All of the above could easily have been accomplished.

To believe that the U-boat posed no strategic threat to Britain in WWII simply because it didn't defeat Britain in 4 long years of struggle, is to believe:

1) that the German army posed no strategic threat to the USSR because it didn't defeat Russia;

2) that Rommel posed no strategic threat to the British in the Middle East because he didn't defeat them;

3) that the Japanese posed no strategic threat to the USA, because it didn't defeat America;

4) that the German airforce in the Battle of Britain posed no strategic threat to Britain, because it didn't defeat that island nation;

5) that the United States posed no strategic threat to North Korea, because America did not defeat that nation in the Korean War; and

6) that the United States posed no strategic threat to North Vietnam, because America did not defeat that nation in 12 years of war.

As anyone can clearly see: to equate threat with defeat, is simply a ridiculous notion; a notion, to which no right thinking person would subscribe. And no reputable historian does accept this type of thinking.



All I would suggest to everyone is:

Do your own reading, and read widely on a topc.

Be especially vigilant about authors (such as Blair in the first volume of Hunters) who put forward revisionist theories.

There is a reason Blair wrote these two volumes: It was primarily to lay a foundation in the first half of volume one, asserting that the U-boat risk was overblown, so that in the second half of his books, his defense of the American Navy (for not providing escorts for merchants that resulted in the sinking of 585 ships in American waters), would be more palatable to the reader.

Read these books, but be aware of his agenda.

I do not know of a single reputable historian, over a period of 60 years, who subscribes to Blair's conclusions that the U-boat peril to Britain was overblown between 1939 to December 1941; or that because Britain wasn't defeated, the U-boat was of no strategic threat.

My own research has confirmed this belief.

Quite frankly, for all the years of research Blair claims to have put into this book, I have not read anything in it that I did not know before.

But draw your own conclusions.

Cheers!

You truely cant let go VR. And you sound like a broken record.

Not myself, Not Mogami, not Pry, and yes, not Clay Blair ever said the Uboats were not a "threat"

Our contention, and his for that matter, was that the Uboat threat was overblown.....overblown by people like yourself who initially started this sub topic with your dire predictions of what a "handful" of Uboats did to Great Britian, nearly sinking her and knocking her out of the war, and refusing to even entertain the thought that mayhaps, if one looks at the data, that Great Britian (and after that the USA) were not brought as close to "strategic" defeat as you loudly proclaimed before you got your assertations poked full of holes and you changed your story from "to the brink" to one that simply "defends that the Uboats were a threat" vs those (us and Clay Blair) who say it was not....which is complete BS given that no sane individual, not any of us "revisionsists", and not Clay Blair for that matter ever said that the Uboats were not a threat.

I know i said i was done with this thread, but i am simply tired of your bull$hit. I never said the Uboats were no threat....Mogami didn't, Pry didnt' and YES...Clay Blair never said the Uboats were NO threat.

That author said the threat was not what has popularily been made out to believe (that Britian was pushed to the brink), and we (as mentioned, now lableled the "Revisionists") have strove to determine independantly whether or not this thesis has any merit at all.

You have dogdged, ducked, dogged and in some cases deceived at every turn to hinder this study. Yet in the end you never provided one shred of economic data to back your claims, yet claim that you have satisfied yourself in the "Evidence" you have provided. Instead you provide useless quotes and keep rehashing the tonnage figures which we already know and telling us that hundreds of historians cant be wrong so automatically we have no right to question your wisdom!

As for this TIRED angle that Blair OMITTED ships sunk.....simple BS....his book was written about UBOATS and what the UBOATS did....not all the other causes. Independantly Mogami determined that of all your alleged missing Merchants.....700 of them alone were not even merchants. Finally, Blair DOES acknowledge these other losses though not in the detail that he does the Uboat losses but given that he gives us the size of the British merchant fleet by 12/41 which ended that year BIGGER than it started in 9/39 shows that he did not IGNORE or OMIT these other losses. (yeah, i'll give you the exact page # if you so desire, for all the good it will do)

I don't think this thread has anything to do with the developers' interview anymore. Maybe a new thread would be more appropriate for the ongoing conversation.

Originally posted by Damien Thorn
I don't think this thread has anything to do with the developers' interview anymore. Maybe a new thread would be more appropriate for the ongoing conversation.

This always happens:D

BTW I guess you liked Damien in Omen I, II and III eh:)