parsifal
Colonel
Hi soren
I'll give you a break when yoou do the same courtesy for others
Again you haven't even been following attention.
Spies would be set off a week or two prior to the attack to monitor and find the proper landing area along with automated weather radio stations.
And as for your suggested 10 days of looking through a telescope to see wether the coast is clear, that's just completely ridiculous Parsifal, with or without spies doing all the preliminary work. And then on top of that you're suggesting that it takes NINE days to get the 25 men out of the boat, into rafts and head for shore ??? Parsifal how did you ever come up with that ?
The spies would help, except that in 1941 they were totally compromised in both Britain and the US. If it was a member of a diplomatic staff, it would need to be restricted to the coast of the US alone. Given that the spy network will have send their report via Ultra, or the diplomatic code, the risks of being caught outright are extremely high. Germany could not rely on its communications being secure by late 1941.
Converselt, this is pretty much waht happened in Pearl Harbour. The US failed to act on information they had gleaned from their MAGIC intercepts, against the japanese, so i guess it is possible, to obtain the information.
However, this information would need to be sent several weeks in advance, whereas the Intercepts relating to the PH attack were only a few days or hours old. The US counterintelligence system and command structure proved incapable of moving quickly enough to react to the PH operation, but it may well have been a different ballgame if they had had weeks or months to consider the Intel. And it would need information that was sent weeks or months by your imaginary spy to allow the mission planners back in Germany the time to assess the data, and come up with a solution
I have already made some comments about the poor nature of German Intel and this was even more pronounced in the West, and reasonably secure in the US as well. So no, you cannot rely on a ground truthing recon prior to the landing if you even want to get ashore.
Moreover the spy cannot undertake an underwater survey to determine the distance from the shore that the landing needs to take place, the nature of the currents, the presence of drift ice, etc etc. This will need to be obtained by survey undertaken by the assault boat(s) on the day, and this can take a lot of time. All of the landings in Europe took an enormous amount of survey work and months or years of Intelligence gathering in order to execute (none of which was ever detected by the Abwehr, why, because they were incompetent).
So it is not just a case of getting into your little rubber boats and paddling ashore Soren. You can do that whilst playing in the bathroom....There is a great deal of work to be done, before undertaking a mission of this kind. Oh, and telescopes are for the 18th century and observatories. In the 20th century the U-Boats used Periscopes whilst submerged, and binoculars whilst surfaced
The only one making silly proposals here is you Parsifal, and you're ignorance to the fact that hundreds of boats were on patrols lasting months just proves that.
Ever heard of milkcows ??
Ah yes I have. Apart from the fact that a "Milk Cow" is something you might find in a dairy, the first "Milch Cow" (U-459) was not ready for service until
1-4-42, fully 5 months after you would need it
Again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on the subject of German U-boats and how they operated.
Im not the one calling on technology not available in 1941, with references to Type Ds (not available until the end of 1942) and Type XIVs (not available until the middle of 1942). I do not lay claim to being an expert on Geman U-Boats, but I know more than the average sucker, plus I have access to resources that can be considered expert in this field
Let me ask you again: Have you ever heard of Milkcows Parsifal ? Ever wondered how German subs were able to patrol the US Canadian coasts for weeks, attack and then return all the way home again ??
Ive already given you a reply about the non-availability of Milch Cows in 1941. The germans did manage to extend the endurance of their subs, only by accepting the absolute minimum of habitability standards. The Type IX was designed for about a 20-25 day endurance, the Type VII was even less. Wartime experiences did show that these design endurances could be exceeded. I believe that the longest Pre-'42 cruise by a Type VII was 26 days. In the case of Hardegens cruise, which I posted previously, he was out of port from 23 December, to 2 February, a total of 41 days, but he was only able to stay on station for 8 days. Thats an average passage time, incidentally of 16.5 days, more than enough time to cook your commandoes collective gooses
Fact is what I'm suggesting doesn't even come close to exceeding either the space or endurance parameters of the suggested boats.
So again Parsifal, study the subject before making blanket statements about it.
err, yes it does, because you are trying to use technologies that were not available to the U-Boat arm at the projected time....
You've got to be kidding me man! You're just desperately grasping for straws now Parsifal! You obviously don't know what sarcasm or figure of speach is!
Parsifal when I say: Used as bedrooms by the crew it is the same as when saying: The men used the three as a toilet or "The men used their rifles as clobs"
But then ofcourse comes to the scene an extreme nitpicker and starts ranting: "Rifles certainly aint clubs! They're firearms!"[/I]
Err no it isnt, all it demonstrates is that you dont really have much knowledge on U-Boats, and all thing nautical. I would not normally be so precise, but I know how you like to get things exactly right for other subjects, so why not in this case???
Give me a break!
I'll give you a break when yoou do the same courtesy for others