German commando attack on the US, Canada Alaska (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

A question to you both as the submarines that you have been in are far more modern than the Oberon Class that I was on. Could you have got 30 Special forces on those boats for 3 weeks?
 
A question to you both as the submarines that you have been in are far more modern than the Oberon Class that I was on. Could you have got 30 Special forces on those boats for 3 weeks?

To be honest? I do not know that. Having a very brief tour did not give me that kind of knowledge or impression.

I would be very surprised though if there was even a team that large (30 soldiers) that would need to be transported. I would think they would be in smaller teams.
 
This the forward torpedo room of the Collins class subs that replaced the Oberons at the end of the '90s. The subs displace more than 3000 tons. The layout of modern subs is a lot "neater" than those of the WWII era, with many valves and such more carefully located and not placed as to be a hindrance to movement

Note, however, that the torpedo room are now fully automated. In this photo, two of the reloads are missing, so the guys bunking in the torpedo room, literally have to slide to their bunk spaces. Its cramped, believe me, but the amount of usable space is still probably better overall than the WWII counterparts, because of better internal layouts and design
 

Attachments

  • Colins Interior Torpedo Room.jpg
    Colins Interior Torpedo Room.jpg
    98.6 KB · Views: 53
The Collins class have come in for some voracious criticisms, which I am not sure is completely justified.

At the heart of the issue are two problems, the Collins class are relatively noisy (especially when compared to the Oberons), and they have a relatively clumsy weapons management system.

The weapons management system has finally been solved (reportedly), by a major computer upgrade. whereas previously there were at least forty keystrokes needed to achieve a firing solution, it is apparently now completely automated, and fast, taking only seconds to achieve what used to take minutes.

The noise issue arose from an RAN requirement for extra large propellors to be fitted, along with more powerful machinery. this was intended to achieve a submerged speed, apparently, in excess of 25 knots (pubglished speeds continue to be 20 knots, but these are not correct. Unfortunately the props were built with incorrect geometry, and this led to a huge cavitation problem. A new propellor design has apparently now been installed, and the boats now seem to be operating a lot better. At excercises three years agao, off Hawaii, Collins apparently managed to slip past an American Anti-submarine cordon, not once, but twice, and achieved firing solutions against the defending US carrier both times. This was with Mk 48s, and on the second run, with more conventional torpedoes

These boats have a complement of 42, and can carry 44 mines in place of torpedoes. Whilst i was a great fan of the Oberons, I believe these boats to be amongst the most potent in conventional subs in the world, combining high submerged speed, deep diving, quiet operation, potent arment, and long range in one package. It just took a while to fix the bugs......
 
Thank you parisifal, that is pretty much what I was saying with larger sub with more modern technology gives more room.

Are the cramped? Hell yes they are, but not nearly as bad as WW2 subs.
 
In the boats used during the 70's to the early 90's there were definitely no more room pr. man than in WW2 subs. Now they might have had a more convenient layout in some places, but overall it was the same, and the modern equipment just took up a lot of extra space.

The Royal Navy one me and 9 others had to be crammed into for 10 days had roughly a 70 man crew, and inside it was like being in a Type IX boat, no more or no less space pr. man. The boat was fully loaded with weapons supplies, and yes space WAS scarse but we definitely didn't suffer as Parsifal seems to suggest, and we could've definitely been in there for longer.

Now regarding the suggested operation, again remember no torps despite those already in the tubes would be carried, which means a lot of extra space, and its no two month patrol either. And finally the boats suggested for the operation were the Type XIV IXD2, both larger than the Type IX and with a lot more internal space.
 
Soren
round-trip from Europe to Eastern coast of USA seemed to have taken appr. a month, if the boat waited your commandos back, the cruise would take over a month. And Your scenario was an attack on Alaska, that would have taken clearly more than 2 months with 30 extra mouths.

Juha
 
Sorry Juha but it normally took around 15-16 days to reach America's east coast.
 
If the plan involves either a type IXD2 or a type XIV, then the timing of the attack would necessarily need to be put back to the latter part of 1942. The boats nominated would simply not be available, in modified condition, until that time.

The US experience shows that a 4000 ton minelayer could carry about 100 troops, and 15 tons of cargos, for a 14 day mission. A 12 ton Type IX could, by comparison of the tonnage, only carry 32 troops for a 15 day mission, or by deduction, a 16 man assault team for a 30 day mission. On top of that, ther is the time needed to convert the boat (4months, based on the US experience) and a further 3-4 months to prepre for the mission. Then the boats would need to be converted back to their operational state, which I wstimate would take a further 2 months. Total down time, therfore would be 10 months, and would require two boats, not one, in order to move the 30 man team and 30 tons of stores and assault equipment (and general stores as well).

Thes observations are made by comparison of the german equipment, to the best known US commando mission, the Carlson raid, in august 1942
 
Soren, are you sure that you spent 10 days on a british Submarine. Did it submerge at any time during that embarkation? In order for you to be admitted on board, you would need to have undertaken safety training to board the boat. I would be intersted to know where, and how, you obtained that clearance. I know the details of the course, where, how long, and what it involves, so i am curious to know what you did, and how you got on board if you didnt complete that course
 
Soren
Quote: "Sorry Juha but it normally took around 15-16 days to reach America's east coast."

That's what I wrote, round-trip means there and back, or are you planning that the crew fast on the way back.

And to your pet target Alaska it would have taken nearer to 3 months one way! So even for one way trip needed provisions for say 3 months or a trip to Penang, took 2 months and a week, and from there to Japan and from there to Alaska and same time compromising the security. One can get past Cap Horn also with the help of some supply ship or supply U-boat but on the Pacific side of Americas, a big supply problem I would say. I would expect better insights from ex special force man.

Juha
 
Soren, are you sure that you spent 10 days on a british Submarine. Did it submerge at any time during that embarkation? In order for you to be admitted on board, you would need to have undertaken safety training to board the boat. I would be intersted to know where, and how, you obtained that clearance. I know the details of the course, where, how long, and what it involves, so i am curious to know what you did, and how you got on board if you didnt complete that course

Absolutely. We knew the procedures, it was part of our training Parsifal, again ask Les if in doubt.
 
sorry, didnt quite come out the way I wanted it to project. I was just very curious about how a member of a foreign service would be allowed on a british submarine, without doing the specialised and various safety courses in the RN. I would have thought the foreign troops would need to pass the RN certificate courses in order to board a British boat. In the RAN that is certainly the case. They would want to know, for example, whether you were claustrophobic, and what allergies you had. Nothing like breaking out with an allergic reaction at 600 feet. Ive seen one fellow have a claustrophobia attack at 190 ft, and it was not pretty. In the RAN, you are not allowed to board an Australian Boat, unless you have passed the Australian basics course. A lot of the training used to be done in England, but has since been transferred to Fremantle in Western Australia. I guess maybe that under the NATO agreements there must be some cross border agreements for this sorts of thing

Part of the training involved emergency escape procedures, involving exiting a simulator at 60 feet below, and rising slowly to the surface using a special re-breather. I know that the US Navy seals train in that technique, as do ours and the RNs UDTs, and of course, those people that trained as submariners.. i didnt know that it was also taught in the "european" army based special forces
 
Soren
Quote: "Sorry Juha but it normally took around 15-16 days to reach America's east coast."

That's what I wrote, round-trip means there and back, or are you planning that the crew fast on the way back.

And exactly what's wrong with that ? Juha more than one boat could be used, and like explained a milkcow could be stationed to resupply the transport boat if the wait was long.

And to your pet target Alaska it would have taken nearer to 3 months one way! So even for one way trip needed provisions for say 3 months or a trip to Penang, took 2 months and a week, and from there to Japan and from there to Alaska and same time compromising the security. One can get past Cap Horn also with the help of some supply ship or supply U-boat but on the Pacific side of Americas, a big supply problem I would say. I would expect better insights from ex special force man.

Oh give me a break Juha, you don't know **** about what to expect so spare me the bullshit snide remarks.

3 months to reach Alaska ??! Are you well ?? The trip to Alaska would be about 10,000 km, and the US east coast which was reached in 15 to 16 days is 6,700 km from Brest.

Furthermore the team going to Alaska needed not be very large, perhaps 5-7 men, thats it. Again it was but a terror operation and not crucial as I've said multiple times by now.
 
Soren, Juha...

Tone it down both of you!

If anyone derails another topic with stupid childish flame wars, the thread will be closed and infractions given!

Do you both understand?
 
Soren
Quote: "3 months to reach Alaska ??! Are you well ?? The trip to Alaska would be about 10,000 km, and the US east coast which was reached in 15 to 16 days is 6,700 km from Brest."

Northern routes were not practical because of a well known phenomenon, so what route you think to use?

Juha
 
Depends on which route you take and when you take it Juha, cause the Northern route is entirely possible for a Uboat.
 
Soren
why you think KM used the route around Cap Of Good Hope in their U-boat trips to Japan, even if it took over two months to Penang and three months to Japan? At summer nightless nights and narrow waterways plus large areas of shallow seas were a deadly combination for U-boats and during winters ice blocked the routes.

Juha
 
Soren
I bothered to check the NW Passage, in 1940-42 an "ice-fortified schooner" made the second passage in history, Admunsen's 3 years passage was the first, in 28 MONTHS, and its skipper, Larsen had over decade experience on the area, in 1944 Larsen succeeded to make the passage, 3rd in history, in 86 days. So I would say that NW Passage wasn't possible to U-boats during the WWII.

The NE Passage was neither but that I have known for years.

Juha
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back