The main reason a lot of the British designed were phased out in favor of US tanks is because of a lack of production capacity …
It just made sense to buy US and have them shipped over… Of course the Wolf Packs almost put a stop to that …
In WW2 the U-boats never really came close to the level of success they almost had in WW1 - so no, the wolfpacks didn’t almost put a stop to anything.
The losses they caused were certainly significant, and in March 1943 there “was talk” of UK not being able to continue the war mainly due lack of fuel… but then 2 months later the U-boat war was essentialy won - by the end of May.
Ther were a few things came togethe about then - introduction of B-24’s to the aerial patrols, surface search (centimetric) radar sets small enough to go on aircraft that could carry depth charges, and Merchant Aircraft Carriers to convoys.
In May of 1943 the U-boats lost 25% of their operational number!
I said almost put a stop to it … you say the losses were significant?
Are you always this annoyingly arrogant and argumentative or maybe just being obtuse …
Significant losses are not the same as almost putting a stop to it.
Thought that would be a fairly simple matter of comprehension of the words involved - sorry you didn’t manage it. But maybe your reading age will get better soon.
The rest of your post - well that’s certainly the pot calling the kettle black - looking in a mirror when you wrote it were you?
Then why did they start building Churchills etc? And why did they build way more Churchills than A13s?
1 Like
Perhaps … however I will add to your assessment of why the German uboats ultimately did not succeed
Probably the single most deceive blow to the uboat fleets in the Atlantic was the capturing deciphering of the German enigma machines by the British.
This allowed them to intercept and locate the locations of the packs thus allowing them to be avoided and destroyed.
The British certainly had some production capacity and from 40 to 41 that was used mostly to build aircraft. But they could not possibly produce vehicles, parts and ordinance in the numbers that the US could.
In addition Vehicles could be built in the US with no threat from German attack. This was a luxury that the Brit’s did not have …
Nearly all nations saw a constant boost of their production numbers despite war until 1945 (except France and Royal Italy).
Even the Commonwealth, despite the (failed) bombing campaign of the Luftwaffe in 1940 and the German submarines (which again were not effective enough to force London on their knees).
You mean the Blitz? The Blitz was a total failure. The Germans literally bombed anything except factories, military facilities and airfields. The Reich achieved nothing except a crippled Luftwaffe. And the fear of an invasion didn’t stop them from producing weapons either.
The Wolfpack? Let me get the logic. Due to the issues of subs in the Atlantic which “cripples” the Anglo industry, the Tommies decided to order from Uncle Sam who delivers their tanks through the Atlantic too?
And talking about America produces more. That isn’t always true. The Sten faced 3x higher production numbers than the Thompson, let alone the M3G (and it wasn’t even a bad gun if used and treated correctly).
1 Like
I agree with what you are saying about the failure of the blitz. But rather than looking at things in the light of history you need to put yourself in the shoes of those men who were the decision makers of that day.
They did not know if they would be able to maintain the production capacity to build all the weapons and material needed to sustain and win a war with Germany.
If WWI was any indication they could not have.
This is why Churchill was very active in trying to convince Roosevelt to come into the war. And of course we will never really know if Brittan could have done it on their own without US support.
My own feeling is they they would not have. The Brits own bombing campaign against German industry was going no where until the US heavy bombers came on the scene …