German commando attack on the US, Canada Alaska

[drgondog]

Soren
with that level of arguments, what can I say!
Hopefully your imaginary captain chose Panama, crew or at least part of it would have had much better chances in US than in USSR PoW camp.

Juha

I am just imagining a surfaced U-Boat being 'lifted' in one of the Locks and waving gaily to the dock hands, or submerged thrying to sneak under a freighter in a lock that avearges 60-65 feet in total depth from top of concrete wall to bottom of the lock.

I seem to recall three primary locks.

In the three times I have been through the Canal - it was one vessel at a time. I suspect they wouldn't lift a surfaced U Boat.

 

[drgondog]

There are many small fishing ports/fishing villages etc close to Anchorage, it would not seem out of place for a whaling/fishing ship to land to get supplies. Your team could probably walk right off the dock in the middle of the night carring their gear. There would be no "passport customs control" or any guards at all in the minor ports, once the ship had landed. i would assume that you would do this in 1941 though, not mid '42.

Certainly true then and mostly true today

 

[drgondog]

The oil refineries would be prime targets. As I mentioned earlier, I think railway bridges would make an easy and profitable target. {No railway to Alaska BTW} If you blew the bridge just as a freight train is crossing the momentum will pull several dozen more boxcars into the river. Once you have your men cross the border a mortar team could wake up the cities by dropping rounds on port facilities, army barraks, airport, city hall, etc

It would be a PR shock but 30 people are not going to destroy a refinery - you could hurt production with enough equipment to destroy key procees equipment but contrast the damage done and repaired at Ploesti by 150-300 bomber raids.

There is something else I was thinking, suppose you dropped a few bombs on an airfield, what would be the immediate reaction? They would scramble the planes thinking that they were under attack right? So you have a couple of guys at the end of the runway with a HMG to knock the planes down before takeoff.


If we are talking about the "Mexican strategy" Then San Diego CA, San Antonio TX, El Paso TX, Tucson AZ, Brownsville Texas would be good targets. There is a Naval station in SanDiego {both a port air station}. San Antonio also has an Army Air Corps training field IIRC

The only approach I can think of that would have made sense would have been a Sarin attack on major cities - say NYC - with appropriated light transfort of sprayer - and make it 'deniable' to make tracing it to Germany impossible - back to your "mexican' mole concept. IIRC the allies never discovered Sarin until after the war. Could work today... and probably will.

Other than that I think Panama Canal is a strategic target particularly if you could stop or greatly restrict transport. If you could destroy one lock system you might be able to stop traffic for a month or so.

 

[drgondog]

Soren, end the argument about the climate temps of Alaska, because you are sadly mistaken.

The interior sections of Alaska routinely get down to -50 in the winter and is bracketed by two major mountain ranges, both far larger and more extensive than the Alps, and have massive sections of swamp, marsh and bogs, which makes summer travel very difficult.

The only part of Alaska your commando's could hope to penetrate is the Pacific coastal area's. But then, the million doallr question is, why expend do much time and effort to put together a nuisence raid of no value in a backwater part of the war. And since your U-Boat couldnt sail through the arctic to get there, then why not put you sub to better use by sinking allied ships in conjunction with the IJN?

Syscom dead on.

I have been in 20 below even in Kodiak in January although it is rare for that temp to go below zero F. Lived in Nome for a year - not rare there - Jets and turbos running all the time on the AFB with surface 'tunnels' connecting Quonset huts in the winter.

In the summer, in the Kenai range area for example, the bog/tundra is impossible to use a wheeled vehicle (reliably) and the mosquitos are so big they can flat foot fornicate with a caribou. Big reason for aircraft and boats to get from point a to point b then hump the rest of the way. Back in the late 60s and early 70s I used to hunt Kodiak, Katmai, Kenai areas - mostly coastal but as Syscom sez.

 

[Matt308]

Certainly true then and mostly true today

Actually, I took a boat tour of Cooks Inlet and you could still see the Army structures that fortified the various docks, provided top cover for those manning the submarine nets at the various inlets to port facilities, and other equipment (searchlights, comm gear, etc). So it would appear that protection of Alaskan port facilities was very high on the list of US defensive measures. However, I don't reckon the risk of attack was deemed too high to orginate from Germany.

 

[drgondog]

Juha I suggest to read abit aboút the Kara Laptev sea before you decide in your mind what is reality and what is not.

Oh and btw, we're still talking about submarines here, not merchant ships

Do I need to quote the opinion of the German Uboat commanders regarding operating under icepacks ?

There's a reason so many Uboats successfully operated near and in the Vilkitsky strait, not a single one lost to crashing into an iceberg.

Submarine losses are notorious for Loss - Cause Unknown..certainly for US losses.

any of of those for U-Boats in the North that might be due to an iceberg?

 

[pbfoot]

As for targets why not Arvida or Alma Quebec 40%of the allied aluminium production cannot be a bad target and its down the St Lawrence river right turn up the Saguenay river and your there.
or Sudbury Ontario with 90% of WW2 nickel although it might be a little tougher for the sub

 

[drgondog]

As for targets why not Arvida or Alma Quebec 40%of the allied aluminium production cannot be a bad target and its down the St Lawrence river right turn up the Saguenay river and your there.
or Sudbury Ontario with 90% of WW2 nickel although it might be a little tougher for the sub

Pb - that is a great choice - but was there any long lead time, relatively small and vulnerable process system that could realistically be taken out by a small force? I'm thinking refinery scale target complex which would be hard to destroy absent a lot of heavy bombers.

 

[pbfoot]

Pb - that is a great choice - but was there any long lead time, relatively small and vulnerable process system that could realistically be taken out by a small force? I'm thinking refinery scale target complex which would be hard to destroy absent a lot of heavy bombers.

aluminium requires a large amount of electricity take out the power source and watch the ovens fill with hardened metal

 

[Soren]

It is definitely possible to operate in -30 degrees Celcius, even in -40 degrees, although it is extremely hard in the latter. In -50 to -60 it gets way too extreme and most equipment doesn't work at all, so forget about any work in those temperatures, setting up a tent alone is exhausting.

Soren, end the argument about the climate temps of Alaska, because you are sadly mistaken.

The interior sections of Alaska routinely get down to -50 in the winter and is bracketed by two major mountain ranges, both far larger and more extensive than the Alps, and have massive sections of swamp, marsh and bogs, which makes summer travel very difficult.

Sysom3 you're completely missing the point. Remember the attack is to take place in the summer, not the winter. In the winter it wouldn't work at all, and mostly because the northern route was then out of the question.

Note the average temperature in Fairbanks during the summer is 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The only part of Alaska your commando's could hope to penetrate is the Pacific coastal area's. But then, the million doallr question is, why expend do much time and effort to put together a nuisence raid of no value in a backwater part of the war. And since your U-Boat couldnt sail through the arctic to get there, then why not put you sub to better use by sinking allied ships in conjunction with the IJN?

Anchorage would be an easy target for the commando's as they can be landed so very close to it, and like Adler said the temperatures are in the 60-70F degrees in the summer.

The biggest problem facing the entire Alaskan mission is the journey over there. Taking the southern path through the Panama canal it would take roughly a month and 10 days to reach Anchorage.

 

[Soren]

Anyway lets leave the Alaska mission behind for now and lets start to debate the other areas such as the Panama canal and targets in Canada.

 

[Freebird]

Anyway lets leave the Alaska mission behind for now and lets start to debate the other areas such as the Panama canal and targets in Canada.

Targets in Canada? oh we are just a bunch of peace loving folks! No targets here!

 

[Freebird]

There is something else I was thinking, suppose you dropped a few mortar bombs on an airfield, what would be the immediate reaction? They would scramble the planes thinking that they were under attack right? So you have a couple of guys at the end of the runway with a HMG to knock the planes down before takeoff.

What did you think of this? How difficult is it to bring down a fighter during take-off with an MG?

{If you had your commando team set up close to one of the Allied air bases during the night}

 

[Soren]

That beaver just makes you ROFL!

 

[Soren]

What did you think of this? How difficult is it to bring down a fighter during take-off with an MG?

{If you had your commando team set up close to one of the Allied air bases during the night}

Some MG nests should be able to make sure that no a/c leave the ground, shooting up their engines as soon as they enter the runway, and once a couple have been stopped they will block for the rest. On the ground a/c are sitting ducks and its easy to hit a target the size of their engines with an MG at 500y. Just load up some AP ammunition and shoot up the engine block. A 7.92mm S.m.K. round will punch straight through a V8 engine block at 100y.

 

[Matt308]

With a protected airbase? Assume you team is able to get real close to ensure reliable hits (within 200-300m). Sure you could knock down 1. A few. The scramble would be immediately canceled and then base personnel would be all over you. HMGs make a lot of noise and have no flash suppressors.

You are going to travel halfway around the planet, risking the lives of a U-Boat complement and SFs, to shoot down a couple of airplanes? Where is this thread headed?

I thought that the thread was to discuss strategic targets of importance. Heck airplanes came off the US assembly lines in minutes. So now the strategically unimportant Alaska is off the subject for debate (good it was stoopid anyway). On to the Panama Canal and Canada.

Panama Canal - Good target. But a single Uboat would do nothing other than shortly gum up the works. An efficiency hit at best. Your not going to destroy the locks with a singe SF team. Not with the defensive forces in place of such a strategic world asset.

Canada - Coastline targets on the east coast. How much physical damage could possibly occur? Psychological? Squash the press and paint it as an ordnance explosion, gas explosion, diaper fire.

Only a massive coordinated attack (time, target relavance, location, and psyops providing intent) are going to make ANY difference. Hell we had numerous occasions in the US during WWII where whole port facilities went up in flames. Didn't stop the war machine, irrespective of cause. The will and industrial machine was already 'balls out'.

 

[Njaco]

No chance of that little cartridge making plant in Ohio, huh? Thought 90% of all cartridges being stopped might cause alittle panic.

(going back to my crayons now)

 

[Freebird]

No chance of that little cartridge making plant in Ohio, huh? Thought 90% of all cartridges being stopped might cause alittle panic.

(going back to my crayons now)

No Njaco, it is an interesting suggestion. Do you think the Germans were aware of it's location importance.

With a protected airbase?

First off, I think this attack has to occur immediately after Pearl Harbour, by summer 1942 these commando attacks would have much less chance of success and make little difference.

In the fall of 1941 the only "protected" airbases are mainly at Pearl, Manila Panama. Nobody expects the continental US to be attacked, so land defences are basically zero.

Consider the "heavily fortified", and pre-warned base at Hawaii, the defence was very poor, with many AA guns out-of -operation due to lack of ammo etc. I cannot imagine that the continetal bases would have even 20% of the readiness of PH.

 

[Matt308]

I heard ya Njaco. Are you implying that the UBoat would come down the St Lawrence Seaway? I didn't think that was completed until the 1950s. And then traverse the coast guard and land forces to Ohio? I'm not following.

 

[Matt308]

Right after Pearl? Perhaps defences would be sub par. But Germany was MORE than occupied on two fronts. And the Japanese Axis pact was only a discussion over Sake and Wine. To commit such an act would have dragged the US in on definite terms much earlier. Germany knew better based upon lessons learned from WWI. What would be the impetus to open another front on the ocean with a known industrial powerhouse? And my Alaskan boat tour indicated that the Alaskan defenses were established in 1939.

And now I'm speaking out of the knowledge base, but living in Seattle you get a historical perspective of the war industrial machine. I can assure you that the US govt did not begin defensive measures for industrial complexes on Dec 7th, 1941. They were more than mature by that time. It was only Pearl that put those plans into immediate play.