A 'Dolittle Raid' on North America, March 1942
- Thread starter oudi14
- Start date
This is the vessel I believe would best accomplish the goals....
The Type IX Submarine. Produced in massive numbers and it has a sizable deck gun for bombardment purposes. In my opinion they could succeed in such an operation, in some cases be more than successful. As for the "battleship" submarines that Hitler would request, it was already in existance. The Type XI submarine was an "artillery boat" with two twin 127mm guns. Construction had begun in 1939, but ceased after the start of the Second World War. I meant to post a picture, but I cannot find one that will show. Even if they had begun construction immediately, the first commisions would not begin until early 1944, by which point the Allies would have developed effective counter-measures.
The Type IX Submarine. Produced in massive numbers and it has a sizable deck gun for bombardment purposes. In my opinion they could succeed in such an operation, in some cases be more than successful. As for the "battleship" submarines that Hitler would request, it was already in existance. The Type XI submarine was an "artillery boat" with two twin 127mm guns. Construction had begun in 1939, but ceased after the start of the Second World War. I meant to post a picture, but I cannot find one that will show. Even if they had begun construction immediately, the first commisions would not begin until early 1944, by which point the Allies would have developed effective counter-measures.
Also it would make it that Normandy landings could not go in 1944 . As it was the DE program ate into the Building of the landing craft . They were useing the same motor .
Halifax would be a better target for sure, but I chose St. John's because it would be the only target to hit in North America and still give the Condors a fighting chance of making a round trip. Theoretically, they could do this and not suffer any losses.
1) 1942 America is not 2001 America, and is a nation at war rather than being lulled into complacency.
2) Pearl Harbor already caused plenty of shock and a massive sense of vulnerability; there is a reason 9/11 is frequently compared to Pearl Harbor in terms of the psychological effect on the American people. Another such attack in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor will have a fairly minimal shock effect.
That's only true if we are considering an attack on Newfoundland. If we're speaking of an attack on New York there would be a massive shock. But as stated before, there's no way the Germans can do it by air, and minimal chance of that Italian plan to succeed, I'd say. Furthermore, even if tehy try something by Uboat, can they succeed in inflicting massive damage? Probably only with massively altered boats and a great number of them - so it will be again a suicide mission.
There's hardly been a year when the USA has not been at war with somebody. It seems like pretty much every year. There'd already been recent terror attacks in the 1990s as well.
Hawaii is not the mainland. Different kettle of fish altogether.
Getting hit on the mainland would be a much bigger shock, and would also make the USA's defences look ridiculous bad when they were already at War and with the public expectation that such a direct attack shouldn't be possible. There'd be political scandal over it.
Yes, partly because a certain group called PNAC referred to such a concept before hand, which has encouraged the reference. Otherwise, it doesn't really compare as no military assets were destroyed, and there was no attempt to attack the military.
However, a Doolittle type of raid would be much more like 9/11 because the targets are definitely civilians - intentionally. That's more of a shock to civilians than some soldiers getting killed. It shows the enemy as much nastier. The comparison would be closer to what happened with the British public's reaction to the bombing of Coventry; it was already wartime, but the shock of a civilian population centre being targeted with the obvious intent of killing thousands of unarmed civilians was far worse in the public's eyes than some soldiers dying.
1) Pearl Harbor is far away, not on the mainland. A lot of mainland Americans can't even point to Hawaii on a map.
2) The targets were military by and large, not thousands of civilians.
3) An actual successful attack that kills thousands of civilians - intentionally targeting those civilians - makes all those wartime defences look useless suddenly in the public's eyes.
Most importantly; 4) It's been a looooong time since any mainland civilian population centre was targeted by a military attack that killed thousands of people. Therefore the public's reaction would be horror. When was the previous time? I think you'd have to go back to the ACW for that. Decades.
Last edited:
The idea that a one time attack by u-boat fire could do thousands of casualties is crazy, it seems to me that you think u-boats will sail into NY Harbor and stay there and fire at will for however long they want, which is not only naive, it's stupid.
Those guns on the u-boats weren't made for costal bombing on a large scale, they were for assaulting unescorted ships at sea and giving the u-boat some firepower while it wasn't underwater.
The number of dead in London from the Blitz was about 50000, and that was after months of daily bombing by hundreds of bombers, the idea that a few u-boats would manage to kill even 1000 people with their only deck gun is insane.
Even if such an attack by suicidal u-boats were to have happened, it would have been a singular event, coastal defense would have prevented anymore such incidents from happening.
You might as well say "WI whole german fleet got teleported to the East coasted and started bombing NY" and have the thread moved to ASB.
Those guns on the u-boats weren't made for costal bombing on a large scale, they were for assaulting unescorted ships at sea and giving the u-boat some firepower while it wasn't underwater.
The number of dead in London from the Blitz was about 50000, and that was after months of daily bombing by hundreds of bombers, the idea that a few u-boats would manage to kill even 1000 people with their only deck gun is insane.
Even if such an attack by suicidal u-boats were to have happened, it would have been a singular event, coastal defense would have prevented anymore such incidents from happening.
You might as well say "WI whole german fleet got teleported to the East coasted and started bombing NY" and have the thread moved to ASB.
Some kind of sea-planes that can be carried by submarines would be ideal.
How many would be required? Six, a dozen? Similar tactics as the Doolittle raid with a weapon which spreads the damage and can kill loads of civilians
How many would be required? Six, a dozen? Similar tactics as the Doolittle raid with a weapon which spreads the damage and can kill loads of civilians
An attack that uses submarines in some way is not necessarily ASB with the right tools/weapons. They'd certainly have a better chance of getting close enough to the USA's eastern seaboard than surface shipping, and if they carried some kind of aircraft that could be used for bombing, that could be all that's needed.
Like the Doolittle Raid, it would be practically a one-way mission, and act of desperation and irrationality. It could also be enough of a distraction that USA military resources would have to be redirected to counter the possibility of another similar attack.
A bunch of little Japanese mini-subs caused a huge ruckus when they attacked Sydney Harbour during WW2. The military damage done and the casualties were as minimal. the cultural and psychological effect was huge - and Australia was already at war.
Getting an attack in where people don't expect it, is always going to have some useful shock value.
To me the political repercussions of such an attack are interesting as well. A notable attack on an American city might be a boost to anti-Roosevelt Democrats and Republicans such that it could fracture the informal truce on political manipulation of the war effort.
That's not to mention the shifting of American production -- whether antiaircraft guns for the home front or more DEs, that could have interesting butterfly effects.
That's not to mention the shifting of American production -- whether antiaircraft guns for the home front or more DEs, that could have interesting butterfly effects.
There are some differences with the Doolittle Raid though;
- 16 B-25's used out of nearly 10 000 built versus 16 Fw-200 used out of 275, which is nearly 10%!
The remark by a previous poster that losing a dozen Fw-200's would have huge effects on the Battle for the Atlantic is if anything an understatement.
- The Doolittle Raid wasn't planned to be a suicide-mission; after the bombing the planes were to land on emergency-fields in China, which was a co-belligerent. Parachuting into the Atlantic from a giant airliner in winter however is suicidal.
Also I doubt the US would be distracted much with regards to it's use of resources; they were after all already putting up massive amounts of AAA on the continental US if I'm not mistaken. The most which will happen is that the balance of forces used against Japan/Germany is altered even more to Germany's disadvantage.
Most usefull and least costly (in German resources spent) attack would probably be if the Germans somehow manage to capture the Surcouf in 1940. IRL they almost managed to do so.
The Surcouf wouldn't fit in the German doctrine and it would be a one-off anyways for the Kriegsmarine.
Expending it on a symbolical attack wouldn't be a great loss, although it had such a large crew you'd be able to crew 2 Type IXC's with it.
It was armed with 2x8inch guns and a midget-aircraft or several torpedoes.
Although the aircraft wouldn't be very useful with only a 175 hp engine, as it won't be lifting any bombs or machine-guns.
usertron2020
Donor
Uh, no. The American Civil War did NOT target civilians. Civilian casualties in the war were relatively rare, except among black refugees. To go back far enough to find an event in terms of loss to 9/11, you'd have to go back to....9/11.
usertron2020
Donor
Does anybody out there know about Japan's Aircraft Carrier Submarines? This is not ASB. I've seen a picture of USN sailors inspecting a captured example after VJ-Day. The story goes it did one mission, a recon of San Francisco, but that may just be urban legend.
Really? Are you sure?
General William Tecumseh Sherman was notorious for his role in the slaughter of civilians, and as a racist. Lots of them around back then.
Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Sec. of War, - "There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."
He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them. Sherman didn't mind using the random slaughter of innocent people either. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon.
The book by Walter Cisco is supposed to be some good research on the subject.
Sherman wasn't the only one. It was deliberate strategy.
No, quite a bit more than that. It's easy to show that it became a policy to kill civilians among some of the commanding officers.
You're missing the context of the conversation and what I was replying to, and they'd said and why. Sorry.
The point was being raised about WW2 and prior to that. 9/11 was after.
Yes, I know.
The discussion was about the Germans doing it, not the Japanese (who had 42 submarines with the capability and used them extensively).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carriers_of_Japan
I'm sure that the Germans could've managed something similar. The Germans were working on the idea in 1939.
Having aircraft on submarines goes back long before WW2. Other nations had tried it too, such as the French;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf
The Italians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Fieramosca_(submarine)
A bombardment by Type IX submarines COULD cause thousands of casualties in New York alone, simply because of the cities shape. Great Britain is not a good comparision since they were already at war and had developed counter-measures, along with having fair warning before air-raids occured. This would not be the case in regards to a suprise attack on the East Coast of the United States.
I assume that they would attack MORE than just New York, but I'll assume that New York is the only location being attacked at the time. Twelve German IX's manage to sneak into New York Harbor. Four are tasked with attacking the Staten Island Shipyard, Four with the Brooklyn Naval Yard, Two with the bombardment of Manhatten, and Two with the bombardment of Brooklyn. Each of these vessels can fire around fifteen to eighteen shots per minute from the deck gun from the moment the submarines rise and begin firing; assuming a minute for the deck gun crews to get into position, in the second minute around 180 to 216 rounds will be fired into New York. By the third minute it will be around 360 to 432 rounds. By the fourth it will be around 540 to 648 rounds. As many as 22 torpedos can be used by each submarine, though likely 12 each will be spared for the journey home; therefore, 120 torpedos could be used against any vessels in the harbour.
By the fifth minute, the submarines would meet back in New York harbour with the crews having been given free-fire orders (720 to 864 rounds) . In the sixth minute, the Statue of Liberty would be targeted and bombarded until destroyed. In the seventh minute, the crews would be recalled. In the eighth minute, the Germans would make their escape.
I assume that they would attack MORE than just New York, but I'll assume that New York is the only location being attacked at the time. Twelve German IX's manage to sneak into New York Harbor. Four are tasked with attacking the Staten Island Shipyard, Four with the Brooklyn Naval Yard, Two with the bombardment of Manhatten, and Two with the bombardment of Brooklyn. Each of these vessels can fire around fifteen to eighteen shots per minute from the deck gun from the moment the submarines rise and begin firing; assuming a minute for the deck gun crews to get into position, in the second minute around 180 to 216 rounds will be fired into New York. By the third minute it will be around 360 to 432 rounds. By the fourth it will be around 540 to 648 rounds. As many as 22 torpedos can be used by each submarine, though likely 12 each will be spared for the journey home; therefore, 120 torpedos could be used against any vessels in the harbour.
By the fifth minute, the submarines would meet back in New York harbour with the crews having been given free-fire orders (720 to 864 rounds) . In the sixth minute, the Statue of Liberty would be targeted and bombarded until destroyed. In the seventh minute, the crews would be recalled. In the eighth minute, the Germans would make their escape.
Interesting idea. How long would the response time for the defenders be, I wonder? How quickly can some sort of anti-submarine action be taken....