Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Wars and Conflicts  permalink

What if the enigma decoding machine had been discovered by the germans, before the battle of britain? Would we be speaking German now?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 31 of 31
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by gentlemaggyann (U2151399) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005




    It has always worried me,that the reliance on the secret aspects of any war are rarely disclosed.That human sacrifices may never be known.Is it possible to speculate on the decoding of codes?and theimpact that they had on the outcome of world war II.Take the decoder out of the equation and what would have happened?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

    Hi there,

    The original decoding of Enigma was actually done by hand, not machine! The coding machine itself had something like 100 million million permutations (I forget the exact figure), and as such the code-breakers had to rely on plain old human nature in order to start to crack it.
    The Germans changed the encryption key every day, and always sent a test transmission. Radio operators are creatures of habit, and usually sent the same test transmissions, I would imagine Heil Hitler was a common one, but it was a case of once they identified the operator's call sign, and cracked his test transmission, it gave them a starting point to break the day's code.

    Anyway, back to the thread. Had the Germans discovered that Enigma was compromised then the war would have been very different! For example, Rommel in North Africa was at the end of a very long supply route. Everything the Afrika Korps needed had to be sent by sea, even water! Due to Enigma supplying convoy information, almost 80% of his supplies ended up at the bottom of the sea.
    Of course, shortly before the Navy attacked the ships, a reconnaissance plane would just happen to blunder into them and be spotted by the Germans. The Germans transmit frantically saying they have been spotted, the Navy then sink them but the Ultra decrypts are safe, since the Germans had (in their view) simply been unlucky and spotted from the air! Had they known, they would have changed all their encryption systems and the British would have been back to square one. As for any effect on the Battle of Britain in particular, this is very doubtful since Radar was the key factor there, and the organisation in depth of fighter defences, but its effect on the Battle of the Atlantic (which was of course, the closest Hitler came to defeating Britain) would have been disastrous. The Germans almost succeeded in blockading Britain into surrender as it was, and without Ultra, they may have done it.

    As a single factor, the breaking of Enigma may not have won the war alone, but without it, we may have lost.

    Cheers
    DL

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

    Just a thought,

    The Germans came very close to actually figuring out that we had broken Enigma. The Kriegsmarine must have suspected something because they added an additional reel to the machine, giving its encryption a further 10 million or so combinations, and for a while Bletchley Park couldn't read the transmissions at all. This had a dramatic effect on the Battle of the Atlantic for a short time, but was eventually broken.

    After the Bombe was built, the British were basically reading the German transmissions before the Germans were!

    Cheers

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

    I agree with you Dark. The Battle for the Atlantic would have been lost if the Germans knew we could read Enigma.

    The BoB would have been harder as well, but the real impact as you say would have been on the BoA and the NA Campaign.

    Of course the other great what if is "what if the Japanese knew that Magic was compromised?"

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

    Hi Rich,

    Now if we're talking about the US pacific campaign and "Magic" decrypts, then to keep it brief I'd say, same outcome longterm, the US win. But Midway is a total defeat, since without reading the Japanese transmissions, they wouldn't have known about the feint attack in the Aleutians, and the actual target being Midway.
    Possibly a much longer war, with better military leadership on the Japanese side too, since Yamamoto would still be running the war right till the end as they wouldn't have known about his little "island-hopping" tour, and he wouldn't have been shot down over the jungle!

    US production and manpower would have won through in the end though.

    Cheers

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dmatt74 (U1690430) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

    I don't think the Battle of Britain would have changed much as radar was the key and the organisation of the air defence and a lot of luck.The effect of loss of Enigma would have had more serious aspects on Allied operations in Europe, but it didn't stop the problems of Operation Market Garden.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

    Hi Sleepy,
    I would like to see the Polish contribution in general during ww2 given a little more credit. The poles had been working on building an Enigma machine for years prior to the outbreak of ww2. In fact it was from the Poles that the first Captured Enigma machine came from. This was given to the British after Polish/German hostilities had begun. What happened at Bletchley Park was brilliant work done as the war progressed to improve it, and keep up with German updates.

    As a little postscript, during the Battle of Britain the average Polish pilot had a better kill ratio than the average British pilot.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 6th October 2005

    Expat,

    Agreed that the success of Ultra would have been totally impossible without the initial Enigma machine captured in Poland, and smuggled to Britain. I did think for a minute you were going to say that the US Navy did it with U571!!!!!!!!!
    Only joking.

    As another little postscript, the practically all Polish units fighting with the allies fought with incredible bravery and almost reckless fury, not just the airmen! Although the way their nation was sold down the river to keep Stalin happy was a big black mark on both Churchill and Roosevelt's conduct of the war, particularly as the Soviets had sent much of the Polish troops they captured off to Siberia, and only released them (eventually) in order to fight for their former captor against Germany!

    Cheers
    DL

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 10th October 2005

    Expat,

    The aggression showed by Polish Pilots in particular during the BoB, was the nearest the RAF came to an 'Eastern Front' style of warfare.

    There was no chivalry, no leaving of German Pilots who had bailed out to their own devices, no mercy.

    After seeing what the Germans did to their country, not surprising.....

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Monday, 10th October 2005

    Can we just get a few points straight, here?

    There was no single "enigma" code. There were numerous codes used by different commands for different purposes - the "big ship" code for eample was never broken. The most vulnerable seem to have been Lufwaffe codes, particularly "Red" which was read currently for long periods. U-boat signals were often read more or less currently - but even in the periods it was closed, traffic analysis gave a surprisingly accurate oob. "Short" u-boat signals were not really much help - huff-duff normally indicated which convoy was concerned long before the signal was broken, and the bearing was chased down if suitable escorts were available, to drive under the contact keeper, whilst the convoy altered course, so that the u-boats lost the convoy even if the contact keeper survived. The success of the B-dienst in breaking the British convoy code was at least as influential up to the end of 1942 as any allied success in breaking German codes.

    Polish airmen's record approached but did not surpass that of the Czechs. Check up on Josef Frantisek - the highest scoring pilot in the B-o-B, just as an example.

    Finally, the US DID have an enigma machine before the British.

    They bought one or two of the original commercially-available Scherbius machines before the company went bankrupt.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005

    For anyone who is familiar with submarine warfare:

    How did the subs actually attack convoy ships. Did they fire torpedoes from under sea-level, if so at what depth? Was it close to the surface at periscope depth? Was it common for them to come to the surface and fire on the ships with their gun. How did the torpedoes detonate. Was it from contact with Ship's hull or was it from a timer or was it some kind of proximity switch.

    How did the subs respond to depth charges. Was it necessary for the depth charge to actually hit the submarine or was it the pressure of the water that ruptured the hull of the submarine?

    I would appreciate any enlightenment on submarine warfare. Both from the hunter and the hunteds viewpoint.

    Tas

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005

    For anyone who is familiar with submarine warfare:

    How did the subs actually attack convoy ships. Did they fire torpedoes from under sea-level, if so at what depth? Was it close to the surface at periscope depth? Was it common for them to come to the surface and fire on the ships with their gun. How did the torpedoes detonate. Was it from contact with Ship's hull or was it from a timer or was it some kind of proximity switch.

    How did the subs respond to depth charges. Was it necessary for the depth charge to actually hit the submarine or was it the pressure of the water that ruptured the hull of the submarine?

    I would appreciate any enlightenment on submarine warfare. Both from the hunter and the hunteds viewpoint.

    °Õ²¹²õÌý


    Tas

    In the early part of WWII the U boats often attacked on the surface at night. The RN had developed asdic to detect submerged submarines, and while not always reliable it made submerged attacks more dangerous. With their low silolete the U boats could often get close to or even inside the convoy, especially in the early years when escorts were very light.

    Later they had to attack submerged as the escorts increased in strength and also gained radar, better guns and often air support. The use of the snorkel helped with this as it allowed subs to recharge batteries while submerged but even so the centimetre radar was often able to detect the snorkels. [Before this subs often had to spend a lot of time on the surface because the batteries they used while submerged had limited charge]. Even afterwards they often moved on the surface as prior to streamlines nuclear powered subs surface movement was much faster than underwater. [Much of the battle was won by diverting convoys around the submarines, preventing them attacking].

    The vast majority of kills were done with contact torpedoes. Germany developed an acoustic torpedo but had considerable problems with it initially. Think they got it working later but too late.

    I think the basic effect of depth charges was by the pressure generated. Given the size of the ocean and that your working in 3-D then an actual contact would have been very unlikely. I don't know how close they needed to get in reality. Whether the very close pictures of depth charges and subs you see in films is accurate or poetic licence I don't know.

    Later we developed weapons like the squid, which fired multiple warheads ahead of the attacking destroyer. This covered a larger area in terms of the pressure and gave the sub less time to dive.

    All in all the conflict was very complex, with many factors. Advanced subs later in the war made hunting them very difficult but were too few and too late to make a big difference. Also the allies attacked the entire production chain, from shipyards in Hamburg to patrols to intercept subs travelling across the Bay of Biscay to reach the convoy lanes.

    Hope this helps.

    Steve

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005

    Re: Message 12.

    Steve,

    I know it is off topic, but may I ask my knowledgeable friend: What about the German U-boats and torpedos of WWI?

    Thanks in advance and kind regards,

    Paul.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005

    Steve,

    Thanks for your excellent message you opened the mysteries of this type of warfare or me. My own previous understanding was based on the very good film, "the Enemy Down Below". I really appreciate it. I thought perhaps some Royal Navy chap might pick up my message and elucidate.

    Tas

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by gentlemaggyann (U2151399) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005





    Having worked with many veterans,I am aware of the loss and the mental pain that veterans feel,I would therefor like to thank you for your reply,and also for what you did .My parents were children in London during those terrible times,and their memories of the doodlebugs,and of the constant airraid warnings are still vivid today.I wondered if you could tell me how some allied planes could "tip" the doodle bugs and guide them away from LOndon or other towns and cities Hi Sleepy,
    I would like to see the Polish contribution in general during ww2 given a little more credit. The poles had been working on building an Enigma machine for years prior to the outbreak of ww2. In fact it was from the Poles that the first Captured Enigma machine came from. This was given to the British after Polish/German hostilities had begun. What happened at Bletchley Park was brilliant work done as the war progressed to improve it, and keep up with German updates.

    As a little postscript, during the Battle of Britain the average Polish pilot had a better kill ratio than the average British pilot. 

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005

    Hiya Sleepy, From what I understand the V1 was the doodlebug that could be steered off course by courage's pilots. When the V1 ran out of fuel that's where it dropped. The V2 was way too fast to be dealt with in this fashion. I'm sure someone can elaborate on this for us, and from myself also, to our greatest generation on both sides of the Atlantic, my heartfelt thank you.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005

    Re: Message 12.

    Steve,

    I know it is off topic, but may I ask my knowledgeable friend: What about the German U-boats and torpedos of WWI?

    Thanks in advance and kind regards,

    ±Ê²¹³Ü±ô.Ìý


    Paul

    I'm less knowledgeable about the tactics there. Just about everything was a lot simpler and more basic as the tactics and weapons were still being developed. The U boats made most of their kills from ships travelling alone. Using convoys had many advantages but the two keep ones were forcing the subs to attack defended targets and simply making them very difficult to find. A sub had barely more chance of finding a convoy than a single ship and prior to the development of modern tracking technologies the sea was a very bid and empty place. [The bulk of the MS's sunk were quite close to Britain I believe, partly because the subs rarely had the range to go much further and partly because they were easier to find there.

    In the early part of the war a lot of subs attacked on the surface, using their gun to preserve torpedoes, which are in limited supply. However the arming of MS and especially the use of Q ships meant that this because increasingly dangerous and once convoying began surface attacks were impractical. [I don't know if any U boat commanders tried night attacks like the early days in WWII? Possibly someone more knowledgeable can tell us].

    One of the big problems for the allies was the delay in introducing convoying. This seems to have been due to two main problems. One was that many in the navies, especially the RN, found the tactic too defensive and wanted to attack, taking some time to realise that using a convoy forces the sub to come to the escorts. The other was a self-inflicted propaganda blow. To minimise the effectiveness of sub attacks allied propaganda compared sinkings with the largest possible number of sailing. This included many between ports inside Britain as coastal shipping was far more important in those days. Unfortunately, for a long time, this obscured that fact that only a relatively small number of ships were involved in the vital cross-Atlantic traffic. Therefore the navy long thought it had insufficient escorts to cover vast number of sailings they thought were involved. [Also how high a proportion of those ships were being sunk].

    Steve

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005

    Hiya Sleepy, From what I understand the V1 was the doodlebug that could be steered off course by courage's pilots. When the V1 ran out of fuel that's where it dropped. The V2 was way too fast to be dealt with in this fashion. I'm sure someone can elaborate on this for us, and from myself also, to our greatest generation on both sides of the Atlantic, my heartfelt thank you.  

    expat32

    That's correct. The V1 was basically a pilotless aircraft and if tipped off balance would just spin into the ground - or better still the sea if intercepted over land. It was dangerous and I think the initial tactic was developed by a pilot who was out of ammo. At the same time the powerful warhead of the V1 meant that shooting it could be pretty dangerous if you got too close.

    The V2 was a ballistic missile and as such was not only far too fast it flew too high. I think part of the terror caused by this was because, as it flew faster than the speed of sound there was no audible warning. You would hear the explosion , then hear it coming.

    Steve

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Wednesday, 12th October 2005

    Steve,

    Thanks for your excellent message you opened the mysteries of this type of warfare or me. My own previous understanding was based on the very good film, "the Enemy Down Below". I really appreciate it. I thought perhaps some Royal Navy chap might pick up my message and elucidate.

    °Õ²¹²õÌý


    Tas

    Glad to be of help. Hopefully there might be a few people with military experience who could give more details. [Basically I've read a lot so can give the background but from a theoretical point of view but only those who had been there can give an insight that goes much deeper than mere facts].

    Steve

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    The Germans had a magnetic pistol early in the war - it let them down badly in the Norway campaign because of anomalous magnetic conditions. Magnetic torpedos are set to run below the target as detonating there they ususally break the ship's back & even if she can be got into port she's pretty nearly unrepairable. The acoustic torpedos were usually used to attack convoy escorts, but the "foxer" was quickly developed as a counter, and proved pretty effective. The German U-boats also used "pattern running" torpedos which zig-zagged around the estimated course of the target - the Italians had a similar "circling" torpedo which they used from aircraft. German subs could angle the torpedos whereas British ones had to point the whole boat to aim the tubes - still true long after the war.

    WWI submarines - try to get hold of "Dardanelles Patrol" - the story of E11 for a good description of this. There's also a good one for British WWII - factual "One of our submarines" and fictional "Send down a dove".

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    Thanks Turnwrest,

    I appreciate your further elucidation about torpedoes. Thanks to Steve also. My best wishes,

    Tas

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    You ask specifically, >>How did the subs respond to depth charges. Was it necessary for the depth charge to actually hit the submarine or was it the pressure of the water that ruptured the hull of the submarine?<<

    It's my understanding (from having spoken with a couple of men who served in the RCN on corvettes during WW2) that depth charges used by the British navy had to explode within 5 metres of the submarine to have any chance of rupturing the hull.

    As for the torpedoes, the German navy had some serious problems with them early in the war. In one instance, a German sub fired 4 torpedoes at the Ark Royal only to see all of them explode long before they reached the target.

    The Japanese were the only belligerents who began the war with a completely dependable torpedo, and theirs was an engineering marvel. Instead of using air to support engine combustion, they used pure oxygen, hence their torpedoes had a far greater range at a much greater speed (25,000 yards at 50 knots, whereas British and US types had a range of about 6,000 yards at 35 knots) - and the torps carried by Japanese destroyers (the so-called Long Lance) had a 1500 pound warhead, whereas our and the US torps had about a 500 pound one. Also, because the gas used was oxygen, it was nearly completely consumed during combustion, hence the wake left by Japanese torpedoes was almost undetectable.

    Amazing that a country as poor as Japan (relatively speaking) could spend the time and money to thoroughly research their weapons and tactics while the wealthy US and Britain couldn't (or wouldn't), despite the fact that everyone seemed to know that war was inevitable.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    Hi Erik,

    So nice to see the 'Voice of Canada' here again. Where have you been? We have missed you. I have been explaining the origin of the Canadian Thansgiving to Hes without your support.

    Thanks for the info on the Japanese torpedoes. One final question: Was there any chance once a torpedoe was fired, for a ship to take evasive action? All my best,

    Tas

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    Hi Turnwest, I found your post on torpedoes very informative. I recall reading something by Peter Wright about how it was his responsibility to demagnetize the ships hull. Do you know if this was at all effective, and if it was I wonder why it was not continued. It's my understanding the ships magnetic field is still a common method of detonating the warhead.

    Cheers.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    "Degaussaing" a ship was more of a protectin against magnetic mines. A steel-hulled ship as built has a destinct "North" and "South" pole in the vertical plane. Passing an AC current through a "degaussing girdle" around the ship, and decreasing the current slowly, means that different sized magnetic domains are left polarised in different directions, thus reducing the residual magnetic signature. Magnetic mines are typically laid on the bottom, and are much further from the target than a torpedo, which uses the fact that the ship's metallic structure distorts the earth's magnetic field rather than the ship's own magnetism to trigger the charge.

    Re depth charges / ATWs - the first semi-successful AS ATW was the hedgehog, which threw a pattern of 24 25lb cotact-fused bombs. Squids, Limbos and AS Mortar Mk 10 (my own experience being on the last-named) throw triangular pattersn. Where 2 mountings are carried, they are set to explode above and below the sub in interlocking triangles, so that the cumulative effect of the multiple shockwaves add up to give a crushing effect.

    The Japnese Long Lance did NOT run on straight oxygen. It started on air/oxygen mix and gradually cut over to straight O2. The Japanese had failed in their early attempts, and only returned to the idea after a visit to Rodnol's torpedo rooms led to them observing gear for extracting oxygen from the air. The 24" TTs in the Cherry Trees ran on oxygen-enriched air.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by VoiceFromPoland (U2128884) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    Expat,
    Agreed that the success of Ultra would have been totally impossible without the initial Enigma machine captured in Poland, and smuggled to Britain. I did think for a minute you were going to say that the US Navy did it with U571!!!!!!!!!
    Only joking.
    ¶Ù³¢Ìý


    There is polish proverb : "the success has many fathers". In this way polish success have had strange fathers for tens of years.

    In fact there wasn't in history such occasion as "Enigma machine captured in Poland and smuggled to Britain".
    There were in the 20-ties and 30-ties great job of activity of polish cipher specialist. They used as the pioneers the mathematic methods instead of only ligustic methods to break ciphers.
    First triumph it was the breakage of soviet codes during war between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1919-1921. The reading of russian communiges was extremly heplful in the 'miracle over Vistula' - breakage of invasion of soviet Russia in August 1920, controffensive and the end of war on polish conditions in March 1921.

    First of Enigma de-codings was made in 1932 by polish specialist : Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Ró¿ycki i Henryk Zygalski.
    Then there were many innovations made by Germans in Enigma machine, and there were many innovation in polish de-coding of Enigma. In 1938 polish engineer Rejewski created the 'Bomba' - machine to search modified Enigma codes.

    In 1939 when german invasion on Poland was unavoidable, Polish goverment decided to devolve Enigma decoding technology to UK and France. It was in July 1939 six weeks before the beginig of war. The technology of Enigma decoding was developed by British even as Enigma code was developed by Germans. Then the polish name 'Bomba' of decoding machine was changed as 'Ultra'.

    In fact after WWII British didtn't want to proclaim that Poles breaks Enigma.
    In 1968 Donald Cameron Watt admited (non officialy) that the Enigma decoding technology was made in Poland. As official british confirmation in 2002 at Bletchley Park near London there was exosure of memorial for commemoration of Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Ró¿ycki i Henryk Zygalski.


    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    Hi Professor-plumb,

    "Send Down a Dove" an excellent book. If I remember rightly the Andrew stopped the selling of this book from the NAFIE shops. The line comes from an old submariner's ditty.

    Oh lord above send down a dove,
    With wings as sharp as razors,
    To cut the throats of them there blokes,
    That sells bad beer to sailors.

    Regards
    Spike
    (Ex-submariner) The Germans had a magnetic pistol early in the war - it let them down badly in the Norway campaign because of anomalous magnetic conditions. Magnetic torpedos are set to run below the target as detonating there they ususally break the ship's back & even if she can be got into port she's pretty nearly unrepairable. The acoustic torpedos were usually used to attack convoy escorts, but the "foxer" was quickly developed as a counter, and proved pretty effective. The German U-boats also used "pattern running" torpedos which zig-zagged around the estimated course of the target - the Italians had a similar "circling" torpedo which they used from aircraft. German subs could angle the torpedos whereas British ones had to point the whole boat to aim the tubes - still true long after the war.

    WWI submarines - try to get hold of "Dardanelles Patrol" - the story of E11 for a good description of this. There's also a good one for British WWII - factual "One of our submarines" and fictional "Send down a dove".  

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Thursday, 13th October 2005



    The Japnese Long Lance did NOT run on straight oxygen. It started on air/oxygen mix and gradually cut over to straight O2. The Japanese had failed in their early attempts, and only returned to the idea after a visit to Rodnol's torpedo rooms led to them observing gear for extracting oxygen from the air. The 24" TTs in the Cherry Trees ran on oxygen-enriched air. 


    Prof

    Thanks for the information. On that last point above. I had read, a long while ago, that Britain tried developing an oxygen 'fuelled' torpedo in the 20's but couldn't getting it working and the Japanese developed the Long Lance from that. Possibly that's a mutation from what you said about the Rodney.

    Actually discussing some naval points on another board, relating to a game I hope will start soon. We were discussing why the powers persevered with torpedoes on capital ships for so long. Do you have any input on this?

    Steve

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 13th October 2005

    I don't know - sheer conservatism, perhaps? Nelson DID try to torpedo Bismarck, but the whole idea seems like a waste of time, doesn't it?

    BTW - the torpedo tubes were also used to launch very heavy A/S charges - that's supposed to be why the Hunts had them fitted, and yes, avoiding action was a routine thing if you thought eels (to give them their German nickname) had been fired at you, either turn toward the firer, to dodge them and to force the sub. deep, or turn away as Jellicoe did at Jutland. US submariners developed a tactic of firing a torpedo "down the throat" of an approaching destroyer with a degree of success.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th October 2005

    Re: Message 17.

    My dear friend Steve,

    excuse for the delay. I thank you very much for your excellent reply, especially for your knowledgeable last paragraph. You sounds as Gilgamesh many times.

    I had a look to Charcoal's "Dardanelles Patrol" from his reply just under yours. Very interesting: about the WWI subs.

    You are all an "expert" bunch of history buffs.

    Kind regards and thanks again,

    Paul.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th October 2005

    Re: Message 20.

    Charcoal,

    I did some research on the internet about "Dardanelles Patrol" and the E11. Thank you for mentioning that. You all seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject.

    Kind regards.

    Report message31

Back to top

About this Board

The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

or  to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The message board is closed for posting.

This messageboard is .

Find out more about this board's

Search this Board

Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD

Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation

Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.