On Mar 3, 9:38=A0pm, mike wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:05=A0pm, jpesterfi...@centurytel.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > What about a different submarine doctrine. Make attacking support
> > vessels acceptable, study German tactics perhaps, and invest more in
> > submarines.
>
> That doctrine didn't work so well in the Atlantic. About the only
> forces that suffered higher losses % in action than the U-Boat arm
> were the Kamikazes and Soviet Penal Battalions.
That says nothing about how effective they were. What was the economic
cost to the Allies in comparison? I'd say overall the Germans got
their money's (and blood's) worth.
> Yes, more AKs, AKAs and APs and other such slow ships are hit,
> but more Subs means something else can't be built.
>
Scrap building the Shinano and you can double the size of the sub
fleet. Hell, add the Musashi to that and really double down extra
resources.
Instituting a convoy system to protect against a sub threat would have
really slown down US build up.
And in the western Pacific there's plenty of choke points. |
