Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
submarines in ww2.

This is partly as mines need to be put along the shore, which can be
dangerous if the submarines were detected.

Conversely, it is safer to do minelaying than attacking convoys.

During ww2, they did achieve quite a bit.

https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm

It is not only the damage, but they also slowed and stopped shipping. Mines
could knock out a port until cleared, which is not an easy task. It can,
unlike torpedos, be effective long after the U-boat has left.

What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?

On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
> submarines in ww2.
>
> This is partly as mines need to be put along the shore, which can be
> dangerous if the submarines were detected.
>
> Conversely, it is safer to do minelaying than attacking convoys.
>
> During ww2, they did achieve quite a bit.
>
> https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm
>
> It is not only the damage, but they also slowed and stopped shipping. Mines
> could knock out a port until cleared, which is not an easy task. It can,
> unlike torpedos, be effective long after the U-boat has left.
>
> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
>
My immediate thought is, could they make more mines to do more mine laying?

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:36:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
>> submarines in ww2.
>>
>> This is partly as mines need to be put along the shore, which can be
>> dangerous if the submarines were detected.
>>
>> Conversely, it is safer to do minelaying than attacking convoys.
>>
>> During ww2, they did achieve quite a bit.
>>
>> https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm
>>
>> It is not only the damage, but they also slowed and stopped shipping. Mines
>> could knock out a port until cleared, which is not an easy task. It can,
>> unlike torpedos, be effective long after the U-boat has left.
>>
>> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
>>
> My immediate thought is, could they make more mines to do more mine laying?

I would not think that would be a big problem.

Hi all

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 12:36:10 PM UTC+2, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among

<<much snipped>>

> > What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
> >
> My immediate thought is, could they make more mines to do more mine laying?
>
>
Almost any and every question concerning the Third Reich will come down exactly this question.

Can Germany (and her allies) make more of product X (or a better product X++) without crippling the production of Product Y, D and E11?

Most of the time the answer is "No!". After the Battle of Britain it should have been clear to everyone that Germany was fighting a war of economies and that it just wasn't big enough or mechanized enough to win, or even fight the allies to a draw.

Alternative angle to the question: Where can the German U-boats lay these mines so that they will be effective against Britain and her allies. All the approaches to the British Isles are heavily guarded by a combination of the RAF, Royal Navy, and the UK Coast Guard. Even before the BoB it was murder to try send a submarine from the Baltic to the Med. There were just too many Britons trying to kill them.

Trying to mine US / Canadian sea ports or coast lines combines a dangerous and long voyage with the extreme danger of trying to work in largely uncharted underwater regions, while operating under the nose of a Navy that in 1940 was already bigger than the Royal Navy.

U-Boats operating from Ports in the Med might have a chance of making Malta and Gibrater a little more hazardous.

> --
> Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
> Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

Regards
Frank

Hi all

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:13:14 AM UTC+2, SolomonW wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:36:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

<<much snipped>>

> > My immediate thought is, could they make more mines to do more mine laying?
> I would not think that would be a big problem.

Naval mines are pretty sophisticated, especially by 1940. They also need to be big (tons of explosives) if they are to be useful. And those explosives need to be kept watertight. And the mine needs to be placed at the right depth so not to be visible to the crew of any potential victim. Detonators are also finicky things that need to be kept water tight and powered.

Possibly the resources dedicated to building Hitler's Sea Lion invasion fleet could be used but like I mentioned in my previous post Germany, even with all of Europe to feed its war machine simply can't compete on an economic level.

Regards
Frank

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:29:42 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby wrote:

> Hi all
>
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:13:14 AM UTC+2, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:36:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
> <<much snipped>>
>
>>> My immediate thought is, could they make more mines to do more mine laying?
>> I would not think that would be a big problem.
>
> Naval mines are pretty sophisticated, especially by 1940. They also need to be big (tons of explosives) if they are to be useful. And those explosives need to be kept watertight. And the mine needs to be placed at the right depth so not to be visible to the crew of any potential victim. Detonators are also finicky things that need to be kept water tight and powered.

I never thought it was going to be easy. In any case, the Germans were good
at mine building, probably better than in torpedos.

>
> Possibly the resources dedicated to building Hitler's Sea Lion invasion fleet could be used but like I mentioned in my previous post Germany, even with all of Europe to feed its war machine simply can't compete on an economic level.

Indeed.

The other point is that minelaying subs do not need as large a crew. The
operations are overall less risky. You do not need to broadcaust your
position to gather a wolfpack. Nor do you need to assemble a fleet.

The other point is that minelaying subs do not need as large a crew. The
operations are overall less risky. You do not need to broadcast your
position to gather a wolfpack as you do not need to assemble a wolfpack.

>
>
> Regards
> Frank

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:23:44 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby wrote:

> Hi all
>
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 12:36:10 PM UTC+2, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
>
> <<much snipped>>
>
>>> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
>>>
>> My immediate thought is, could they make more mines to do more mine laying?
>>
>>
> Almost any and every question concerning the Third Reich will come down exactly this question.

No argument here.

>
> Can Germany (and her allies) make more of product X (or a better product X++) without crippling the production of Product Y, D and E11?

That is the question. If the US wasted money on many significant projects,
it did not matter as they had more resources.

>
> Most of the time the answer is "No!". After the Battle of Britain it should have been clear to everyone that Germany was fighting a war of economies and that it just wasn't big enough or mechanized enough to win, or even fight the allies to a draw.

Until the war in Russia bogged down probably after the failed attack on
Moscow, it was clear that Russia would not fall soon, and the US had
entered the war.

>
> Alternative angle to the question: Where can the German U-boats lay these mines so that they will be effective against Britain and her allies. All the approaches to the British Isles are heavily guarded by a combination of the RAF, Royal Navy, and the UK Coast Guard. Even before the BoB it was murder to try send a submarine from the Baltic to the Med. There were just too many Britons trying to kill them.

I would say 1944. The main port for the UK in ww2 was Liverpool. There are
two choke points from Liverpool to the Atlantic.

>
> Trying to mine US / Canadian sea ports or coast lines combines a dangerous and long voyage with the extreme danger of trying to work in largely uncharted underwater regions, while operating under the nose of a Navy that in 1940 was already bigger than the Royal Navy.

The US anti-submarine record was not good till mid-1943.

>
> U-Boats operating from Ports in the Med might have a chance of making Malta and Gibrater a little more hazardous.

This was actually mined very well by the Germans.

>
>
>> --
>> Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
>> Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.
>
> Regards
> Frank

On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
> submarines in ww2.
>
> This is partly as mines need to be put along the shore, which can be
> dangerous if the submarines were detected.
>
> Conversely, it is safer to do minelaying than attacking convoys.
>
> During ww2, they did achieve quite a bit.
>
> https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm
>
> It is not only the damage, but they also slowed and stopped shipping. Mines
> could knock out a port until cleared, which is not an easy task. It can,
> unlike torpedos, be effective long after the U-boat has left.
>
> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
>
>
Germany lacked what the USA had, one of the
greatest weapons to lay mines and deny ship
transport during war, the B-29!

About 86,100 results (0.57 seconds)

Mines Away! - Department of Defensehttps:
//media.defense.gov › Dec › T_CHILSTRO...PDF
Japanese Mine Countermeasures World War II Conclusions. 6. AERIAL
MINELAYING -AN AIR FORCE MISSION ... based B-29s necessarily limited
their minelaying.
59 pages

Allied aircraft lay mines in Pacific Theater during World War II.
https://www.criticalpast.com › video › 65675049278_...
View Aerial Mine laying by B-29 bombers vintage historic HD stock video
footage in Mariana Islands, 1944. Buy HD video and archival still photo
images of ...

Operation Starvation - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Operation_Starvation
Operation Starvation was a naval mining operation conducted in World War
II by the United ... The mining runs were made by individual B-29
Superfortresses at night at ...
‎Operation · ‎Aftermath

B-29 Super Fortress long range bomber - WWII American Aircraft
https://worldwar2headquarters.com › HTML › b29
Powerful Long Range Strategic Bomber, Crew/Armament, Distinguishing
Features, Fire-Bombing Japan, Reconnaissance and Mine Laying, Atomic
Bomb - Enola Gay.
Used in; WWII by: US Army Air Forces; US Air ...
Range: 4,100 miles

Boeing B-29 Superfortress Bomber - HistoryLink.org
https://www.historylink.org › file
Jun 5, 2002 — Famed for its World War II exploits, Boeing's
Superfortress was conceived before the war. The B-29 was born near the
war's midpoint, ...

USAAF Bombing Doctrine and the Aerial Minelaying ... - JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by JS Chilstrom · 1993 · Cited by 1 — On 10 August 1944, B-29s of the
462nd Bomb Group thundered down the Moesi River only five hundred ... A.
Johnson, termed early mine policy in World War II.

Operation Starvation - HistoryNet
https://www.historynet.com › operation-starvation
Late on the afternoon of March 27, 1945, 102 four-engine Boeing B-29s
clattered aloft from Tinian, rising ponderously from the island and
climbing slowly ...
Missing: minelaying ‎| Must include: minelaying

Operation Starvation - RAND Corporation
https://www.rand.org › dam › rand › pubs › reportsPDF
paign against Japan in World War II. of particular significance and ...
The phenomenal results of the B-29 aerial mining campaign against.
92 pages

the significance of us army air forces minelaying in world war ii
https://www.jstor.org › stable › resrep13936
May 1, 1992 — On August 10, 1944, B-29s of the 462nd Bomb Group
thundered down the Moesi River only 500 feet above the water, strafed
Japanese ships and ...

On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
> submarines in ww2.
>
> This is partly as mines need to be put along the shore, which can be
> dangerous if the submarines were detected.
>
> Conversely, it is safer to do minelaying than attacking convoys.
>
> During ww2, they did achieve quite a bit.
>
> https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm
>
> It is not only the damage, but they also slowed and stopped shipping. Mines
> could knock out a port until cleared, which is not an easy task. It can,
> unlike torpedos, be effective long after the U-boat has left.
>
> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
>
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_X_submarine

"Type X (XB) U-boats were a special type of German submarine
(U-boat). Although intended as long-range mine-layers, they
were later used as long-range cargo transports"

Eight were made, looks like they could carry and place
66 mines each.

Face it, as Winston Churchill knew, and spoke,
once the USA entered the war, there was no way
Germany could win. The technology quality and quantity
was just too much. The critical battle, the
Battle of the Atlantic was steadily going to the
Allies.

After May 1942 the signs were clear.
After May 1943 the sinkings became more
one sided.

On 8/26/2021 8:15 AM, a425couple wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
>> submarines in ww2.
>>
>> This is partly as mines need to be put along the shore, which can be
>> dangerous if the submarines were detected.
>>
>> Conversely, it is safer to do minelaying than attacking convoys.
>>
>> During ww2, they did achieve quite a bit.
>>
>> https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm
>>
>> It is not only the damage, but they also slowed and stopped shipping.
>> Mines
>> could knock out a port until cleared, which is not an easy task. It can,
>> unlike torpedos, be effective long after the U-boat has left.
>>
>> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more
>> mine-laying?
>>
>>
> Germany lacked what the USA had, one of the
> greatest weapons to lay mines and deny ship
> transport during war, the B-29!
>
> Operation Starvation - HistoryNet
> https://www.historynet.com › operation-starvation
> Late on the afternoon of March 27, 1945, 102 four-engine Boeing B-29s
> clattered aloft from Tinian, rising ponderously from the island and
> climbing slowly ...
>
"Late on the afternoon of March 27, 1945, 102 four-engine
Boeing B-29s clattered aloft from Tinian, rising ponderously
from the island and climbing slowly away, bound for another
night raid on Japan. -----
each of Davies’s B-29s was carrying a dozen huge sea mines instead
of its usual load of hundreds of incendiary bombs. Their target
was not the cities, but the lifelines that fed them: Japan’s
sea-lanes. ----
there is little doubt as to the effectiveness of the mining
campaign. Barely one month into the effort Japanese imports
had fallen by 50 percent; by the end of the war, the air-delivered
mines had sunk close to five hundred ships and damaged as many more,
and imports were down an astonishing 90 percent. It was a fatal
blow for a nation already severely strained by shortages and
the continuing demand for food, fuel, and raw materials. ---
aircraft were responsible for nearly 90 percent (more than 21,000)
of the 25,000 Allied mines laid in Japanese waters throughout the
entire war, compared to the 3,000 mines delivered by surface ships,
and the bare 650 delivered by submarines. ---
Yet aerial mining of Japan’s home waters had sunk or damaged 961
ships totaling 2,000,000 tons. Of these, aerial mines sunk 484
ships representing nearly 650,000 tons. ----
nearly 90 percent of Japan’s twenty-two repair yards were
mine-blockaded, stranding damaged vessels. ---
Of the 143 Japanese ships sunk by bombs, torpedoes, and mines
in July 1945, American submariners accounted for less than 10
percent; airmen accounted for over 90 percent, fully 129 vessels. ---

Imagine, over 1,000 laid in one night.
Where a German submarine would take weeks to deliver 66!

On 8/23/2021 10:59 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> Minelaying was successful, but it was not the favorite method among
> submarines in ww2.
> ---
> What if the Germans U-boats, e-boats and planes had done more mine-laying?
>
I would think you would find Chapter 2 here
about the German use of planes to lay mines
in the Thames quite interesting:

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/28/2001861720/-1/-1/0/T_CHILSTROM_MINES_AWAY.PDF

Started Nov. 20, 1939.

Overall the Germans laid an impressive 223,000 mines
in WWII, from mostly surface ships, which sank 576
British vessels.

------------------
meanwhile, I had a direct connection with
the below in 1972:

"After years of awaiting the order, carrier attack aircraft would now
close Haiphong with mines.
While the planes were airborne, the president announced that ships in
port had three days to leave before
the mines activated. Five elected to depart, but neither the 27 ships
remaining, nor any from outside,
challenged the minefield for the next nine months. Aircraft also mined
other harbors, river entrances,
and areas along the coast--against none of which could the North
Vietnamese mount a serious
minesweeping effort. The mines did not need to sink ships to be
effective, since traffic through deep
water ports fell from forty ships per month to zero.21 The mines were
"on duty" twenty-four hours a day
without unduly exposing friendly forces to hostile fire. Moreover, since
mines were passive "weapons
that wait," they facilitated a blockade without aggressive action toward
the shipping of non-belligerent
nations, which previously traded with North Vietnam.---

On 8/25/21 2:23 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> Even before the BoB it was murder to try send a submarine from the Baltic
> to the Med. There were just too many Britons trying to kill them.

???

Nearly all the U-boats operating from France in 1941-1944 got to France
by cruising around Britain to the west. Very few had any trouble doing
that.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 20:32:41 -0700
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>
>------------------
>meanwhile, I had a direct connection with
>the below in 1972:
>
>
"After years of awaiting the order, carrier attack aircraft would now
> close Haiphong with mines. While the planes were airborne, the
>president announced that ships in port had three days to leave before
>the mines activated. Five elected to depart, but neither the 27 ships
>remaining, nor any from outside, challenged the minefield for the next
>nine months. Aircraft also mined other harbors, river entrances, and
>areas along the coast--against none of which could the North Vietnamese
>mount a serious minesweeping effort. The mines did not need to sink ships
>to be effective, since traffic through deep water ports fell from forty ships
>per month to zero.21 The mines were "on duty" twenty-four hours a day
>without unduly exposing friendly forces to hostile fire. Moreover, since
>mines were passive "weapons that wait," they facilitated a blockade
>without aggressive action toward the shipping of non-belligerent nations,
>which previously traded with North Vietnam.---

As was said by General "Storming" Norman Swatzkopf: all it takes
for an effective minefield is one mine and a press release.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 8/27/21 11:17 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> As was said by General "Storming" Norman Swatzkopf: all it takes
> for an effective minefield is one mine and a press release

Or just an explosion of some kind in the right place. The mine isn't
necessary.

For instance:

Late in WW II, the German navy deployed U-boats equipped with snorkels,
which never had to surface - a great advantage. But there was a
disadvantage: a submerged boat could not take sights on the sun and
stars for navigation.

The Germans found a solution for use in the area south of Ireland.
In that area, there is a large conical seamount. The U-boats had depth
sounders; by going "upslope" anywhere above that seamount, a U-boat
would arrive at the peak, and thus fix its exact position.

Rodger Winn, the brilliant head of the Admiralty's U-boat Tracking
Room, guessed that the Germans were doing this, and asked for a
minefield to be laid there. But no minelayer was available.

So he asked Ewan Montagu of the XX Committee if they could do something.

One of the top Double-Cross agents, TATE, had reported having a "friend"
who was an expert in mine-laying. TATE informed the Germans that his
"friend" had told him of a new minefield. "Can't tell you where, of
course, but it's south of Ireland where U-boats go to fix position
when they're snorting [running with just the snorkel up]."

The Germans received the message, but there was no apparent reaction.
Then the deceivers had a bit of luck: a U-boat was sunk south of
Ireland, and some of the crew escaped ashore.

The next day, TATE sent a furious message to his controllers. His
"mine-laying friend" had come round to celebrate: his new minefield
had got a U-boat and he might get a medal! TATE was outraged: he
risked his life to get this information - and they ignored it. A
ship and lives thrown away! He was fed up, he was quitting.

The controllers responded with fulsome apologies. And the next day,
a order was broadcast directing U-boats to stay out of the 50-mile
square area centered on that seamount. TATE's phony minefield both
denied the U-boats their navigation fix, and created a large safe
area for Allied ships.

And Rodger Winn, as usual, was proved right.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:50:55 -0700, a425couple wrote:

> After May 1942 the signs were clear.
> After May 1943 the sinkings became more
> one sided.

You could start the POD early, say by October 1939, much of the ocean
regions west of Liverpool were mined.

On 8/27/2021 4:51 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 8/27/21 11:17 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>     As was said by General "Storming" Norman Swatzkopf: all it takes
>> for an effective minefield is one mine and a press release
>
> Or just an explosion of some kind in the right place. The mine isn't
> necessary.
>
> For instance:
>
> Late in WW II, the German navy deployed U-boats equipped with snorkels,
>
Cool story. Thanks for posting it.