RSS/XML | Add to My Yahoo!| Essays | Main Page | Disclaimer | |

January 19, 2006

The Battle of the Atlantic and counterinsurgency, part one

by

part two is here

Once in awhile it’s fun to do some thought experimentation. I mentioned a few days ago that I was mulling over the similarities between the counterinsurgency problem in Iraq and how the American, Canadian and British navies finally defeated the U-boat threat in World War II.

The United States declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. Germany and Italy, already allied with Japan, declared war on the United States on Dec. 11. The Roosevelt administration had been expecting it since the Pearl Harbor attack. In response, President Franklin Roosevelt sent a message to the Congress the same day requesting “the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.” Congress complied before ending that day’s session.

Defeating Germany required transferring mountains of war materiel and millions of soldiers from the US to the European theater, mainly to North Africa and the British Isles. Since aircraft of the day were entirely unable to move the troops or materiel, the US embarked on a massive shipbuilding program for cargo and commandeered passenger liners such as Queen Mary to move troops.

Hitler’s military knew, of course, that the US would have to reach Europe by sea. Germany’s plan was to repeat what they had almost pulled off during World War I: use submarines (German unterseebooten, hence “U-boats”) to interdict the sea lanes and defeat the Allies by sinking their ships. The Germans also sailed surface raiders such as Bismarck and Graf Spee early in the war, but they were sunk by the Royal Navy sank or neutalized. The Luftwaffe, using Kondor attack bombers, was a deadly and successful enemy when ships reached the Western Approaches to the Isles, but the planes did not pose the enduring threat that U-boats did.

Winston Churchill wrote after the war of the Battle of the Atlantic, as the antisubmarine warfare was called, “The only thing that ever frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.” Not only was by sea the only way to move American men and materiel to Britain, Britain’s very survival depended on seaborne importation of foodstuffs and raw materials, principally from America.

The German U-boat flotilla was far from prepared for the task thrust upon it at the war’s open in September 1939. The admiral commanding the U-boat fleet, Karl Doenitz, had counted on having 300 subs under his command by the time war began. But Germany possessed fewer than 100 submarines when the war opened; of these only 58 were usable for combat patrols. Production accelerated. By May 1942, Germany had more than 300 U-boats with about 100 on operational patrol on any given day, though not all in the Atlantic.

On Sept. 3, 1939, the U-boat U-30 sank the liner Athenia northwest of Ireland. Historians consider the event the beginning of the Battle of the Atlantic. The sinking, however, was an error by U-30’s commander, who mistook the liner for a armed merchant cruiser. The British Admiralty responded by ordering full convoy operations be put into effect.

Convoys, large numbers of ship sailing together under a unified command, had been devised in World War I as a defense against U-boats. Their advantage lay solely in the fact that the Atlantic is so enormous that a convoy even of dozens of ships was not really easier for a U-boat to find than a single vessel. Besides, there would never be enough destroyers and corvettes to escort single vessels. Convoys grew in size as the war continued. Only very fast ships such as Queen Mary were be permitted to cross the sea alone, on the supposition that they were fast enough to outrun any U-boat that might detect them (which proved correct).

The first month of the war, September 1939, was a grim foretaste of what was to come. The allies lost 21 ships totaling more than 110,000 tons, including one fleet carrier, while sinking only two U-boats. It would only get worse.

The sea proved to be a fantastic place to hide for U-boat commanders. If whole convoys were difficult to find, think how greater the U-boat hunting problem was for Allied commanders. Usually the only way convoys learned a U-boat was nearby was when their ships started blowing up and sinking.

In June 1940 Admiral Doenitz devised a new tactic for his boats. He called it Rudeltaktik , or “pack tactic,” which the Allies called “wolfpack.” Doentiz ordered submarines to patrol in lines to look for convoys. When a U-boat discovered a convoy, it would shadow it and report its speed and heading to “Admiral U-boats,” as Doenitz’s headquarters was known to U-boat crews.

Admiral U-boats would then signal boats in reasonable vicinity to converge on the convoy and make a coordinated attack. This tactical innovation devastated convoys. Wolfpacks varied in size from only a few U-boats to 20 and sometimes more. Convoy ONS-5, for example, was attacked by a wolfpack that finally amounted to 55 U-boats in April 1943 in a convoy battle lasting two weeks. ONS-5 lost 13 ships totaling just under 62,000 tons. The month before, 43 U-boats sank 93,500 tons of convoy HX-229. These convoy battles were not hit and run affairs. They usually lasted many days, often more than a week.

By June 1942 Allied shipping losses were of grave concern to the British and Americans. The Allies were in a race with Germany to build ships and fill them with materiel faster than the U-boats could sink them. With the advent of the Liberty ship, American shipyards could win that race, barely, and would start to do so in July. But Allied commanders realized that construction was not the way to win the battle. The human toll of ships’ crews could not be sustained. They had to develop much more effective antisubmarine weapons and tactics. By the end of 1942 the Allies had lost more than 5.5 million tons of shipping since war’s beginning. In January 1943 at the Casablanca Conference, Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt agreed that defeating the U-boats had to take top priority.

Even so, the best days for U-boats were yet to come, at least in the minds of U-boat commanders. By March 1943 the U-boat fleet numbered 400 submarines, of which more than 250 were patroled various fronts. (Hitler had ordered many boats stripped from Atlantic patrol to protect Norway and the Mediterranean theater used many U-boats, too.) One of the few U-boat captains to survive the war, Herbert Werner, wrote in his book Iron Coffins, that,

This March of 1943 was the greatest month of U-boat history; our boats had sent to the bottom almost 1 million tons of Allied shipping.

But there were ominous signs, Werner wrote.

[O]ur triumphs were now being wrenched from the enemy with a difficulty unknown in previous years. As the size of convoys increased, the coordination of British and American naval units had sharply improved their convoy defenses. Escort vessels of a new type, the swift and highly maneuverable corvettes, increased the hazards of U-boat attacks. Most ominous of all was the plague of enemy aircraft. More and more planes were flying ever farther to sea and bombing out boats on the homeward run or outward bound with ever-deadlier accuracy. …

As I saw it, the whole war now hinged on our U-boat effort in the Atlantic.

The U-boats’ glories of March 1943 turned to their abattoir in May, when the Allies’ ASW efforts finally came together. From that month to the end of the war the Allies always held the initiative and defeated the U-boats with increasing effectiveness.

In May Werner, executive officer of U-230, went back into the Atlantic.

May 5. … Riedel handed me the deciphered message in silence: DESTROYER. ATTACKED. SINKING. U-638. This report was the last act of U-638. Nothing was heard of her again.

Two hours later, a fresh distress signal was hastily decoded; ATTACKED BY DESTROYERS. DEPTH CHARGES. LEAVE BOAT. U-531. …

May 6. … another signal … ATTACKED BY CORVETTE. SINKING. U-438. …

Now another was intercepted: AIRCRAFT. BOMBS. RAMMED BY DESTROYER. SINKING. U-125.

So it went for the rest of the month. Before the end of May the Allies had sunk 40 U-boats (Werner says 43), more than any month of the war and twice the rate at which Germany was building them. Shocked, Admiral Doenitz ordered a standdown of U-boat operations during June to gain time to fit his subs with new equipment, none of which proved efficacious in turning the tide. By the end of the year, wrote Werner, the sea supremacy that U-boats had enjoyed for two and one-half years had been wrenched away by the Allies in only seven months.

What turned the tide?

There were a number of factors that enabled the Allies to defeat Germany’s submarine threat. They all boiled down to locating the U-boats and relentlessly attacking them until they sank. The main keys of victory were:

1. Signals intelligence, especially the codebreakers at England’s Bletchley Park who cracked the German naval Enigma codes as part of the Ultra operation. This feat enabled the Allies to read most of Admiral U-boats’ instructions to its boats. This success was not certain or uniform, though; there was a 10-month gap in Ultra intelligence when the Germans made a major change of encoding. (The Germans also cracked many of the convoy codes the Allies used.)

2. Improved technology in submarine detection. When surfaced, U-boats used a radar-detection device called Metox to detect the 1.5-meter-wavelength radar of Allied aircraft, their severest threat. Metox never worked perfectly, and initially unknown to the Germans Metox itself was an emitter. Allied scientists fitted bombers with gear that detected Metox transmissions, enabling the aircraft crew to guide themselves to the U-boat. Many U-boats were lost that way. Finally Admiral U-boats ordered all Metox use discontinued.

Then the Allies introduced for aircraft centimetric radar, which enabled bomber crews to detect U-boats from much longer ranges than before, certainly from beyond visual range. Accurate radar also meant that nighttime no longer offered a cloak for U-boats to run on the surface using diesel power while recharge the batteries used to propel the U-boats underwater. Extremely powerful lights called Leigh lights were fitted to the bombers as well to illuminate the U-boat on the bomb run. Finally, U-boats began sailing underwater all night and on the surface during the day. It was but a temporary reprieve.

Then there was the “huff-duff,” the nickname for high-frequency, direction-finding radio receivers. The widespread use of these very accurate devices enabled Allied operators to locate the source of German transmissions practically in real time. Herbert Werner wrote of a day when his U-boat and one other were refueled at sea by a supply submarine. After they parted company, the supply sub’s captain stupidly radioed a status report to Admiral U-boats. The supply sub was sunk six hours later.

3. ASW weapons technology continued to improve. The old “oil barrel” style depth charges used early in the war gave way to new types such as the hedgehog that enabled near-360-degree dispersion around the launching vessel, and in large numbers launched at one time. Fuzing was changed so that instead of detonating at a preset depth, calculated (guessed) by ASW officers, the depth charge exploded only when it hit the U-boat. This feature kept the surface ships’ sonar clear of explosion-generated noises, enabling continuous tracking of the U-boat and removing doubt about whether it had been hit. Sonar itself continued to improve over the course of the war.

The mass introduction of corvettes, mentioned by Werner, played a major role. Corvettes were ASW vessels of less than 1,000 tons displacement. They were miserable rides for their crews but terrible foes of U-boats.

4. “Intentional lethality.” For at least the first couple of years of the war, British warships attacked U-boats more to neutralize their threat rather than actually destroy them. Finally they awakened to the need to sink the U-boats rather than simply drive them away from the convoy. Some units of warships assigned to convoys were ordered to locate attacking U-boats and pound them until they sank; different hunter-killer teams would relieve one another above the U-boat concerned. Werner reported that his U-boat barely survived a relentless depth-charge attack of more than 36 hours and more than 300 counted depth charges. Most U-boats did not survive such attacks.

Submariners of every nation of the war agreed that their worst nemesis was aircraft. From the time a lookout on a surfaced submarine spotted an enemy plane until the plane attacked was three minutes or less, sometimes less than a minute. Werner reported that in one such attack his U-boat crash dived to escape but the plane’s bombs literally blew the U-boat above the ocean’s surface. It fell back into the water where it foundered helplessly. The plane flew away, though, apparently out of weapons.

In 1940 (IIRC) Churchill ordered catapults to be fitted to some merchant ships to sling fighters off when a surfaced U-boat was detected. There was no way for the plane to land and more than a few pilots were lost ditching near their mother ship. It was a dunderheaded idea but a measure of British desperation against the U-boats. Finally, the Allies started sending escort carriers along with convoys, small carriers that could launch, recover and refit airplanes. This idea worked so well that eventually six fleet-carrier battle groups were assigned to cross-Atlantic duty.

The four-engine, B-24 “Liberator” bomber was a great success in ASW. It was speedy for a bomber and very long ranged. By 1944 all the major Atlantic convoy routes were wholly ranged by Liberators as new bases were developed. Werner wrote that the B-24 was probably the most feared of all Allied aircraft.

All these things worked together to enable Allied airmen and sailors to do one thing: find and kill submarines. Although there were never any precision-guided munitions developed in the war for ASW, the net effect of the technology, weapons , doctrine and training very much rendered Allied ASW efforts a precision-driven affair.

What has all this to do with counter-insurgency warfare? Stay tuned.

Endnote: Former American sub officer Mike Lief takes a look at present-day German submarine technology, and pronounces it worrisome.

part two is here


Posted @ 6:18 am. Filed under History, War on terror, Analysis


Comments policy



Commenting is provided as a courtesy only. I review all comments before they appear. I do not edit comments, I only approve or delete. My criteria for approving or deleting generally correspond to the following guidelines but in the end are subjective.

Comments using profanity automatically get tossed into the bit bucket - I never see them and neither does anyone else.

No personal attacks, name calling or commercial commenting. Links to your own blog site or relevant other web pages are fine.

Please be brief and relevant to the post.

I rarely answer comments, I just don't have the time.

11 Responses to “The Battle of the Atlantic and counterinsurgency, part one”

  1. Chuck Pelto Says:

    TO: Donald Sensing
    RE: Interesting Report

    Appreciate the information.

    RE: Out of Curiosity

    What do you think would have happened to our early efforts to support the Battle of the North Atlantic, had Japan been successful in seizing the Hawaiian Islands instead of merely bombing the fleet?

    From my perspective, I think the US response would have been driven by a need to protect the West Coast more vigerously. And that this would have drawn US naval assets from the North Atlantic. However, I’m uncertain as to what the impact of such would have been on the battle against the u-boats.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)

  2. Chuck Pelto Says:

    TO: Donald Sensing
    RE: Fighting the Terrorists/Insurgents of Iraq

    Intentional lethality IS essential. If the enemy knows you only intend to ’scare them off’, they’ll suppose that you’re not really interested in killing them. They’ll press their efforts forward more forcefully if that is their understanding.

    Hence, I think we need to be more pro-active in dealing with them in Iraq.

    Instead of merely suppressing them until the Iraqis take charge of their lives, we need to apply the techniques necessary to eliminate them.

    This means, in my honest opinion, we need to SERIOUSLY take up the approach the Brits used so effectively against the Communist insurgents in Malaysia.

    Only when we get effective at eliminating the enemy will we stand a good chance of winning this war…in the long run. As it is, if we just turn the war over to the Iraqis, all we’ll see is a re-enactment of the Fall of Saigon; when we pull out, for whatever reason, the enemy will win.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)

  3. PD Shaw Says:

    David Stevenson’s WWI book, Cataclysm, describes German U-boats primarily as “weapons of terror,” incapable of obtaining any strategic aim during that war, but impacting morale and confidence. Yet, by creating the chain of events that let to American intervention, their use was ultimately decisive. By WWII, technological advances made U-boats a more conventional threat, but in light of the discussion I think its interesting to consider where U-boats started.

  4. Matt Says:

    One small question.

    You stated that, “Although there were never any precision-guided munitions developed in the war for ASW, the net effect of the technology, weapons , doctrine and training very much rendered Allied ASW efforts a precision-driven affair.”

    How would you describe the wake homing torpedoes that were introduced near the end of the war. ?I think I read somewhere about an attempt for a Japanese sub to link up with a German sub somewhere in the Atlantic near the equator. I believe the German sub was sunk after it was attacked by a plane dropping a wake homing torpedo.

    Matt.

  5. Big D Says:

    I think I’ve mentioned it here before, but I highly recommend Black May, a detailed history of the Battle of the Atlantic.

    It covers a lot of the same ground, and comes to many of the same conclusions, but it provides quite a level of detailed research and a number of stories that I had never heard.

    The most surprising fact to me was the sheer importance of DF gear, far above that of sonar or even radar. I had no idea that u-boats were so chatty or that we punished them for it, but then, the Germans didn’t either. The usefulness of the tiny corvettes was surprising too.

    It’s amazing how many bits of history never really properly make it into the history books.

  6. Donald Sensing Says:

    Werner discusses German homing torpedoes in his book. His analysis was that they worked far better in testing than in real attacks and that so pitifully few were provided to the operational fleet that they had no significant effect. The Allies developed countermeasures that were effective. The torpedoes didn’t actually follow the wake, per se, but homed in on engine noise.

    I might have more accurately have written that while both the Germans and Allies developed first-generation precision-guided weapons for submarine and anti-submarine warfare, their development came so late in the war that their effect was not significant. (Actually, though, the German homing torpedo was developed in 1943, but large-scale production was never achieved.)

    Thanks for the course correction!

  7. Country Keepers by Gary Petersen » Blog Archive » Defeating the U-Boats, Defeating the Counterinsurgency in Iraq Says:

    […]

    Mil-blogger Donald Sensing posted an absolutely fascinating read about […]

  8. Jerry Says:

    I would also recommend “Operation Drumbeat” by Michael Gannon. It details the early 1942 UBoat raids along the eastern seaboard. We took a tremendous whipping and had to climb a steep learning curve.

  9. Chapomatic » Al Qaeda And ASW Says:

    […] etween antisubmarine warfare and anti-terrorist warfare, in a two part series (part one is here). I need to expand on his comm […]

  10. Chap Says:

    Sir, you’re thinking along the same lines as several senior intel folks I met in Washington a few years back. The analogy does fit pretty well-and the pain involved in implementing the Tenth Fleet would be useful history here.

    I saw a few changes made in the last three years, like the network analysis that caught Saddam and other similar things, facilitated by a small group of orthogonal thinkers and a whole lot of grunt work.

    Here’s an extended comment on same.

  11. Malcolm Says:

    Hi Donald,
    Overall your summary of the BoA is pretty accurate but in a couple of areas you are a bit off:

    Intentional Lethality - British escorts at the start of the war were pretty thinly spread - there simply were not the ships to pursue contacts and continue the escort of the convoys at the same time. Also despite the hype ASDIC was only fitted to a minority of ships at the outset and its effectiveness was overstated. All too often escorts failed to acquire the Uboats or could not maintain contact - forcing them under while the convoy moved on was an operational win for the RN.

    Metox - this was never an emitter (although the Germans came to believe it was after interogating captured Allied airmen who falsely gave them the impression it was). The problem with Metox was that it did not work in the centimetric waveband being used by the Allied radar and so did not detect that the Uboat was being “painted”.

    CAM Ships - the catapult equipped merchant was intended to launch a Hurricane to shoot down FW Condors (which were long range reconnaisance aircraft which shadowed the convoy to bring up Uboats for the attack) - one clapped out fighter was a good exchange for a Condor. The Hurricane was not intended to attack Uboats.

    Homing Torpedoes - The US FIDO acoustic torpedo was in high priority production as early as September 1942 (first successful use in May 1943 against U456). The German equivalent (the Zaunkoenig) came into operation in August 1943 (pattern running torpedos had been in use earlier) and one or two were carried by each boat for self defence from escorts within a few months.

    The real problem for the Uboats was that, at the outset, there were not enough of them and their torpedoes did not work (both the impact and magnetic triggers had major issues that were not corrected until the Germans copied captured British technology - and they ran too deep).

    If you want a good analysis of the BoA then you should look at Clay Blair’s two volume work (The Uboat War:The Hunters 1939-42, and The Hunted 1942-45), possibly in association with The Real Cruel Sea by Richard Woodman (which has a somewhat wider focus than Blair, and is in some ways the better for it).

    One interesting aspect that Blair brings to the fore is that UBoat captains were rather like fighter aces - a few of them sank a disproportionate amount of shipping (and not only because they came early in the war) as the war progressed the proportion of patrols that did not sink anything steadily rose.

    If there was one thing above all else that killed the Uboat it was centimetric radar (and Doenitz’s failure to develop countermeasures)- without it there would have been many less Uboat kills.

Leave a Reply



Email is considered publishable unless you request otherwise. Sorry, I cannot promise a reply.

Archives

January 2006
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives for Jan 03-Mar 05.

Blogroll:

News sites:

Washington Times
Washington Post
National Review
Drudge Report
National Post
Real Clear Politics
NewsMax
New York Times
UK Times
Economist
Jerusalem Post
The Nation (Pakistan)
World Press Review
Fox News
CNN
BBC
USA Today
Omaha World Herald
News Is Free
Rocky Mtn. News
Gettys Images
Iraq Today

Opinions, Current Events and References

Opinion Journal
US Central Command
BlogRunner 100
The Strategy Page
Reason Online
City Journal
Lewis & Clark links
Front Page
Independent Women's Forum
Jewish World Review
Foreign Policy in Focus
Policy Review
The New Criterion
Joyner Library Links
National Interest
Middle East Media Research Institute
Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society
Sojourners Online
Brethren Revival
Saddam Hussein's Iraq
National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling
Telford Work
Unbound Bible
Good News Movement
UM Accountability
Institute for Religion and Democracy
Liberty Magazine

Useful Sites:

Internet Movie Database
Mapquest
JunkScience.com
Webster Dictionary
U.S. Army Site
Defense Dept.
Iraq Net
WMD Handbook Urban Legends (Snopes)
Auto Consumer Guide
CIA World Fact Book
Blogging tools
Map library
Online Speech Bank
Technorati
(My Tech. page)

Shooting Sports

Trapshooting Assn.
Nat. Skeet Shooting Assn.
Trapshooters.com
Clay-Shooting.com
NRA
Baikal
Beretta USA
Browning
Benelli USA
Charles Daly
Colt
CZ USA
EAA
H-K; FABARM USA
Fausti Stefano
Franchi USA
Kimber America
Remington
Rizzini
Ruger
Tristar
Verona
Weatherby
Winchester
Blogwise
Excellent essays by other writers of enduring interest

Coffee Links

How to roast your own coffee!

I buy from Delaware City Coffee Company
CoffeeMaria
Gillies Coffees
Bald Mountain
Front Porch Coffee
Burman Coffee
Café Maison
CCM Coffee
Coffee Bean Corral
Coffee Bean Co.
Coffee for Less
Coffee Links Page
Coffee Storehouse
Coffee, Tea, Etc.
Batian Peak
Coffee & Kitchen
Coffee Project
HealthCrafts Coffee
MollyCoffee
NM Piñon Coffee
Coffee is My Drug of Choice
Pony Espresso
Pro Coffee
7 Bridges Co-op
Story House
Sweet Maria’s
Two Loons
Kona Mountain
The Coffee Web
Zach and Dani’s

Roast profile chart

Links for me

Verizon text msg
HTML special codes
Google Maps
Comcast
RhymeZone
Bin Laden's Strategic Plan
Online Radio
The Big Picture
SSM essay index
See my Essays Index!
Web Enalysis

categories:

Other:

Internal links:

An online news and commentary magazine by Donald Sensing, concentrating on foreign and military policy and religious matters. My bio is here.

Google Search
WWW
This site
Old Blogspot OHC

Fresh Content.net

Sitemeter

Fight Spam! Click Here!

16 queries. 0.611 seconds