I've been reading military history since I was a kid in the early sixties. I still manage to learn things in your videos I didn’t know before.

I love your videos, but when will we get the classified briefings?

@Stefanakos246

Жыл бұрын

Yeah right. He probably has the information.

@Chilly_Billy

Жыл бұрын

​@@Stefanakos246, probably? 😊

@waynepolek8648

Жыл бұрын

Maybe we should check the current President and former President’s homes!

@cascadianrangers728

Жыл бұрын

50 years ago

@patrickthomas8621

Жыл бұрын

That'll probably be on the Patreon channel

Thank you for putting so much effort into creating such extensively remarkable content! I think I learned so much more watching your videos than the documentaries on television.

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@Chilly_Billy

Жыл бұрын

Very true. The documented information is amazing.

Fascinating - top notch info and production. I really appreciate how you maximized printed data, and kept it displayed for a good while. I learned a lot from your research, subscribing now.

I find you work well researched, well presented, and for the most part accurate. Subscribed, thanks.

Wonderful channel. This is one of my favorite battles of WW2 and I really appreciate your level of detail

Another well made video from a channel that's "under the radar" Liked and subbed. Thanks for the all the work putting this together, loads of info and photos. All the best

@citizensamurai

Жыл бұрын

My sentiments exactly, this clearly took a lot of work and it's polished.

I've been into submarine warfare (mostly US subs) for years and have relatively recently started to learn more about anti-submarine tactics, but nothing I have is like this. This is the nitty-gritty that I live for. I'm really enjoying this series!

I love your channel its so informative and love that you show the documents too with the pictures. Thanks for the great research you do and for sharing

This is the detail we need. Thanks.

@hazchemel

Жыл бұрын

Yep

In the Pacific these depth bombs were also used to destroy Japanese surface vessels. ! The tactic was to come up from behind at about 1 to 2 hundred meters high and then release the depth bombs immediately in front of the ship blasting the ship as it travelled over the bomb ! It was much more effective than dropping regular bombs on its deck .

I was navigator/bombardier in the sixties on RNZAF Sunderlands with a load of eight 250 torpex depth charges. ASV 6C radar could detect periscope at about eight miles. Attack profile was 100 feet day and 300 night. Plan was to lay a sonobuoy pattern to track sub if it had gone deep due detection of our radar.

I watch a lot of WW2 videos. This series has been one of the most interesting ones.

Excellent content. The research is second to none

Awesome videos on these Sub hunters, I've never seen any channel go into such detail about such an interesting topic.

This info is gold, well done indeed.

Your videos are amazing. So full of original research. Keep up the amazing work!

Your preparation and content are first rate. Looking forward to more.

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

Much appreciated!

One of my fathers best friends was a navy pilot named Dick Schrader, who sank U-153 with aerial depth charges off Bermuda in 1942. They caught the U-boat completely by surprise while flying a Martin Mariner sea plane and dropped two charges right on top the boat. The sub began to submerge with only one bomb exploding. But what happened to the second bomb? They circled the area and then from down below the surface came a huge guyser of water. The second depth charge had crashed throuh the wooden deck and was sitting on top of the pressure hull!! The sub carried the bomb down until it reached the set depth of detenation. Mr. Schrader received the Distiguished Flying Cross for that action. I met him numerous times in my youth and I always reguarded him as a "man's man". My father worked for a year (1941) at the Blom and Voss shipyard in Hamburg welding on U-boats. A couple of times Dad joked with his friend "you know, I think you really did sink one of my U-boats!!"

wonderful episode /////cheers from Florida, Paul

More and longer videos my guy. Love your content.

This is really good stuff. I'm off to watch more of your videos.

Excellent and informative video. Thank you

Good stuff 👍

Thanks for this very interesting and informative presentation.👌👌👏👏👏

great video

Your videos are at providing knowledge about the war my dad was in.

Very interesting data you seldom see elsewhere. Thanks!

Lethal distances of these kill stores...I like that one, great video as always, such a pleasure to see the liberators. Thanks for the content.

I am delighted to see this new series. You're work is of a very high standard. May I suggest that you look into the little known basing of B-29s in China and India?

My surprise -- I have never seen a chart that shows the pattern of anti-sub patrols. I had no idea that some started from South America.

Sorry, man - I'm too cheap to Patreon, but I gotta say, your videos are great! Thank you!! Keep on it. Maybe someday you'll work your way through all the archives and you'll get to the B-52s flying out of Guam and Thailand to Route Pack VI. My little brother was a crew chief on a B-52. Keep on rockin' in a free world.

Thank you

Good video. This video really shows me why the Fido homing torpedo was so successful. It was simpler to aim and chased the sub down.

wonderful stuff......cheers from Orlando.....Paul

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the channel donation. It is much appreciated.

I found this very interesting as an old P-3C Orion Inflight Ordnanceman.

@jimtownsend7899

Жыл бұрын

I'm a retired Sensor 1. I'm with you, bro.

@jackshittle

Жыл бұрын

@@jimtownsend7899 👍

Exceptional channel and top video. Maybe we could have the same info for US Catalina / PBY flying boat attacks sometime ? If available in such Records..... Many thanks !

The tiny size of the depth bomb effective range was shocking. I assumed they were mice more effective.

Nice video. I have been looking at the British Low Level Bomb Sight Mark Iii used by Cosstal Command for ASW. In May 1943 the US supplied a video to the RAF purporting to show an effective US low altitude bomb sight. Do you have any information on the sights used by the US for ASW?

All fine and dandy - *except* - the U boats would stay on the surface to fight it out. There's an entry in Dad's RAF log book to this effect. 'Attacked U boat on surface - aircraft damaged - returned to base'.

Idea for subject: I would love to see a video or a series with a data-based analysis of medium bomber vs heavy bomber operations in the ETO. This interests me because I think the medium bomber as a class was already on the way out, and the details of how they were employed could help illustrate why. I think it would be informative to see data on the types of targets struck by medium bombers, the sizes and types of formations used, and the altitudes flown during the attacks. Also the ratio of number of escorts to bombers for medium bomber operations as compared to heavy bomber operations.

@gort8203

Жыл бұрын

Upon second thought maybe data comparing medium bomber vs fighter bomber targets would also be interesting. The theory for which I would like to see data is that medium bombers were, to put is simply, mostly a waste of resources. Already at the beginning of war, USAAF Director of Military Requirements General Muir Fairchild was of the opinion that medium bombers were an outdated concept. There were too many categories of bombers, and mediums being stuck in the middle didn't do anything better than heavy bombers or light attack bombers could. USAAF had bomber categories of light, medium, heavy, and dive bomber. Fairchild advocated changing bomber categories to just three: high altitude, low altitude, and dive bombers. Even though Jimmy Doolittle had been instrumental in saving the B-26 from the chopping block during the worst of its teething troubles, when he took command of the 12th Air Force in North African he told General Arnold that he wanted B-17s or B-24s instead of B-25s or B-26s. He didn’t see medium bombers being as useful or versatile as heavy bombers, and he knew that a 2-engine B-26 cost almost as much as a 4-engine heavy. To me it seems the role for which medium bombers were uniquely suited in the ETO was to act as diversionary bait in support of strategic bombing raids, but they were largely unsuccessful at that because the Luftwaffe was not so easily fooled. While the Luftwaffe was still functional medium bombers required fighter escort. But if those fighters had instead just carried the bombs themselves, they could have serviced many of the same targets and been self-escorting. You could put a flight of four fighter-bombers over a target for less cost than one medium bomber. Even more fighters all over the theater would contribute to even more rapid establishment of air superiority. For area targets more suited to level carpet bombing such as marshaling yards, medium bombers might be more effective than fighter bombers, but heavy bombers would have been more even more effective. And again, heavy bombers did not cost much more than medium bombers while being more capable at level bombing. Medium bombers did have an anti-shipping role and could carry torpedoes, but so could the light low level bombers Fairchild advocated, or even heavy fighters. For example, I do think USAAF make a mistake in not acquiring more Mosquitos when it was offered, but I think the mistake was in evaluating it as a replacement for the P-38. It should have been acquired to replace the B-26 and perhaps even the B-25.

British Sunderland flying boats used microwave radar and powerful lights aimed to converge at bomb release distance. They were vectored in by radio triangulation from U-Boat daily transmissions. In daylight, radar picked up the boat but then switched off and the final approach was by #1 eyeball. The most effective attacks were at night. Radar stayed on until wave clutter blotted out the echo. Spot lights went on and bombs dropped when the crossed beams hit the conning tower. Boats running at night on diesels were not able to crash dive as fast as some suggest.

I'd love you to describe and analyse the use of homing torpedoes by allied ASW aircraft from 1943 onward.

Hi there, really appreciate your channel, it has given me more information than I could have ever dreamed of for WW2 bombers. There is one error I saw. At 3:03 the depth charge shown is actually a Mk9 depth charge, not the mark Mk6. The Mk6 was the traditional "Ash Can" while the Mk9 was design in a more hydrodynamically efficient why to minimize the time it takes to reach its set depth. It isn't big and only a minor error.

@brennantom9083

Жыл бұрын

¹1

I believe that there were some B-24B (short nose) of Coastal Command that were modified with an under-fuselage gun pack with 4 x 20mm HS cannon just in front of the bomb-bay. I think it may have been done by Australian crews. The thought was to engage a surface U-boat with the guns to hinder the crash dive on the run to drop the depth bombs.

I know at one point early in the war they were looking at more but smaller depth charges to get. better spread. That was in an old book on Operations Research

@steveperreira5850

Жыл бұрын

Looking at the chart, that was my conclusion. The graph charting kill radius versus explosive weight of the death bomb Clearly indicates that’s the best payload is a lots of smaller Charges rather than a few large charges.

@davidelliott5843

Жыл бұрын

Ships used the hedgehog system that fired a pattern of contact fused mortars directly ahead. One hit = one kill.

My stepfather was in a WW2 submarine at the very ending of the war and he told me that it's a terrifying experience when they were under attack because if the engine stopped there's no rescue

Thank you for the videos! They're awesome and have been helpful in researching my grandfathers service with the 480th & 39th..Not much info on ASW out there, hoping to get more info on the American Theater

@josepherrante4230

Жыл бұрын

Greetings! Are you aware of the book, STALKING THE U-BOAT by Max Schoenfeld? It's a brief operational history of the USAAF Anti-sub Command. I hope this helps...all the best, Joseph Errante

@biggusdiggus2803

Жыл бұрын

@@josepherrante4230 Thank you Joseph..Ill have to take a look again but i believe it concentrates mostly on the bay of biscay stuff..Still searching for american theater asw info

@josepherrante4230

Жыл бұрын

@@biggusdiggus2803 ...I recall that it doesn't cover either the U.S.East Coast or Caribbean ASW Ops ( if that's your interest. Btw: I've a beloved, past relative who first ASW patrols in B-25's on the East coast/Caribbean before re-training on B-24's and joining the the 8th AF.) All the best, Joseph Errante

@biggusdiggus2803

Жыл бұрын

Yes, looking specifically for Batista field in Cuba(for now)..recently received my grandfathers OMPF, seems from england, to Morocco, Tunisia, USA, Cuba 480th, (missing info) to the 20th aaf, 39BG, 61st BS on Guam. B24s(asw)-B29(pacific)

@josepherrante4230

Жыл бұрын

@@biggusdiggus2803 ...the Caribbean is the 6th AF, yes?... here's another tome you may look for "clues" in, THE TANGO WAR by Mary Jo McConahay. Question: are you specifically seeking AAF ASW info OR U.S. Navy ASW or BOTH?... all the best, Joseph Errante

The Short Sunderland has always been my favourite, would have sooner seen a video of that instead of just USA bombers

@hendrickotto103

Жыл бұрын

same here for the PBY Catalina, plse !

@unclemike8467

Жыл бұрын

please note the name of the channel

@citizensamurai

Жыл бұрын

@@unclemike8467 : )

@hendrickotto103

Жыл бұрын

I did mean US and not RAF operated PBY's, indeed.@@unclemike8467

@davidelliott5843

Жыл бұрын

Sunderland’s became extremely successful at hitting U-Boats. The German navy could not understand how they did it.

A depth charge, as they are known in the UK, relies on the fact that water cannot be compressed. Thus the effect of an underwater explosion will directly affect any vessel within effective range. The further away a target is, the less the shock wave effect is.

The advancements in Allied radars created a big issue for the U-boats. At night the distance the U-boat could detect an aircraft were significantly reduced. It would be interesting to see how many of the kills on U-boats were at night vs those during the day. The problem for U-boats became so significant that they would run submerged even at night after German snorkel advancements. Eventually, allied radars became so advanced that they could even pick up the snorkels of submerged U-boats.

@WWIIUSBombers >>> 👍👍

Depth charges are more likely to damage/ sink a U boat if they explode beneath it, once a sub is deeper than about 50 feet they are relatively safe. It's not listed her but when a depth charge explodes above a sub it has less effect than if it is just beneath.

Interesting that the declassified map didn’t reference the RAF Coastal Command based on the Azores for ASW patrols. Very informative video.

@tinkertailor7385

Жыл бұрын

Or the RAF Sunderlands based at Freetown in Sierra Leone.

I am most impressed that you included the change of explosive from TNT to Torpex. This may align with the improvement made to British GP bombs where they copied German bomb chemistry and added powdered aluminium to the explosive and achieved far higher destructive effect, makes you wonder how the bomber boys felt about dropping fizzers until 1943.

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

I've always been curious about just how far away a submarine had to be from a depth charge to survive it, the chart shown here gives the distances per the amount of explosive but the depth of the submarine certainly had to come into play also, one that was near it's crush depth wouldn't have to be nearly as close to the depth charge when it went off as one that was only at periscope depth, there has to be another chart that would factor in depth, after all the further down the submarine is the more the water pressure is already accomplishing what the depth charge is trying to do, the further down the more the pressure is going to assist the depth charge in cracking open the hull. I've realized for some years that what you see in movies, where it's implied that the depth charge has to be practically right against the hull of the submarine to work, can't be true given how much more efficiently water transmits shock waves than the atmosphere does, once again even further away at deeper depths should still work, it's funny in movies where they'll be so far down the crews worried about the hull collapsing but the depth charges aren't destroying the sub despite them going off 10 feet away, as though even close to crush depth the depth charges still have to be practically against the hull to work, no way, but for dramatic effect that's how they're gonna make it look on screen I guess.

@mongolike513

Жыл бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 you wouldn’t catch me in one of those things, nosirreeebob. What you say makes perfect sense and I have always assumed that a sub hunt from the surface ships were with depth adjusted fuses/pistols which would make an attack far more lethal. At the end of the war they had introduced the Squid which shot thirty or so large mortar bombs ahead of the ship but they were contact fused. I am waiting for our friend to do a lecture on Fido the homing aerial torpedo which took out over thirty Uboats and could be dropped in the vicinity of a submarine sighting. My stupid government has just signed a deal to buy nuclear subs in the biggest surrender of our sovereignty since we allowed the Brit’s to test their atom bombs on aboriginal land this will bankrupt the nation for no purpose unless we are to be bullshitted into another white mans war against our yellow, black and brown neighbours. Excuse me but I am pissed that none of these “treaties” or “agreements” have even been discussed in parliament let alone voted on .

@citizensamurai

Жыл бұрын

I know nothing of chemistry but I envy people who have the Walter White / MacGyver skillset. I can't imagine being a scientist at work during wartime, working to experiment and take some technology or chemistry to another level, for the sake of your nation's survival. The Brits' adoption of aluminum you mentioned - I wonder how that info was picked up - captured munitions?

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

@@citizensamurai Ain't it amazing how someone would come up with putting aluminum power in something to make it a more powerful explosive, I mean where's that even come from?

@citizensamurai

Жыл бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 I read somewhere that Alcatraz prisoners weren't allowed manufactured playing cards, because it was possible to scrape the cellulose from them and make explosives. The men were allowed dominoes instead. Again, like you, I'm also blown away that someone can figure these things out. Respect the quiet weird kid who spends a lot of time in the garage, I guess is the lesson here : )

I was surprised at how quickly after submerging the submarine became safe from airborne depth bombs.

I was on a diesel sub ss341 Uss Chivo, 1966 to 1970. I think that the depth bombs should have been set for a deeper depth. ( or depths ).

A lot tighter target window...

The kill range is only 25 ft less than I thought 🤔.

Could they have dropped them in pairs or sets, set at 25ft, 50ft...

What a great topic! I've read a large number of WWll navel and seaplane books but none have gone into much depth (sorry couldn't help myself) on this topic. A new subscriber.

A question for anyone that could point me back to the source but I read a book in the late 1990's that described using bombs rigged with retro rockets for anti-submarine warfare. The idea was that the plane would fly at a set speed and the retro rockets would have just enough force to stop the bomb as it was released so it would drop straight down instead of arcing forward due to it's momentum. It was intended to be used in conjunction with a plane fitted with a magnetic metal detector to judge the timing for the release. Sadly I can't remember the name of the book but it seemed to be well researched so I've always been puzzled that I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere. If anyone can remember this book or point me to primary sources for that story it would be appreciated.

@tomtrenter3208

Жыл бұрын

Rockets were more accurate.

Very interesting. I always thought the window of opportunity was much longer than fifteen seconds. I see now why the British used rockets to attack as well. Gives the U boat less time to react since you can fire from further away. They used solid steel heads, like giant steel darts. The idea being to puncture the pressure hull, so that the submarine's dive would be permanent.

I wonder if they ever tested an air delivered Hedge Hog like destroyers used.

@jimtownsend7899

Жыл бұрын

I suppose you could consider the rocket launchers to be akin to the hedgehog system. The objective was to fire the rockets when approaching, hoping they would penetrate the hull and thus either prevent the sub from diving, or to help it continue to dive...to the bottom.

Just found out this is part of a series. I'll be back.

A type 7 German u boat could get underwater very quick. If a lookout could spot a b24 they had a goid chance to avoid a attack. Aircraft radar changed that but the Germans developed Radar detection systems and eventually the snorkel which made detecting a u boat from a aircraft nearly impossible at this time.

@A.G.798

Жыл бұрын

Naxosgerät I.and Naxosgerät II.

I guess I'm surprised by the lack of proximity fuze on the depth charge. But I guess looking at some of those wonderful charts, it wouldn't have made as big a difference as I would have assumed. Anything beyond a certain depth meant the sub position was so uncertain

@JohnJJackson1357

Жыл бұрын

Proximity fuses use radio signals, I don't think they work underwater.

@WBtimhawk

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnJJackson1357 I was thinking more of a magnetic based proximity fuze like on some underwater mines.

@JohnJJackson1357

Жыл бұрын

@@WBtimhawk good idea, I never thought of magnetic as a proximity fuse, but I guess it qualifies.

@richardschaffer5588

Жыл бұрын

A magnetic fuze was developed the mark 8 however : (It) 10:38 was found to be unreliable and took constant work in order to maintain its effectiveness. A backup hydrostatic pistol was also fitted and by the end of the war the magnetic pistols were no longer being used. The magnetic pistol was armed at 35 feet (11 m) or 200 feet (61 m) and set to explode about 20 - 25 feet (6 - 7.5 m) from the submarine” the above is from the Navweaps site. Presumably the same sort of problems as the magnetic exploder developed for torpedoes.

Was it default to crash dive when spotting a plane, are there stats on how many Liberators (and the others) were shot down by UBoats. There must have been times when they were repairing or the water was too shallow to dive in. That's a lot quicker than I thought a Dive would be. Add on the few seconds it takes to get the hatches closed, a elusive prey. I guess the biggest peril was when they were at periscope depth, visible in the water but unable to look above them. Catch a glimpse of a flicker of a shadow of a plane through the scope and then the Depth Charges go off.

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

Yes, emergency crash diving was standard procedure for sub crews no matter whose navy they were in, they didn't even bother to wait until aircraft were in range to identify them as friendly or foe, except of course unless the sub was task with rendezvousing with an aircraft, and you can bet once an aircraft was spotted they were plenty nervous about it until it was positively identified as being the one they were supposed to be meeting with, even an Allied aircraft that wasn't the one they were supposed to rendezvous with could be a threat by misidentifying them as an enemy sub and attacking them, aircraft were the single biggest threat to a submarine and the odds of surviving an encounter with them weren't that great, best case scenario for them is spotting the aircraft first and diving before being seen by it, once spotted by an aircraft the chances of surviving an encounter with it were greatly diminished.

@benkasminbullock

Жыл бұрын

There's a big list of downed aircraft you can find by googling for "u boat successes against aircraft". I posted the link as part of another comment and my comment wasn't allowed to appear so I'm not including the link here. Aircraft attacking U-boats were quite vulnerable and the U-boats carried very effective 37mm cannons.

@paulmarks2474

Жыл бұрын

Doenitz made a big error when he increased AA firepower and ordered U-,boats to fight it out on the surface All that did was create more targets for the aircraft. Mind you the aircraft crews showed great bravery diving on one or more U-boats with quad 20mm and 37mm guns possibly from more than one U-boat.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 Crash diving was not standard procedure and aircrafts werent the single biggest threat and the odds of surviving werent that bad, only in 5% of the encounters a u-boat got sunk or damaged. If the aircraft was spotted on the horizon, without flying towards the u-boat, they didnt crash dive, the just changed the course and lower the speed to reduce the wake. If the aircraft was too close it was also better to stay on the surface, to fight back and evade the attack, and then crash dive.

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

@@wolf310ii According to another commenter the Germans started loosing more subs to aircraft when Doenitz had them mount the AA guns on them and told them to fight the aircraft instead of diving, as I recall he had some figures or loss rates showing it was a bad move. And of course if some aircraft was off on the horizon flying away from them when they first spot it is one thing but if a submarine crew even thought they were spotted by an aircraft standard procedure was to dive, unless you know something that the documentaries I've seen on it don't know, they seemed to stress the fear submarine crews had of aircraft, aside from being attacked by the aircraft it could call in ship's or anti submarine aircraft in on it if it itself wasn't one, a submarines biggest defensive asset is anonymity, it seems kind of silly to think that one of the slowest warships in the ocean wouldn't care about being spotted.

South Atlantic operations out of Brazil area of activity w/Navy loses.

were these depth bombs proximity fused or contact fused?

@paulmarks2474

Жыл бұрын

Purely a depth setting.

@donparker1823

Жыл бұрын

@@paulmarks2474 I see, just a depth charge delivered by air. I wonder if it would have been any easier to target a diving submarine with those hedgehog rockets?

@PaulMarks-hz6zo

Жыл бұрын

@@donparker1823 Hedgehog was a mortar round rather than a rocket. Fired in batches of 24 from surface escorts to land in an oval in front of the ship the theory being that at least one would contact the U-boat and penetrate the pressure hull even though it only had a small explosive charge. It was more effective than depth charges but not as good as had been hoped and took some time to be accepted. Western Approaches almost had to force captains to make more use of it. The next generation double Squid was the first efficient killer.

@JohnJJackson1357

Жыл бұрын

HYDROSTATIC DETONATION 2:30

@tomtrenter3208

Жыл бұрын

@@PaulMarks-hz6zo USS England did ok using hedgehogs. British didn't have the time to develop proper attack procedures.

An interesting subject would be mining operations using B-29's in Japanese home waters.

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

On the list of topics

Good video , why only 25 ft why not 35-45 ft the increased depth reduced the explosive effect due to increased water pressure .The greater depth would widen the sideways coverage as subs generally dived and turned in these situation subs are narrower at the tower than at the sides . You also get the ability of the bomb to explode along side or even better underneath . If a Sub turns its bow move away first then the stern follows . Thus exposing the rudder drive shafts , propeller blade etc can also disable or sink a sub .

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

45ft would be too deep to sink a u-boat that stays on the surface. Also in every ship/boat, when turning the stern moves first, it dont steers like a car, more like a forklift. Also also, turning slows the boat down wich also slows down the diving speed, so no, they didnt made generally big evassiv manouvers

@grahamoldfield3474

Жыл бұрын

@@wolf310ii Well about 40 years ago I used to speak every week to a former U boat captain . He was always worried more about arial bombing going off near the propellers or rudder particularly underneath . HE was disabled by rudder damage this way and had to surrender . He was kept as a prisoner till 1947 in Canada as they looked for war crimes like most were and cleared .

The window of a successful submarine kill was really narrow. Howerer, the attack was usually unilateral, unless the submarine captain was foolish enough to engage the airplanes.

@benkasminbullock

Жыл бұрын

The U-boats were armed with antiaircraft cannons which were fairly effective, especially the 37 mm flak guns used in the latter part of the war, and many planes were lost against U-boat air defences. I posted a link here to more information as part of a reply to your comment, but then my comment mysteriously disappeared so I won't add the link.

@shakeydavesr

Жыл бұрын

@@benkasminbullock do you know of a way to pass that link via email or something without posting it out here in the comments wild? I’d be curious to see what you’re talking about.

@benkasminbullock

Жыл бұрын

@@shakeydavesr Google u boat successes against aircraft

Had I known all of this, I would have performed so much better in "Aces of the Deep" back in the day... ;-)

It was more important to mission kill the sub vs actual destruction. If it can't charge it's batteries, it can't submerge, and makes it an easy target

Were hedgehogs ever dropped from an aircraft against a submarine?

The depth bombs might have been slightly too far off target, but you can bet they ruined some underwear, and helped lower morale.

I wonder why the didn't stagger the detonation depth, eg from 25 through to 100 feet, to widen the possibility of a hit & also the effective attack window?

@rinkashikachi

16 күн бұрын

Because accuracy will be atrocious

I am left wondering how the B-24, compared with other aircraft ( US and British ), for number of sorties flown / square miles searched, number of submarines attacked, and number of subs attacked vs. number of kills…This would give a better perspective of aircraft sub hunting success.

@dfirth224

Жыл бұрын

B-24 had the longest range. That's why it was chosen. It closed the air gap in the middle of the Atlantic.

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

Probably the highest of all of them seeing as how they were used by both the US and the Commonwealth nation's, not exclusively but in the role of longest range aircraft involved in ASW. Who knows, because other aircraft were used in shorter range patrols one of them might just have a higher number of sorties, but when it comes to miles covered and hours flown I'd lay odds the ASW version of the B24 probably has the highest numbers there. From what I understand the range of the navalized versions of the B24 was even longer than what you see listed for the regular USAAF B24 models that are commonly listed in online sources like Wikipedia, the reason being is that for the sake of range all unnecessary weight was stripped out of them, things like the Norden bombsight system and I believe even some of the defensive guns were removed to lighten them up as much as possible to get as much range out of them as they could, distances over water are generally a lot further than land based bombers required especially over the Pacific.

@gregharbican7189

Жыл бұрын

@@dfirth224 I agree that the B-24 had the longest range for the US aircraft, but the British were hunting U-Boats long before the B-24 was on the scene

@gregharbican7189

Жыл бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 I agree that the B-24 had the longest range for the US aircraft, but U-Boats were hunted long before the B-24 was on the scene, and both the de Havilland Mosquito and Lancaster both had fairly decent range themselves…in fact the Mosquito had purpose built sub hunting variants that used a 57mm auto loading cannon or forward firing rockets, and being able punch holes in a submarine hull from 500-1000 yards away, would give a distinct advantage to having to drop depth charges from overhead. And while the B-24 did close the Atlantic gap, the subs were found in greater concentrations closer to their bases…finding them in the middle of the Atlantic would have been closer to needle in a haystack, even with knowing what Enigma messages said.

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

@@gregharbican7189 I don't understand what your point is, all I said is B24's probably racked up more miles patrolling than any other aircraft did, they were doing it in the Pacific to, the war wasn't just in Europe and the Atlantic you know, I highly doubt that for all the more Mosquito's that would have been doing it because of the fact that there weren't that many of that variant made and everyone wasn't using them like how B24's were in the service of so many countries and in the Pacific that they totaled the miles B24's did, there just wasn't that many doing it.

We’re hedgehogs dropped by air ever tried?

Why are you using the term "depth bomb" when you are in fact talking about depth charges?

@vanguard9067

Жыл бұрын

You know, it’s just another military naming convention issue. Exploding things dropped from an airplane are called bombs, exploding things of the same general function are called depth charges when delivered by a ship. And while there are similarities in function, their construction, method of employment, and limitations are significantly different.

I was surprised that the sub was basically invulnerable after 15 seconds underwater.

@williamromine5715

Жыл бұрын

Same here. I assumed the plane would have a couple of minutes available to destroy the sub. Of course, the sub would not be able to pursue the convoy as long as the plane was around. In a way, the sub was "destroyed" for that convoy..

@paulmarks2474

Жыл бұрын

Correct. U-boats rarely successfully caught a convoy and sunk ships once they had been forced under. As more escorts became available support groups could remain in the diving area and do a hunt to exhaustion.

Comment

this was once a hell of an electric U-Boat 10:09

My take away is fuck using depth bombs, there has got to be something more lethal, 16% chance to destroy an enemy you see first and get the drop on? I'm curious how that performs vs other weapons

@vanguard9067

Жыл бұрын

“I think we’re gonna need a bigger bomb!” :-)

@cascadianrangers728

Жыл бұрын

@@vanguard9067 hahaha

@vanguard9067

Жыл бұрын

@@cascadianrangers728 I am totally with you on your comment. The US makes a tremendous commitment of men and resources to locate an enemy sub, and with luck they find one, only to drop essentially useless ordnance on it? If we could see the problem and the solution, why didn’t the pros see it? Oh well, those days are gone. Take it easy and have a nice afternoon/evening

@randomnickify

5 ай бұрын

You are missing psychological and logistical effects. Ubots had to spend lots of time on surface charging batteries. They were useles without full bateries. Forcing ubots to play cat and mouse with the planes would heavily impact their efficiency and, most importantly, keep them away from the convoys. At the end of the day, it was never about sinking all uboats. It was always about keeping them away from sinking the transports, and that worked.

In real life rifles can easily kill aircraft, any low altitude aircraft shot down easily and this is proven with trivial math.

@paulmarks2474

Жыл бұрын

You might hit the plane but stopping it being effective was far harder. Even 20mms lacked killing power against a B-24.

@scottydog1313

Жыл бұрын

Sure, if you fire hundreds of thousands of them at the same time.

how quick is death in one of those sinking subs? the water tight door were all probably open when the subs were attacked as to facilitate the movement of men forward to help the crash dive. flooding would have been faster than if the sub was buttoned up. the angle of the sub was down, the forward speed would be at max and all that would help flooding with increased water pressure to force water into the bomb created breach. no lights, collapsing equipment, cold water rushing in, air rushing out, lots of noise. although they knew they were dead, the sailors had escape gear and practiced exits during training. are there any incidences of survivors surfacing after a successful attack? or only to drown due to no rescue. anybody know?

tl;dr depth charges didnt do shit the overwhelming majority of the time.

@vanguard9067

Жыл бұрын

Just curious what was the more successful weapons and tactics used to destroy submarines? Thanks for sharing any info. Take care,