Submarines

> What were the most effective ways of countering subs?

Being in a land-locked country.

Switzerland laughs at subs.

File: Typ XXI boat in Bremerhaven.jpg (2MB, 2496x1664px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2496x1664px

Also, when sub sunk a lone ship in the open ocean, did the crew usually rescue the survivors?

Same for when a lone sub got sunk, did the victors send help?

Submarine warfare was the one place Hitler could have had the absolute greatest effect on the war effort and Doenitz was one of the brightest leaders of the German military.

Naturally it became underfunded and Doenitz was somewhat ignored.

File: Type XVIIB boat (probably U-1406 or U-1407) in August, 1945.jpg (3MB, 4477x5073px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4477x5073px

>>34930058
*when a sub sunk a lone ship

>>34930061
really? So what could have been done better? More subs? Better subs?

>>34930043
There are hundreds of books on this. Short version:
20 million tons of sunk shipping and major roles in almost all battles are relevant.

Best way to counter during ww2 was aircraft.

Submarines had the advantage until good sonar, depth charge throwers, and ASW tactics were developed, at which point it changed. Development of the Type XXI with snorkels and increased battery capacity shifted the advantage back to the subs.

There were many sinkings of subs by subs, mostly British subs waiting outside German sub pens to sink them on the surface. HMS Venturer sank a U-boat which was snorkeling with dumbfire torps, the first sinking of a submerged sub by a submerged sub.

Subs perform reconnisance, TLAM delivery, SEAL delivery, and deliver torpedoes to surface and subsurface targets.

File: chink.sub.classes.jpg (170KB, 883x1080px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 883x1080px

The Kreigsmarine punched more above its weight than the Luftwaffe or army.

They had the highest k/d ratio of any group in the war.

>>34930080
Doenitz wanted 300 subs, and received less than half. The primary function of the submarine effort was blocking absolutely vital fuel and materiel shipments to the UK and SU, without which the war would have become severely protracted. Imagine if a Soviet advance actually stalled for want of fuel. Britain was dependent upon the US for food as well, but proved during wartime studies she could survive entirely on domestic production, making the shipments of small arms from Canada and lend-lease heavy machinery from the US her most vital imports.

Would this produce a German victory? Highly unlikely. However, it may have provided enough time for a future Reichsprasident to sue for a conditional surrender.

>>34930058
>Also, when sub sunk a lone ship in the open ocean, did the crew usually rescue the survivors?
No, there was no room aboard for prisoners. Notable exception being the Surcouf.
During WW1 when most sinking was with deck guns against lone targets, particularly when sub warfare was forced to abide by the international prize regulations (aka "cruiser laws"), the submarine was obliged to board the ship, go through its manifest, and only if it was carrying contraband would it be sunk after ensuring the crew were safely in the lifeboats (alternatively, the sub could detach a prize crew and take the ship, but no sub had crew members to spare). This is under the assumption that the ship does not activate its radio or fire back, if it does it's considered a warship and can be sunk. 1914 laws were based on pre-Victorian-era surface raiding laws.

File: Type XXI submarine U-3008 in U.S. Navy service during 1948.jpg (4MB, 3432x2703px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3432x2703px

>>34930118
>They had the highest k/d ratio of any group in the war.
But didn't the U-Boats also have a horrendous fatality rate?

>>34930108
>Best way to counter during ww2 was aircraft.
So were there aircraft carriers in the middle of the Atlantic hunting U-Boats, since no aircraft had such a range, or how did they do it there?

>>34930118
>They had the highest k/d ratio of any group in the war.
Any Axis group, perhaps. USN subs suffered far lower losses for around 5 million tons sunk, vs the KM's 15 million.

>>34930139
>So were there aircraft carriers in the middle of the Atlantic hunting U-Boats, since no aircraft had such a range, or how did they do it there?
there were many aircraft. MPAs were initially obsolete bombers given to RAF coastal command, later they got Very Long Range Liberators and Mossies specifically modified for the role, operating from Wales, Iceland, Nova Scotia, the Azores, and so forth. As you rightly noticed, the range is a significant limit, and there was for a long time a mid-Atlantic gap where the U-boats were unhounded and therefore extremely dangerous. The Liberators helped seal the gap, as did the introduction of escort carriers to both the convoys and detached ASW groups flying Grumman TBFs in the ASW role.
If you have any more questions ask away.

>>34930139
Ultra long range shore based aircraft and flying boats. They also did not have full coverage, at all.

>>34930043
>U-995
Hey, i visited it a week ago.

File: gatosub.jpg (11KB, 300x201px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x201px

Not to mention the Allies' sub and mining campaign against the Japanese was basically half the reason they surrendered

>>34930058
Most times not. Sometimes a sub tried to rescue survivors, but then they still had the room problem.
In 1942 the german command ordered the submarine crews not to rescue any survivors anymore after american airplanes had attacked three german and one italian submarine who had picked up survivors of the ship Laconia. Don't know if any crews still rescued survivors afterwards.
There are also records of some japanese and at least one german and american submarine crew who deliberately killed survivors of sunk ships.

As with the submarine survivors, i read stories of allied aircrews who dropped rafts, other just didn't care.
Also, not every plane could help at all, only floatplanes.

>>34930273
>only floatplanes.
Only floatplanes could land in calm seas to assist, but all allied maritime air assets carried droppable life rafts for survivors.

File: American_Aircraft_in_Royal_Air_Force_Service_1939-1945-_Consolidated_Model_32_Liberator._ATP9767C.jpg (50KB, 800x625px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x625px

>>34930139
>So were there aircraft carriers in the middle of the Atlantic hunting U-Boats, since no aircraft had such a range, or how did they do it there?

They literally made purpose built escort carriers to protect convoys and landing forces.

Early war there was gap in air coverage in mid Atlantic, but that was fixed with long range patrol aircraft. In addition to purpose built patrol bombers like Short Sunderland and Catalina Brits and Canadians used bombers that were obsolete or simply unsuitable for their intended purpose as maritime patrol aircraft. Bomber types included Wellington, Halifax, Fortress, Liberator and Hudson.

>>34930043
Impact? The affect german subs had on Allied shipping & American subs had on Japanese shipping were substantial

Effective countermeasures? Bombers carrying depth charges patrolling the "hunting grounds" & Destroyers equipped with sonar and depth charge launchers.

Fights between subs? Maybe while surfaced.

Tasks in modern wars? Intelligence gathering, insertion and extraction of special forces.

Advantage? Really depends on who finds the other first

>>34930058
>Also, when sub sunk a lone ship in the open ocean, did the crew usually rescue the survivors?
at first Germans would hand out supplies and maps to sinking victims, but after the Laconia incident an order was issued blanket banning giving any aid to victims.

>>34930273
>>34930333
hate to be an autist but there are two types of amphibious planes: float planes (fuselage on top of floats) and flying boats (fuselage itself floats, wings may have their own floats as well), allies used mostly flying boats (such as Catalina and Supermarine Walrus)

>>34931925
You are correct.
t. second guy quoted

>>34930043
/k/ writes a summer history report for some anon.

File: suddenly in lake geneva.jpg (256KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1200x960px

>>34930053

>>34932965
kek, yeah.
gay OP sure is a faggot

>>34930043
I recommend the book Black May, which covers a lot of the key details of the Battle of the North Atlantic.

>>34930043
Are you illiterate? Read a fucking book.