LIVING SILENT HUNTER 3 - EDITION 2022 » DISCUSSION and SUPPORT

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

Fwiw, patrols "way south off the west coast of Africa" is not ahistorical at all.

Indeed, that's where U-505, now in Chicago, got hunted down and captured!

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Indeed, that's where U-505, now in Chicago, got hunted down and captured!

Yep, and a highly decorated ace, Wolfgang Luth, had great success off of the west/south African coasts.

[Archive1]

pancoast and aktungbby:

Yes, yes I understand all that, but my assignment was in 1941...way down there in Africa? C'mon, guys. British shipping up north into and away from the Isles was much more critical to destroy in the early years.

Your comments are obviously correct, much later in the war, but not at the onset. I think we must accept that patrol assignments in the game are randomly assigned with no focus on accuracy and generally can be ignored without any negatives. Maybe you have some historical reference that makes my position invalid (?) I know of no subs assigned deep into the coast of Africa in 1941, but perhaps you have a reference that corrects me.

BTW - I grew up in Chicago and am very well aware of U-505 and visited it often.
-=Archive1=-

[La vache]

Originally Posted by Archive1

I know of no subs assigned deep into the coast of Africa in 1941, but perhaps you have a reference that corrects me.

U 69 5 May - 8 Jul 1941
https://uboat.net/boats/patrols/patrol_492.html

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Archive1

pancoast and aktungbby:

Yes, yes I understand all that, but my assignment was in 1941...way down there in Africa? C'mon, guys. British shipping up north into and away from the Isles was much more critical to destroy in the early years.

Your comments are obviously correct, much later in the war, but not at the onset. I think we must accept that patrol assignments in the game are randomly assigned with no focus on accuracy and generally can be ignored without any negatives. Maybe you have some historical reference that makes my position invalid (?) I know of no subs assigned deep into the coast of Africa in 1941, but perhaps you have a reference that corrects me.

BTW - I grew up in Chicago and am very well aware of U-505 and visited it often.
-=Archive1=-

Originally Posted by La vache

U 69 5 May - 8 Jul 1941
https://uboat.net/boats/patrols/patrol_492.html

La vache!

Third patrol
The boat's next sortie was to the West African coast. She laid mines off Lagos and Takoradi and made full use of the failure of the allies to enforce convoy systems.

One of her victims was the neutral American ship SS Robin Moor[6] operating 750 miles (1,210 km) off the British port of Freetown, Sierra Leone. The sinking of Robin Moor caused President Roosevelt to brand Germany an "international outlaw" and to require Germany and Italy to close all of their consulates in the United States except for their embassies.[7] Before the sinking, Robin Moor's passengers and crew were allowed thirty minutes to board lifeboats, then the submarine torpedoed, shelled and sank the ship. The survivors then drifted without rescue or detection for up to eighteen days. When news of the sinking reached the US, few shipping companies felt truly safe anywhere. As Time magazine noted in June 1941, "if such sinkings continue, US ships bound for other places remote from fighting fronts, will be in danger. Henceforth the US would either have to recall its ships from the ocean or enforce its right to the free use of the seas."[8] In October 1941, federal prosecutors in the espionage case against a group of 33 defendants known as the "Duquesne Spy Ring" adduced testimony that Leo Waalen had submitted the sailing date of Robin Moor for radio transmission to Germany, five days before the ship began her final voyage. Waalen was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison for espionage and a concurrent 2-year term for violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

U-69 also sank Tewkesbury about 540 nautical miles (1,000 km; 620 mi) south of the Cape Verde Islands on the same date (21 May). Her master was awarded the OBE for his actions, but never knew about it; he was lost when Newbury went to the bottom on 15 September.

She then sank Sangara in Accra harbour on 31 May 1941. The ship went down in 33 ft (10 m) of water, her bow was still visible. (The vessel was salvaged in 1943 and her cargo sold, she was broken up in 1947).

Robert Hughes was lost to a mine laid by U-69 on 4 June.

The submarine sank River Lugar 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) southeast of the Azores on 27 June 1941 and Empire Ability on that same day.

On the return journey, U-69 was engaged in what was an ultimately successful gun-duel with Robert L. Holt southwest of the Canary Islands on 3 July 1941. She fired 102 high explosive and 34 incendiary rounds from her deck gun, 220 rounds from her 20mm anti-aircraft weapon and 400 rounds from her MG 34 machine gun at the merchantman.

The boat returned to France, to St. Nazaire on 8 July.

[Archive1]

La Vache and Aktungbby:
I accept your corrections. Clearly some unterseeboots were operating off the African coast.
My statements were off base and incorrect. But...
I still cannot understand why the sub command would divert critical, and limited number, of subs to this far southern arena when the coastal waters of the UK were so critical to control and that the necessary-to-exist materiel which was needed, had to end in UK ports. Anything coming from elsewhere still had to, must, clear the UK coast and end-up in its limited number of destination harbors for unloading. A balance, perhaps, between the hazard of UK aircraft up north and its density of shipping, and the safety of the south and fewer ships.
We know from Churchill's books that the situation was increasingly dire for the UK.
Obviously, I was not asked for my opinion by Doenitz!
-=Archive1=-

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by Archive1

La Vache and Aktungbby:
I accept your corrections. Clearly some unterseeboots were operating off the African coast.
My statements were off base and incorrect. But...
I still cannot understand why the sub command would divert critical, and limited number, of subs to this far southern arena when the coastal waters of the UK were so critical to control and that the necessary-to-exist materiel which was needed, had to end in UK ports. Anything coming from elsewhere still had to, must, clear the UK coast and end-up in its limited number of destination harbors for unloading. A balance, perhaps, between the hazard of UK aircraft up north and its density of shipping, and the safety of the south and fewer ships.
We know from Churchill's books that the situation was increasingly dire for the UK.
Obviously, I was not asked for my opinion by Doenitz!
-=Archive1=-

<shrug> I too stand by my comment. Including in '41. As to Churchill, taking most anything he said about the Battle of the Atlantic as being accurate is rolling the dice. He had a flair for being melodramatic. I'd suggest Blair's books on the subject for a much more objective view, especially concerning the myth of the u-boat's effectiveness. In short, at no time did they come even close to shutting down the North Atlantic and any boats sent south wouldn't have changed that.

As to why some u-boats were sent south, a large part of that was because the hunting was easier, more successful and less dangerous than in the North Atlantic. A lot of Allied traffic went to west African ports and around the cape of south Africa to supply forces in both North Africa and the Far East. The Mediterranean was rightly considered too dangerous for this traffic.
At times too Doenitz was *told* where u-boats would be sent, regardless of other plans he wanted to do with them. This was especially true regarding the Mediterranean.