Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

My father was torpedoed off the US east coast by U-653 in May 1942. U-boats were more easily able to cause economic sabotage by sinking ships in US coastal waters than by attacking US ports. U-boats are not equipped to duel with shore batteries. U-boats are very vulnerable because the slightest crack to their pressure hulls will prevent them diving. Their ...


4

According to Gannon's book, Operation Drumbeat and a quote from U-123 commander Lieutenant Captain Reinhard Hardegen, from the article Sharkes in the Water, the issue that most deterred U-boats from entering American harbors was that they did not have detailed charts of the harbor and feared running aground. Hardegen said they neither went aground near New ...


2

Here is an outline of a few sentences distilled from many long paragraphs at my previously mentioned website. The apparent military superiority of the horse-mounted nomads of central Eurasia during ancient and medieval times was due to: The Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan, Hun, Avar, Magyar, Mongol, et al armies had a tremendous advantage in both strategic and ...


2

Why weren't Celts, Ostrogoths, Teutonic knights, or Slavs pushing east? At times, all of these people pushed eastwards. It just depended on relative technology and strength of population. Celts: At maximum expansion, about 270 BC, they invaded Poland, the Balkans, and even central Anatolia and the Ukraine. Goths: Before moving west ahead of the ...


9

Even before the WW1, The Haague Conventions (1899 and 1907) worked, that, for example, forbade to use baloons for shooting or bombing or banned some rifle/cannon calibres. Crossbows were forbidden several time by Catholic Church or some kings. It was in Middle Ages. Henry VII., possession of crossbow forbidden Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in ...


-4

Excellent question! I respectfully invite you to visit my new website "The Nomadic Horse Peoples of Central Asia" at http://www.horsenomads.info Please note it is dot-info, not dot-com. I think the textual "Introduction" section of my website addresses your question rather well. Thanks! Stephen W. Richey


12

Attacking targets in ports is the least productive way of using your ships for at least two reasons: 1) The damage you do can be easily repaired and 2) the chances of your own ships getting "caught" or sunk are the highest. The Japanese found this out at Pearl Harbor. All but one of the ships that they sunk were raised from the sea and recycled. (Only the ...


5

What the other answers are missing is a clear explanation of why it is dangerous for a sub to enter a harbor. The reason why a sub cannot normally enter a harbor, like Boston Harbor or New York Harbor, is that they are shallow, confined areas. New York Harbor is about 50 feet deep. Boston Harbor is even more shallow, less than 20 feet in many places. It has ...


4

(At least one U boat ventured up into Canadian waters, but there doesn't seem to have been much damage.) The advantage of U-boats was their stealth, but when they were detected then countermeasures could be taken. When attacking a US port, their location would have been easy to narrow down, and there would be massive allied firepower nearby. Far easier, and ...


7

Because it would have been suicidal and unproductive. The bulk of the German U-boat fleet barely had enough range for operations in North America at all. They did things like filling water tanks with diesel just to get enough range to hunt convoys. The bigger, less maneuverable Type IX did have better range, but they were also clumsier and more detectable. ...


4

Oldcat already answered for the naval aspects. There were also plans to obtain a long-range strategic bomber that would be capable of striking the contiguous United States from Germany. From Wikipedia: The Amerika-Bomber project was an initiative of the German Reichsluftfahrtministerium, to obtain a long-range strategic bomber for the Luftwaffe that ...


6

The only ships the Germans could get to the US coast were U-Boats. These had small guns and no armor. A Coast Guard cutter could tear one to pieces. A 50 caliber machine gun hole could make the U-Boat unable to submerge again. So they stayed just outside the port and sunk ships, until the US started convoying and escorting the merchant ships. The sunk ...


5

Yes, there may be "soldiers" considered neutral - even if they are members of armed forces, provided that their sole duty was medical aid for the wounded ("ambulances"). The seminal document is the "initial" Geneva Convention 1864 ("Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field"), initiated by Henry Dunant, after the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included