I knew a crewman from the U-505, Hans Goebler. Very nice man. He wrote a book titled Steel Boat, Iron Heart about his time on the 505, it is a great read !

The great concentration of U-Boat casualties in the Bay of Biscay reminds me of the tactic adopted by allied fighters against the Me-262, of pouncing on them when landing or about to land.

@Kevin-mx1vi

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, hit them at their most vulnerable, or as the old military adage goes; "Never pick a fair fight".

@williamlouie569

Жыл бұрын

You would think the German would avoid that area, and seek safer harbor elsewhere.

@Kevin-mx1vi

Жыл бұрын

@@williamlouie569 But where ? Before the fall of France the U-boats had to sail from Germany and then either the long route north of Scotland, close to the Home Fleet's anchorage in Orkney and which shortened their operational range, or take the very dangerous route through the English Channel. Once France fell they could sail from French ports, but obviously the channel ports were unusable because they could be attacked daily from southern England, and the Mediterranean ports meant sailing throught the Straits of Gibraltar - even more dangerous than the channel - so they had to use the Atlantic ports of Brest & St Nazaire on the Bay of Biscay.

@tomhenry897

Жыл бұрын

Couldn’t One way in and out of the base

@dpeasehead

Жыл бұрын

@markmaki4460: The Bay of Biscay was so close to Luftwaffe bases that it should have been quite costly for Coastal Command and the Royal Navy to get at the U-boats.

Imagine being the sub commander who has to tell your crew "New orders, we can't dive to escape enemy planes".

@williampaz2092

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn’t have given that order. I would have been ordering my men to commit suicide. The high command probably would have had me shot, but I would not have given that order.

@partygrove5321

Жыл бұрын

really stupid order

@editorcj

Жыл бұрын

The order was to fight it out if you could see the plane with the naked eye. Dive if you see it with only binoculars or radar. I guess if you can see it with your eyes it’s too late and you are totally vulnerable to depth charges or hedgehogs dropped from planes as the plane could be on top of you before fully submerged and at a safe depth.

@tsufordman

Жыл бұрын

​@@editorcj like you say, if so close the attack is inevitable, the crew has a better chance of survival on the surface.

@SeattlePioneer

Жыл бұрын

@@editorcj I wonder if that reduced the number of such eyeball sighting of aircraft? I also wonder if crews despised having to submerge and hide from aircraft. Perhaps some preferred to attack their attackers. Still, there are MANY photographs of U-boats being massively shot up by machine gun fire. Armored or not, I imagine that gun crews were hugely vulnerable to machine gun fire from aircraft. And what do you do when you decide you must dive and you have wounded crewmen who can't move? Just dive and let them be washed away? The basic idea of submarines was stealth, not duking it out with approaching aircraft. Deck guns were there as an alternative way to sink surface ships (merchant vessels) without expending limited and expensive torpedoes.

Interesting topic. At least the German Navy had upgraded the 3.7cm FLAK to an automatic gun. Early version (such as those mounted on battleship Bismarck) were hand-loaded, like antitank guns. The submarine was a poor gun platform in most seas and there was no fire control other than open sights. One can be cold and look at the economics of the cost of a bomber versus the cost of a submarine, the Allies still come out ahead. Further, the brave air crews sunk or "mission killed" many submarines, preventing them from sinking Allied ships and preventing hundreds (or thousands) of casualties.

@Subpac_ww2

Жыл бұрын

A true upgrade would be functioning air search radar, like our boats had. US submarines rarely(I can probably count on two hands how often) engaged enemy aircraft. They would often detect an approaching aircraft on the SD radar and be beneath before the aircraft arrived at the boat. That's far more survivable. A submarine engaging an aircraft is like a worm engaging a wasp. Even if the aircraft was damaged and forced to ditch, that's a handful of airmen and an aircraft that was far easier to replace than a sub. Chances are the submarine would sustain damage that hindered operations or even prevented diving safely. That isn't a good trade-off. Having radar is better than having AA guns. The 40mm Bofors on US subs only had the sights for engaging aircraft on the forward mount. The cigarette deck guns never had AA sights. That's due to a more survivable doctrine. Just get under!

@tomhenry897

Жыл бұрын

1st half the war not uncommon to surface and use them usually on tramp steamers not worth a torpedo As the allies used more convoys with more excort ships made it too dangerous to do it

@tomhenry897

Жыл бұрын

Japan didn’t have the planes to do anti sub hunting

@marting1056

Жыл бұрын

@@tomhenry897 Are you sure? I remember having seen a Photo of an japanese floatplane with the ring from a magnetic anomaly detector, but don´t know if this was the only one. of course they do not have the widespread use of radar guided night hunting technique and the planes needed for this

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

​@@Subpac_ww2 You know that with active radar everyone knows were you are? Not really an option for an u-boat when steahlt is mandatory. Also at least 6 US submarines got sunk by japanese airplanes, wich means there has to be hundreds of encounters. SD radar is only a option if the enemy has pretty much no ASW.

Your research and presentation of this material make this one one of my favorite YT channels!

The 8.8 and 10.5 cm deck guns were never intended to be anti-aircraft guns. They were only for use against surface targets. As noted, the rate of fire was far too slow. Also the mounts were traversed and elevated manually, again too slow to track aircraft, and furthermore lacked sufficient elevation to target aircraft.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

At least one plane was shot down by a u-boat with the 8,8cm. Just because something is manually operated, doesnt mean it is slow. The 8,8 can traverse quite fast, much faster than needed to track a airplane that is heading right at you. The 8,8 on a u-boat also didnt had to aim at bombers at 10000ft, it had enough elevation to aim at low flying planes, ASW bombers dropped the bombs and depth charges usually at 100-300ft.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

@@DABrock-author You also wrote it never happend because to slow traverse speed and to low elevation. The 8,8cm on the u-boats were literally AA-guns, on a mounting with reduced elevation. And battleships even used the main guns for AA, especialty against low flying torpedo bombers. So a 5" shell from a BB hitting a aircraft isnt something special

@DABrock-author

Жыл бұрын

@@wolf310ii I’m not sure why, but my original reply to your first comment disappeared. I’ll try to re-create it so others will know what we’re talking about: I didn’t say it never happened, I said that the 8.8 and 10.5 cm deck guns on U-boats weren’t INTENDED to be used as anti-aircraft guns. The Navweaps website has a story about a gun crew on a U.S. battleship that shot down a Japanese torpedo bomber with a 5”/51. That doesn’t make it a particularly effective anti-aircraft gun.

@henryh8357

Жыл бұрын

​@@wolf310ii The 8.8 cm SK C/35 is unrelated to the Flak 18 or its derivatives, it doesn't share ammunition with them, they're just roughly similar calibers. It was a purely an anti-surface weapon, it was not supplied with fuses for anti-aircraft use.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

@@henryh8357 The G36 is unrelated to the M16, yet they use the same ammo. U-boats had the SK C/30 on the mounting Ubts LC/35 or the Ubts Flak LC/41. The mounting LC/35 just didnt had the fuse setting machine and a reduced elevation. Flak 18 and SK C/30 share exactly the same chamber, the older 8,8cm SK L/45 was even refitted so it could use the same ammo. On Minesweepers or other small vessels and as coastal gun the SK C/30 was used as AA-gun

Very cool video. I love detailed tactics rather than glossing over the details with high level results of aircraft attacking subs. Things like diving if you saw the aircraft with binoculars and fighting if you saw it with your own eyes make perfect sense, but it's not something you'd think of 80 years later.

Dad waa a WO/AG in RAF Coastal Command taking on U-boats in the North Atlantic His quote was 'the bastards stayed on the surface and fought it out'. If they dived, the Liberator would drop a pattern of sonobuoys to track k it and hopefully take it out with an acoustic homing torpedo. If it stayed on the surface, the Lib would stay just out of range and whistle up support - either RAF 'Strike' aeroplanes or any naval ship in range. The Lib also had a good armament of 0.5 machine guns abd was arguably a more stable gun platform - the u-boat crew maning its guns would expect to bd a target. Either way, the sub was basically screwed. The downside was the risk to the attacking plane - a sobering entry in Dad's logbook is 'Attacked U boat on surface, aircraft danaged, returned to base'. Not a good thought when over the Atlantic in an aeroplane that wouldn't ditch.

This channel is great.So well researched. Very interesting.Thanks for putting it together.

If you're looking for other topics: One that I'd be very interested in is how long did it take to fully train a bomber air crew for a B-17? Pilots, navigator, bombardier, flight engineer, gunners - the amount of hours, both classroom and flight time must have been tremendous. Same with the resources - the navigation trainers, bombardier trainers, the multi engine trainers for the pilots (after, of course, getting through single engine), the target tugs for the gunners, etc. All of this before they ever launch on their first mission over Europe or the Pacific. This topic is one that's interesting to me since we all know about the tremendous losses, but they were always made good and more, so the training pipeline must have been huge. I was in Wichita for a work trip and had a few hours to spare - the air museums there proudly display the multitude of training aircraft Cessna and Beech, etc put out during the war. Anyways....great channel.

@MrLemonbaby

Жыл бұрын

Another great vid, WWII Bombers. As a very surprising side note, watch the vid below about bomber use in general, the number of AAF personnel killed or wounded in training was 5000 and 20,000 respectively! kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKKqsdCQk9Kol9Y.html

@neptunenavalmods4420

Жыл бұрын

My friend's dad was a B-29 navigator in the campaign against Japan, he said it was a really big responsibility, but his dad was pretty satisfied and felt well prepared with the training he got - funny how these days we barely trust 21 year olds with cars or alcohol. Back then his dad was 21 years old navigating & commanding literally one of the most expensive / powerful machines in the world ... with a bunch of other kids!

Before catching this video, I knew the Flak U-Boats were a very short lived thing, so knowing that it didn't pan out well for them. But it's interesting to see the documentation behind the two different countries backing this up.

Your level of research is outstanding. Rule of thumb: Smaller, type VII u-boats were equipped with the 88mm deck gun. The type IX u-boats utilized the 105 mm guns.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

Thats not a rule of thumb, thats just fact. It would be a rule of thumb if there were also a few Typ VII with 10,5cm and/or Typ IX with 8,8cm

@neptunenavalmods4420

Жыл бұрын

Yes; the UB-III from WWI was very similar to the Type VII and sometimes had 105 mm guns....they (UB-III's) were found to be very bad gun platforms for the weapon. I suspect that's why they were never used on the Type VII in WWII.

Thank you for the latest upload. A fascinating insight into the U boat cat and mouse game , ultimately losing to superior tactics from the Allies ( thank goodness ) .

@Snarkbar

Жыл бұрын

You mean thank Xoodness.

@copter2000

Жыл бұрын

You mean the spawn camping.

@rayg.2431

Жыл бұрын

@@copter2000 Spawn camping is best camping.

Some great pictures here, nice job!

Nice to get so much information, and even a conclusion!!

The great vids keep coming. Well done WW2USB. Great series.

Nice to see research documents. Great video !

The 88`s did their jobs in the beginning when first applied to primitive defensive ships tactics of the allies. It was nothing to be able to lob 50 or more rounds into a wounded freighter or tanker to conserve the torpedoes. As the allied defensive tightened up less use of the 88`s became the norm until finally it was decided by Bdu to remove all 88 guns from the boats. The 37`s and 20`s AA were prone to heavy salt water contamination eventhough both weapons were heavily greased, especially the 37's. A variety of weapons systems were tried including the flak boats before Adm. Doenitz realized that it was foolish for his boats to fight it out with Allied aircraft.

This sounded like suicide. The US Navy PBY-4 Privateer, though it hit the fleet later in the war, was heavily armed and more than outmatched any U-boat.

Loved the photos!!! I had to pause and study each one.

Please write a book. Or five. These videos are probably the best WW2 tech stuff I ever came across, and I came across a lot.

Well done. Thanks for all your research.

The stats are fascinating but the large losses of aircraft shockingly up to me.

Having effective air search radar and not even having to bother with aircraft is best air defense. US subs had that ace up their sleeve. While the SD radar was easy to detect with other radars(the interference), Japanese aircraft rarely had it and only late in the war did they have dedicated ASW air wings with aircraft that had radar(MAD as well).

Did the saltwater damage the guns with the time or impair their use?

fantastic work.......thank you so much.....Paul in Orlando, FL

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the channel donation $$. That was kind of you.

Great job ; thanks! 😎👍

Excellent work 👏

Great information

fantastic vid

Great vid on an interesting topic, thanks for posting it. Ive wondered how the various weapons, including the heavy deck guns, were either modified or prepared to cope with constant submerging+ surfacing? I mean water isnt a friend of firearms in general, and barnacles in the breech, nightmare!

Love your data based approached

The 8,8cm Flak 18 and the 8,8cm SK C/30 did use the same cartrigde. The cartrigde could also be used in the 8,8cm KwK36 (Tiger I), only the primer had to be replaced by a electrical one.

Very interesting. Bits of new information for me.

My step-dad was an aircraft electrician on the PBY4-2 type stationed in San Diego during WW2. He would occasionally ride on test flights after repairs. He also worked earlier in the war at the Martin bomber plant in Omaha, Nebraska building B-26 tow target aircraft and helped convert the production line to B-29 production.

@wes326

Жыл бұрын

I work at Offutt AFB where the Martin bomber plant was located. That's where the built the Enola Gay.

@SeattlePioneer

Жыл бұрын

Ummm. My father was offered a ride aboard a long range amphibian aircraft based at Tarawa during WWII. Other duties meant that he was not able to accept the invitation. The aircraft was never heard from again.

great insight

Very impressive video 👍

The immage shown in 9.20 doesn't show a replacment. That was the standard layout of a Type IX submarine in the early years of the war. It shows the deck behind the coning tower. german submarines never head 88 or 105 mm deckguns behind the tower.

I've always wondered how submarine deck guns were kept operational while constantly being totally submerged in salt water.

@jamesharmer9293

Жыл бұрын

Lots and lots of grease! Plus, the sub probably wasn't going to be around all that long anyway. They had a 75% casualty rate after all.

@TallDude73

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesharmer9293 I wonder if a crewman asked the same question, whether they told him the second part of the answer. 🙂

@notmenotme614

Жыл бұрын

The important part, the ammunition, was kept dry inside the submarine. The deck gun is just solid metal tube and breech so I can’t imagine water stopping it working

@wbrennan2253

Жыл бұрын

In truth, U-boats and other submarines were really surface ships that could submerge for short periods of time.

@robertkarp2070

Жыл бұрын

They put a chunk of magnesium near the equipment. Magnesium pulls the corrosive properties of the sea water away from the corrosive equipment.

Bravo sir

It took Bdu a while to realize that a u-boot was no match for a fighter or Sunderland regardless of their aa weapons. In that light Bdu also realized that the allies had the superority in almost all areas of anti-submarine warfare. By late `42 it was beginning to become obvious that the u-boat's days were limited and that to fight it out on the surface was becoming a mute point.

@wolf310ii

11 ай бұрын

The coastal command lost by far more aircraft than they sank u-boats

“All of the images shown in this video are declassified” I love that you add this even in the context of Nazi Germany. 😂

Good video. I picked up a lot of what and how information, but not much on why, other than the ineffectiveness of large caliber deck guns against aircraft. Here's some more what and how stuff. The 8.8cm submarine gun and the famous Flak 36 (Fliegerabwehrkanone = aircraft defense cannon) shared almost nothing but the bore diameter and a bit of history. The 8.8cm Flak guns are descendants of the naval gun, not the other way around. The first 8.8cm guns entered German service during the rapid expansion of the Imperial German Navy under Emperor William II in the 1890s as the main armament of destroyers and gunboats. This same naval gun was adapted to use on German WWI submarines by replacing some steel parts with rust-proof bronze and adapting the muzzle to accept a pressure-resistant tampion (a tampion is a bore plug). The German designation for this gun was 8.8cm SK L/30 (Schnelladekanone = quick-loading cannon) These guns were installed aboard the Type UB and Type UC coastal subs. In 1907 a new more effective gun was adopted, the 10.5cm SK L/45. These were sometimes installed aboard coastal-class subs, but their narrow weather decks made these longer and heavier weapons difficult and dangerous to work by the gun crews. Consequently, they mostly appeared on large, ocean-going subs like the Type U-31 class vessels. Both of these deck gun types were used aboard the later WWII U-boats, such as the Type VII and Type IX boats. Now for some comments on the why. In the German Imperial Navy, deck guns on submarines existed for basically two reasons, one tactical and the other political. In the early years of the 20th century, torpedoes were still considered unreliable for use by submarines, therefore a deck gun was seen as indispensable for the defense of the warship while surfaced. Deck guns were also considered indispensable for anti-commerce warfare, the submarine's forte. When the Great War broke out in 1914 the navies of warring powers operated under a body of pre-war treaties and agreements, one of them being the so-called cruiser rules established to regulate commerce raiding. Briefly, a commerce raider could not legally attack a merchant ship without warning, therefore a torpedo attack launched by a submerged submarine was a war crime. Ideally, a lawful commerce raider would order a merchant ship to halt and submit to being boarded. If the order was ignored the raider could fire a warning shot. If the merchant continued to resist the raider could lawfully fire on the merchant to cripple her, but not to sink her or harm the crew and passengers. Just by having a powerful deck mount, a German U-boat indicated that it was a lawful combatant. However, a submarine caught in the shipping lanes armed with only torpedoes could be considered a pirate ship. The Imperial German Navy tried to adhere to the cruiser rules, and several Allied merchant vessels were stopped and boarded lawfully. Sometimes, the enemy merchant ship was captured, but usually, it was sunk using one or more torpedoes after the crew and passengers were safely off the ship. Unfortunately, German submarines were generally ineffective warships until an unrestricted submarine warfare policy was declared in 1915. ( blog.imagesmusicales.be/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/lusitania-warning.jpg ). Most German submarines of Nazi-era Kriegsmarine continued to mount 8.8cm or 10.5cm deck guns, but primarily for defense in emergencies. From September 1939 until the final surrender, the Kriegsmarine always practiced unrestricted submarine warfare. Consequently, deck guns were seldom used against merchant shipping. (Criminal violation of the cruiser rules was one of the charges made against Karl Dönitz at the Nuremberg tribunal. However, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz came to his defense by pointing out that immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack, American submarine captains were given the order, "Commence unrestricted warfare against Japan". ) As the war progressed, large-caliber guns became less and less useful. The U-boats were being attacked mostly by aircraft attacking from angles outside the maximum elevation of the SK L/30 and the SK L/45, and when opposed by Allied destroyers they were often significantly outranged. With nothing to shoot at, by 1944, many German skippers were having their heavy deck mounts removed as useless burden. The final generation of WWII U-boats had no provision for guns at all, except for automatic 20mm AA guns. In the United States Navy, gun armament increased with time rather than decreased. Furthermore, USN submarine guns were intended as primarily offensive weapons. Nothing like Hitler's "stand and fight" order operated in the American submarine force. In defensive situations, escape and evasion was the preferred tactic. The variety of USN submarine guns was amazing, ranging from .30-caliber MGs to 6"/53 guns similar to the main weapons of a light cruiser. However, by late 1944 the typical gun armament consisted of one 5"/25 heavy mount, one or two single-barrel 40mm Bofors guns, and a mix of 20mm Oerlikon guns and .50-caliber M2 Brownings. The strong gun armament was prompted by the increasing use of junks, barges, and shallow-draft coastal transports by the Japanese. These were all difficult and inordinately expensive targets for the Mark 14 torpedo. Consequently, surface gun actions became more frequent as time progressed. (The 40mm Bofors was a medium AAA mount in the surface navy, but in the "Silent Service" it was the most frequently used anti-ship weapon.)

@wolf310ii

11 ай бұрын

The Deck guns were used in WW1 and WW2 to sink ships and WW2 was not from day1 unrestricted u-boat warefare, outside the blockade zone they did stop single unarmed ships befor sinking them. They didnt mounted deck guns just to be seen as lawfull combatants. Also german WW2 U-Boats didnt use WW1 deck guns and it was not the elevation of these guns (the aircrafts attacked well within the max elevation, even of the guns with max 30° elevation) that they didnt use them as AA, they were simply not made for direct fire at aircrafts, and they didnt had the time setting machine for the fuse, nor had they AA shells.

Any idea why the mezzanine gun platform is called "Wintergarten"? (Ah... apparently a "wintergärten" is an enclosed porch or patio for eating outside in cold weather.. a "greenhouse".)

Would not want to be on the deck of a surfaced submarine in the Bay of Biscay..... like a cork in a jacuzzi

Is there any detail on how adding extra guns changes the sea keeping properties and whether it changed submerged speeds? You'd think both would be worse with extra weight mounted high up?

@rfarevalo

Жыл бұрын

Submerged u boats only move at 3MPH. that is as slow as a fast walking human. The speed effect was minuscule on an object so slow. They weren't modern submarines, they were U-boats who were most effective on the surface at higher speeds.

Loved the vid. Can I please ask how come all the German Docs are in Emglish?

@BlackpillFacts2019

Жыл бұрын

0:31

Am I misunderstanding, but does that info table for the large deck guns say that the 88 could fire approx 17-18 rounds a minute? Or am I misreading it. It sounds like a pretty high rate of fire for a manual load gun with a heavy shell on a heaving deck. If it is correct, that is pretty impressive.

@michaeltroster9059

Жыл бұрын

Also how many of these 88 or 103 mm shells could a submarine carry?

Where was the ammunition for the flak guns stored? And how quickly could that ammunition be delivered to the flak guns during firing?

@Subpac_ww2

Жыл бұрын

Can't speak to U-boats but US submarines had magazines before crews mess and for the 5" deck gun carried 200 shells. There was a 5" shell scuttle that would elevate the shells from the crews mess to the deck gun crew aft of the fairwater. There were also wet lookers topside that carried 7 shells.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

The main storage was in the officers mess, below the floor plates, but there was also a storage on deck next to the gun with 32 rounds, so they were quickly ready to fire without need to wait for the rounds coming up and down the conning tower.

Basically, the adoption of convoys and escorts made an artillery piece useless, so replacing them with as many AA 20/37mm cannons as possible made sense. As to fighting or diving, roughly 1 in 6 of aircraft attacks on u boats before or within 15 seconds of diving were successful, and effectively none thereafter.

Love that movie Murphy war which that U boat displays those twins mg 34 including dual 20mm guns in action !

I was on a re-outfitted WWII era US sub in the late 60's. In sub school they told us that the US Navy discovered too many US subs were lost in WWII due to surface action. So they decided to take all deck guns off US subs so the captains of the boats would not have that option.

I wonder how many sinkings by aircraft were done at night vs at day since the British seem to have had a lot of success with radar and leigh lights.

What a drag that must of been to say you got shot down by a submarine crew

Thanks!

@jimshoe402

Жыл бұрын

Great Job I always wondered ***************..😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁 U-505 right by Me.THANKs

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for kind channel donation. Much appreciated.

Personally I would prefer it if you referred to U-boats by type eg. Type VIIC or Type IX, rather than by tonnage which is non standard (eg. Clay Blair - "The Hunters" and "The Hunted") and means viewers would need to cross reference to comprehend. Nonetheless a good video

As the war went on, it became too dangerous for a U-Boat to engage on the surface, as the allies had developed radar and sonar to make this practice suicide.

May have been too rough on the structure of the ship. May have just found a better way. The Wolfpack was scary. Glad it did not win that horrible battle. Too scary to even think about. The Anerican Atlantic coast was under constant threat of a full blown attack by the Germans.

@maconescotland8996

10 ай бұрын

Only the special long range U-boats had the endurance to operate off the US east coast - and they were too few.

You misspelled Doenitz. The umlaut and the trailing "e" are never used together.

There is a video of a pilot recounting how his Mosquito, equipped with a Molins gun, demolished a U-boat and much of its accompanying convoy, outside a French port..

Outstanding details; more like this please

you missed content on the may 43 German doc, it talks about use of radar

An attacking allied aircraft making it’s low near wave top strafing approach against a surfaced u-boat possessing an modified AAA gun suite must have extremely tense and terrifying moment for both aircraft and submarine. Making anything but a very low bow-on strafing approach on the boat would have been asking to get hit by defensive fire. I would think maneuvering the helm to swing the boat’s bow away from the vector of the attacking aircraft, thereby opening up more available fields of fire for the deck weapons would have been a necessity. Being attacked by more than one aircraft simultaneously would have been catastrophic for a surfaced submarine under almost any circumstances regardless of any beefed up AAA weapons on hand. That’s not even taking into consideration the attacking aircraft(s) possessing bombs or depth charges and employing them during the attack. The Germans might have been better off building a fair more number of dedicated surface escorts such as the fast maneuvering e-boats or similar small destroyer escort-type vessels festooned with as much AAA weaponry as they could reasonably place on board. Less expensive, shorter and simpler construction period; it’s doubtful any significant loss in the covert transit aspect of deploying Atlantic bound u-boats would result, as it was already the standard practice of westbound u-boat traffic into Atlantic waters to travel surfaced unless forced by circumstances to dive. Excellent video, very very informative, thank you so much for the effort. I would love to know what was the archival source that held those interesting German translated documents that you included throughout video; such wonderful historical materials.

@anthonyjackson280

Жыл бұрын

Also a bow on low level strafing run results in passing low over the flak guns on climb out.....

The large deck gun would create more drag wasting battery power when submerged

@WWIIUSBombers >>> Great video.

Remaining on the surface to fight it out with an aircraft suited the Allies - the plane could call up the nearest escort vessels to engage the U-boat. If the submarine chose to submerge the plane could attack with aerial depth charges. Once detected on the surface the U-boat was in a no win situation.

going to school in chicago i toured the 505 awesome experience

The German aviation 20mm cannon (ME-109 or FW-190), was a low velocity cartridge requiring close (250 meters) encounters. I was not suitable for combat against longer range (800 meter) and higher rate of fire, .50 cal 2800 fps Allied aviation machine guns. What 20mm cartridge did the German navy use? If an attacking American aircraft did a credible job aiming, there could be hundreds of .50 cal hits to the exposed crew decks before they could answer. The American 37mm cartridge (P-39 air cobra, B-25 Mitchell, M-3 Stuart light tank) was also low velocity and best at 500 meters or closer. What 37 mm cartridge did the submariners use? What was its velocity?

@jbepsilon

Жыл бұрын

The standard German 20mm flak cannon, used both on land and naval installations, had a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_Flak_30,_Flak_38_and_Flakvierling_38 The 37mm flak used on u-boats later in the war had a muzzle velocity of 815-865 m/s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Flak_M42 The earlier 37mm C/30 flak cannon had a muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s, but was replaced due to very low RoF. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_SK_C/30 As an aside, the low velocity aviation 20 mm MG-FF, was supplemented relatively soon by the higher velocity MG 151/20 cannon, which had a muzzle velocity close to 800 m/s when using mine shells.

Who doesn't love a deck gun, but guess shooting down some patrol aircrafts wasn't the worst of ideas at this point in the war!

That POW from U-512 sang like a canary then? I suppose the Allies also had "ways of making you talk"...

And what’s the deal with escort AA platform subs? Why not use surface ships for escorts? They would be more stable, and could hold more ammo.

@aleu650

Жыл бұрын

No such thing was possible as the Allies had air superiority. No surface vessel could sail without being attacked with impunity by waves of aircraft. They could not even defend the damaged Bismarck. The submersibles had to be used in "partisan" mode attacking key enemy operations with full force and not in "kamikaze" mode wasting trained sailors and equipment on irrelevant targets. We know that today, because we are all "generals after the battle" ;) . At that time ... Well, maybe they had no other alternative or it just didn't fit into the idiosyncrasy. 👍

The idea that a thin skinned unarmored submarine fight it out with an attack aircraft is basically flawed. Even if the attacking aircraft were shot down it was very likely to have punched a few hole into the sub making diving a one way trip. The attacking aircraft would have radioed the position of the sub and surface ship and aircraft would have been sent to sink the siting duck. Given the Little Corporal's, Adolph, thought that he knew military tactic he once again put his bad ideas into service. Old Adolph was the most valued asset the Allies had. As the war progressed downward looking radar was in sub hunting aircraft. The Germans countered with radar detectors. But the detectors themselves emitted a signal. The the Allied aircraft learned to turn their radar off and follow the detector's signal back to the sub.

@torarildhenriksen371

Жыл бұрын

German radar detectors was improved and installed on the top of the schnorkel. In the last year of the war uboats lost to aircrafts dropped dramatically since the uboats was submerged for up to 70 days

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

The little corporal knew more about military tactics than you ever will. U-boats werent thin skinned and the conning tower even had armor. There was one u-boat, that shot down 2 aircrafts, one of them crashed into the u-boat, and the u-boat was still able to dive and make it home. Also the allied never used the Metox signal to locate or track u-boats.

@edwardcnnell2853

Жыл бұрын

@@wolf310ii 'The little corporal knew more about military tactics than you ever will.” The little corporal may have known more that I will ever know but history shows he knew little. The father of the modern assault rile was the German Sturmgewehr SG-44 ( Sturmgewehr translates as assault rife). It had to be developed in secret to keep Hitler from knowing about it. Hitler did not Want new and better combat rifles, he wanted entire units armed with sub machine guns like the MP-38 or MP-40. This fit with his experience with trench warfare in WWI. So the SG-44 was in it's development phase the MP-43 or MP44 with the MP standing for Machine Pistol to hide from Hitler what it really was. The SG-44 featured a shorter cased, less powerful version of it's infantry rifle round and a fire selection of full auto or single shot. Once the MP-44 had been demonstrated and accepted by Hitler was it designated the SG-44. “U-boats werent thin skinned and the conning tower even had armor. There was one u-boat, that shot down 2 aircrafts, one of them crashed into the u-boat, and the u-boat was still able to dive and make it home.” That would be great information to share. I looked and could not find information on U-Boat armor. Still the best defense the U-Boat had from aircraft was to dive. When the war opened their chief opponent were the British. The British oped as their main aircraft armament their .303 caliber rifle round for their machine guns which did not take much armor to defeat. As the war progressed they added .20mm cannon. The US had transitioned to the .50 caliber machine gun which with armor piercing rounds was more of a threat. Planes like the Lockheed P-38 had in addition to four .50 caliber machine guns a .20mm cannon with the ability to have bombs or rockets slung under the wings. The P-38 was not assingn to hunting U-Boats as a primary role. For them a U-Boat, or other Axis subs, was a target of opportunity. The American B-25 bomber had a ground attack version. Four .50 caliber machine guns mounted in sponsons on the fuselage. The bombardier position removed and replaced with a solid nose housing four more .50 caliber machine guns. There was a version of this optimized for anti ship that mounted an additional specially modified design of the .75mm cannon in the nose in addition to the 4 machine guns in the nose and 4 sponson mounted machine guns. “Also the allied never used the Metox signal to locate or track u-boats.” I had read that these radar detectors had been homed in on. My current reading shows that a receiver that could read and home in on the Metox signal had been developed. The receiver worked but the problem was it was too delicate to be kept working in an airplane. No mention if during trials any U-Boats were sunk.

German U-boat fight back policy was because there was no escape for the sub once being sighted. Diving wouldn't save the sub?

@Subpac_ww2

Жыл бұрын

Their policy of staying up to engage aircraft is mad. Suicidal. Crazy. Just get under and save the boat and crew for another day. Even if they did down a bird chances are that bird landed a few blows and diving may be risky now or cause bits of the sub to come loose from damage while trying to stay silent and evade. Just mad.

@notmenotme614

Жыл бұрын

A diving sub would still leave a wake on the surface and the sub is still visible through the water when it’s less than 10m deep. The aircraft would just cover the area in depth charges

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

A diving u-boat is defenceless. The chances for survival were much better when staying on the surface, fight back and being able to make it as hard as possible for the airplane to hit the u-boat. Also they didnt stay at all cost on the surface, if they could be below the surface befor the bomber could drop the bombs, they did dive, if they could not because the bomber was already too close, they dived after the first bomb run.

@Subpac_ww2

Жыл бұрын

@@wolf310ii problems radar equipped US submarines didn't have. Diving is far more survivable, the USN proved that much. An aircraft at the horizon would get to the submarines location in roughly a minute. The SD radar would detect an aircraft at ranges from 6-12 miles depending on atmosphere conditions and how finly turned the SD set was. A USN sub could be under in 40 seconds. Plenty of time to get to a safe depth and the would-be attacker never knew the boat was ever there. Radar > flak guns.

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

@@Subpac_ww2 And yet, 6 subs got sunk by japan with very bad ASW. If detected too late, US subs had the same problem, that a diving sub is a defenceless easy target. And if it was the RAF coastal comand, the radar would be the reason for the aircraft to be there

Slow & Steady... sinks in place...

"The U-boat loss rate was unattainable..." Did you perhaps mean "unsustainable" ?

@WWIIUSBombers

Жыл бұрын

Ya, I misspoke there. I indicated this mistake in the video description....

I can’t understand who thought that a rocking boat, under attack, in the North Atlantic, would be a good place to use AA guns against nimble planes? Have you tried getting a site on a star using a sextant on a rocking boat in the open ocean? And what if the star was moving about on you? I imagine using an AA gun was like that.

@SeattlePioneer

Жыл бұрын

I suspect that is easier than you think. When taking a star sight, you merely have to identify the point at which the star is the lowest in the sight. And when you are rocking nback and forth, you have many opportunities to decide when that is and correct it. After all, ships and even small craft did this with reasonable success for hundreds of years before GPS came along! I'd FAR prefer to be doing that than servicing an AA gun against aircraft attack! If you were wounded and your sub submerged, I'd guess you would be left behind.

excellent. I wonder if U-boats started the war with 3 x deck guns, how many more ships could they have sunk. I also wonder if allied heavy bombers were armed with a 100mm aerial cannon, could they sink subs from long range ?

@Subpac_ww2

Жыл бұрын

Torpedos > deck guns for sinking large ships. Less exposure to the boat and deck guns are heavy. Very heavy. Carrying more guns and more ammunition for said guns just cuts into other stores that can be brought aboard, stores like torpedoes.

@RemusKingOfRome

Жыл бұрын

@@Subpac_ww2 Torps = VERY expensive ! 88 ammo, not so much and can be stored in far less space. 3 -4 well aimed AP shells can stop a ship, 3 - 4 HE shells can set it afire ! Didn't the French build a Sub with a turret ?

@joefish6091

Жыл бұрын

search for flying-cannons-15-warplanes-equipped-with-heavy-artillery/

@jchoward6451

Жыл бұрын

@Joe Fish I saw a video on the Tse-Tse, a Mosquito mounted with a 5-pounder (small cannon firing solid projectiles). They interviewed a pilot who said they'd aim a few feet away from the hull so the water would would bend the projectile's trajectory into the hull, where it would bang into and off of all sorts of things before making another hole on its way back out!

@anthonyjackson280

Жыл бұрын

Convoys (which the British adopted at the outset) render attacks by U-Boats using deck guns a very risky proposition. They would have to attack surfaced and close by. Even the 4.5" guns corvettes carried would have been a major threat. And all ships, even merchantmen were under orders to ram any U-Boats encountered on the surface. Plus in any kind of seaway the surface speed of a U-Boat was limited.

Too dangerous to surface to use them

The best defense for the U-boats would have been to have a proper combat Air Patrol. Aircraft like the Messerschmitt me-110 would have been more than a match for most Patrol aircraft. The Luftwaffe should have dedicated such aircraft to giving the U-boats air cover.

@mryhdy6266

Жыл бұрын

The did have Ju 88C fighters even flying in groups of aircraft but apparently it was not enough to stem the tide.

@anthonyjackson280

Жыл бұрын

@@mryhdy6266 on at least one occasion a dogfight happened between escorting JU 88's and attacking mosquitoes, some of which were the tse-tse anti-shipping variant. One of the tse-tse mozzies hit a JU 88 with a 6 lb AP shell that blew the entire engine and nacelle off the Ju 88 (it crashed...)

@mryhdy6266

Жыл бұрын

@@anthonyjackson280 I would expect Moskitoes to be at least as good as Ju 88's, and apparently Short Sunderlands were tough nuts to crack as well.

@anthonyjackson280

Жыл бұрын

@@mryhdy6266 during these anti u-boat/shipping attacks mixed wing mozzies were used. Conventional 8 gun fighters to protect the less agile Tse-Tse's carrying the 57mm Molins gun (6lber anti-tank gun). In the melee with Ju 88's the one tse-tse took a lucky shot. The pilot has a interview on YT.

Why not have a FLAK destroyer accompany the U Boats through the bay instead of another small vulnerable sub?

@wolf310ii

Жыл бұрын

They would have quickly been sunk by the Royal Navy. Crossing the bay wasnt done in 1-2 hours, it took 2-3 days

just too many aircraft about, and a sub is a terrible gun platform

Based on my experience playing Silent Hunter 3, I believe deck guns were mostly useless after 1942 when the allies managed to arm all merchant ships.

@BrettonFerguson

Жыл бұрын

@@kiereluurs1243 Wow a KZread comment section inspector who doesn't understand a f**king joke. Always hilarious.

@BrettonFerguson

Жыл бұрын

@@kiereluurs1243 The best part is you actually got the joke, but missed it at the same time.

@copter2000

Жыл бұрын

@@kiereluurs1243 Wow a snarky comment. You must be killer with the ladies.

it's = it is

U boat Would'nt stand much chance against 6 pounder on 'Tetse' Mosquito which could rip U boat to bits.

13:08 is rough. Lots of brave boys on both sides dying on the whim of a few megalomaniacal losers. I guess history continues to repeat itself today. :(

Das Boot movie ending shows why lol pesky aircraft bombers

What a disaster to have decisions about arms on u-boats made by the supreme leader. Waste of time, waste of resources, and I am sure glad they did waste it all, because the faster they lost the better for the world.

Thanks, down under here in New Zealand we have just got the first lot of P-8A, so CCP and Russia with the help of our ANZAC, and 5 Eyes brothers your subs aren't safe in the South Pacific!

German submarine bombers ???!!!!

Just curious, how often do you release classified documents? LOL All these documents are declassified, HA! No kidding!

how the hell did those things still work after being submerged in the ocean for months or years!! woah! them nazis built some amazing mechanics. i shot my grandfathers 1917 luger 9mm that he took from a nazi he sent to hell and that gun fired like it was brand new.

@wbrennan2253

Жыл бұрын

They spent most of their time on the surface. Very hard to run the diesel engines otherwise.