Did the Americans trade destroyers in the “destroyer deal” that they would later need themselves?Before Pearl Harbor, what percentage of Americans believed the US would stay out of the war?When did the English and Americans realize that vegetables were healthy?Why were Japanese Americans forced to move, while German Americans and Italian Americans did not generally suffer the same consequences?What was the most important change that took place in American society as a result of the New Deal?What laws did the king “refuse to pass… unless those people would relinquish the right of representation”?What was the program of the Mensheviks in their later years? How did they hope to achieve it?Did the Netherlands join the anti-Japanese oil embargo later than US? If so why?Was there any official affirmation from the US government that they would win the Vietnam War?The WWI Christmas truce of 1914 resulted in no consequences, in spite of clear warnings against such beforehand - why were there no courts-martial?Why did the British take Hong Kong instead of any other of the later treaty ports?
Is alignment needed after replacing upper control arms?
How do I get the =LEFT function in excel, to also take the number zero as the first number?
Need help understanding lens reach
Short story about a teenager who has his brain replaced with a microchip (Psychological Horror)
Is Odin inconsistent about the powers of Mjolnir?
Capacitors with a "/" on schematic
View of other planets from the Earth
What does VB stand for?
How many years before enough atoms of your body are replaced to survive the sudden disappearance of the original body’s atoms?
Does the United States guarantee any unique freedoms?
What word can be used to describe a bug in a movie?
Can I enter a rental property without giving notice if I'm afraid a tenant may be hurt?
Sparse matrix processing: flip sign of top-left entries of the matrix
Should I self-publish my novella on Amazon or try my luck getting publishers?
Did WWII Japanese soldiers engage in cannibalism of their enemies?
In the movie Harry Potter and the Order or the Phoenix, why didn't Mr. Filch succeed to open the Room of Requirement if it's what he needed?
Best way to explain to my boss that I cannot attend a team summit because it is on Rosh Hashana or any other Jewish Holiday
Was Richard I's imprisonment by Leopold of Austria justified?
Traveling from Germany to other countries by train?
How can glass marbles naturally occur in a desert?
Where to pee in London?
Does it make sense to occupy open space?
sytemctl status log output
Does bottle color affect mold growth?
Did the Americans trade destroyers in the “destroyer deal” that they would later need themselves?
Before Pearl Harbor, what percentage of Americans believed the US would stay out of the war?When did the English and Americans realize that vegetables were healthy?Why were Japanese Americans forced to move, while German Americans and Italian Americans did not generally suffer the same consequences?What was the most important change that took place in American society as a result of the New Deal?What laws did the king “refuse to pass… unless those people would relinquish the right of representation”?What was the program of the Mensheviks in their later years? How did they hope to achieve it?Did the Netherlands join the anti-Japanese oil embargo later than US? If so why?Was there any official affirmation from the US government that they would win the Vietnam War?The WWI Christmas truce of 1914 resulted in no consequences, in spite of clear warnings against such beforehand - why were there no courts-martial?Why did the British take Hong Kong instead of any other of the later treaty ports?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
In the fall of 1940, the U.S. and Great Britain made the so-called "destroyer deal," of 50 old American destroyers in exchange for the use of British bases ranging from Newfoundland to the Caribbean. That made sense because it would be more a year before the Americans got into World War II.
When America got into the war, the German U-boats enjoyed their "Second Happy Time" from January to midsummer 1942. That's because few American ships sailed in convoys, and the ones that did had few escort vessels. Only by late summer/early fall did the Americans even begin to take countermeasures such as establishing escorted convoys.
How many (or few) destroyers or other escort vessels did the Americans deploy between January-July 1942 in the Atlantic? How did they compare in efficiency with the destroyers that had been exchanged? What role did the acquired bases play in anti-submarine warfare in the same period?
united-states world-war-two united-kingdom
add a comment |
In the fall of 1940, the U.S. and Great Britain made the so-called "destroyer deal," of 50 old American destroyers in exchange for the use of British bases ranging from Newfoundland to the Caribbean. That made sense because it would be more a year before the Americans got into World War II.
When America got into the war, the German U-boats enjoyed their "Second Happy Time" from January to midsummer 1942. That's because few American ships sailed in convoys, and the ones that did had few escort vessels. Only by late summer/early fall did the Americans even begin to take countermeasures such as establishing escorted convoys.
How many (or few) destroyers or other escort vessels did the Americans deploy between January-July 1942 in the Atlantic? How did they compare in efficiency with the destroyers that had been exchanged? What role did the acquired bases play in anti-submarine warfare in the same period?
united-states world-war-two united-kingdom
Even if they "needed the destroyers" there is also the issue if they had the crews to man them.
– SJuan76
Jul 28 at 22:47
1
"Need"? Obviously not. Look at how the war turned out ...
– only_pro
Jul 29 at 20:35
@only_pro: We were LOSING the war in January-July 1942. Things turned out well "later." So the supposed period of "need" was January-July 1942.
– Tom Au
Jul 29 at 21:57
@TomAu Right. And we obviously didn't "need" it. Because of how the war turned out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but it's accurate nonetheless.
– only_pro
Jul 30 at 16:17
add a comment |
In the fall of 1940, the U.S. and Great Britain made the so-called "destroyer deal," of 50 old American destroyers in exchange for the use of British bases ranging from Newfoundland to the Caribbean. That made sense because it would be more a year before the Americans got into World War II.
When America got into the war, the German U-boats enjoyed their "Second Happy Time" from January to midsummer 1942. That's because few American ships sailed in convoys, and the ones that did had few escort vessels. Only by late summer/early fall did the Americans even begin to take countermeasures such as establishing escorted convoys.
How many (or few) destroyers or other escort vessels did the Americans deploy between January-July 1942 in the Atlantic? How did they compare in efficiency with the destroyers that had been exchanged? What role did the acquired bases play in anti-submarine warfare in the same period?
united-states world-war-two united-kingdom
In the fall of 1940, the U.S. and Great Britain made the so-called "destroyer deal," of 50 old American destroyers in exchange for the use of British bases ranging from Newfoundland to the Caribbean. That made sense because it would be more a year before the Americans got into World War II.
When America got into the war, the German U-boats enjoyed their "Second Happy Time" from January to midsummer 1942. That's because few American ships sailed in convoys, and the ones that did had few escort vessels. Only by late summer/early fall did the Americans even begin to take countermeasures such as establishing escorted convoys.
How many (or few) destroyers or other escort vessels did the Americans deploy between January-July 1942 in the Atlantic? How did they compare in efficiency with the destroyers that had been exchanged? What role did the acquired bases play in anti-submarine warfare in the same period?
united-states world-war-two united-kingdom
united-states world-war-two united-kingdom
edited Jul 28 at 21:23
Tom Au
asked Jul 28 at 21:12
Tom AuTom Au
79.6k12 gold badges197 silver badges424 bronze badges
79.6k12 gold badges197 silver badges424 bronze badges
Even if they "needed the destroyers" there is also the issue if they had the crews to man them.
– SJuan76
Jul 28 at 22:47
1
"Need"? Obviously not. Look at how the war turned out ...
– only_pro
Jul 29 at 20:35
@only_pro: We were LOSING the war in January-July 1942. Things turned out well "later." So the supposed period of "need" was January-July 1942.
– Tom Au
Jul 29 at 21:57
@TomAu Right. And we obviously didn't "need" it. Because of how the war turned out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but it's accurate nonetheless.
– only_pro
Jul 30 at 16:17
add a comment |
Even if they "needed the destroyers" there is also the issue if they had the crews to man them.
– SJuan76
Jul 28 at 22:47
1
"Need"? Obviously not. Look at how the war turned out ...
– only_pro
Jul 29 at 20:35
@only_pro: We were LOSING the war in January-July 1942. Things turned out well "later." So the supposed period of "need" was January-July 1942.
– Tom Au
Jul 29 at 21:57
@TomAu Right. And we obviously didn't "need" it. Because of how the war turned out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but it's accurate nonetheless.
– only_pro
Jul 30 at 16:17
Even if they "needed the destroyers" there is also the issue if they had the crews to man them.
– SJuan76
Jul 28 at 22:47
Even if they "needed the destroyers" there is also the issue if they had the crews to man them.
– SJuan76
Jul 28 at 22:47
1
1
"Need"? Obviously not. Look at how the war turned out ...
– only_pro
Jul 29 at 20:35
"Need"? Obviously not. Look at how the war turned out ...
– only_pro
Jul 29 at 20:35
@only_pro: We were LOSING the war in January-July 1942. Things turned out well "later." So the supposed period of "need" was January-July 1942.
– Tom Au
Jul 29 at 21:57
@only_pro: We were LOSING the war in January-July 1942. Things turned out well "later." So the supposed period of "need" was January-July 1942.
– Tom Au
Jul 29 at 21:57
@TomAu Right. And we obviously didn't "need" it. Because of how the war turned out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but it's accurate nonetheless.
– only_pro
Jul 30 at 16:17
@TomAu Right. And we obviously didn't "need" it. Because of how the war turned out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but it's accurate nonetheless.
– only_pro
Jul 30 at 16:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No.
It is true the US Coastal Command found itself with a lack of ASW assets in Dec 1941. According to uboat.net the Eastern Sea Frontier had...
- 4 Yard Patrol Boats
- 4 Subchasers
- 1 Coast Guard Cutter
- 3 Eagle-class patrol boats
- 103 aircraft, five of which were combat ready
However, the 50 old destroyers would not have made a significant difference. More assets would be brought in from other commands. The US's failure was more about organization and tactics than material.
Operation Paukenschlag ("Drumbeat") was initially conducted by just 5 long range U-Boats with 16 more to follow, a threat even a small but well coordinated ASW fleet could contain. Only later would shorter range U-Boats be able to operate and the numbers of U-Boats operating in US waters rose above 100.
The loaned destroyers were old, poorly maintained, WW1 surplus vessels poorly suited to submarine work. It took the British months to bring some into service. The resulting Town class destroyers were not well received by the British. For the British it was less about the destroyers, and more about opening the Anglo-American military partnership. The US would have to defend their newly leased bases on British territory allowing the British to transfer assets elsewhere.
While the US was severely lacking in modern ASW assets, the 2nd Happy Time came about because the US was slow to organize proper anti-submarine defenses. During their massive shipbuilding program they neglected dedicated ASW assets instead concentrating on fast fleet destroyers. Despite British intelligence that an attack was imminent, the US failed to prepare for the attack. This was all despite being actively involved in ASW warfare in the Atlantic for some time.
They failed to enact known successful anti-submarine tactics like convoys and blackouts and radio discipline. U-Boats could navigate using brightly lit cities, lighthouses, and civilian radio stations. Ships passing in front of brightly lit coastal cities were easy night targets.
The coordination between the US Navy and USAAF (US Army Air Force) was poor making many potential long range patrol aircraft unavailable out of inter-service spite, this was not worked out until March 1942. It wasn't until March 1942 that convoys were discussed, and it took until May to get them going.
Escort units were transferred away from Atlantic convoy duty to help coastal command, but due to the lack of coordination they often sat in port. The US was acting on the outdated assumption that convoys just concentrated targets, and that aggressive hunter-killer groups were the way to go. The British had learned the hard way this was wrong; the ocean is big and active hunting was futile. Reacting to radio reports of ships being attacked was also futile, by the time a warship was on the scene the attack was over and the U-Boat safely away.
50 more old destroyers would have just been 50 more ships to waste charging around the Atlantic.
No matter how many forces were available, convoys would have improved their effectiveness. Convoys are more difficult to spot than individual ships. At the vast scale of the ocean a convoy of many ships is as difficult to spot as one ship. With many ships concentrated into few convoys U-Boats find the ocean emptied of targets.
Some try to explain the lack of US coastal convoys on a lack of escorts, but the opposite is true. Convoys force the U-Boats to come to you. Instead of dispersing in a futile effort to find the U-Boats, convoys allow concentrating of limited ASW assets. Even a small submarine chaster is a threat to a U-Boat and would force it to dive where it's slow and blind. The limited US ASW fleet would have been better off protecting convoys than individual ships.
The sluggish American response finally produced the Tenth Fleet in May 1943. Having no ships of its own, it coordinated all Allied ASW operations, research, and intelligence.
Summary
While the US Eastern Sea Frontier command was severely lacking in ASW assets at the outbreak of the war, the 50 old destroyers were poor ASW ships. The lack of ships was initially made up for by transferring units from other commands. Instead the Second Happy Time was because the US allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed and had a sluggish response.
The US had ample lead time and vast shipyards and resources to develop and build ASW assets prior to 1942 and more than make up for 50 old destroyers. They had ASW experience from their Atlantic neutrality patrols and from the British. They had time to learn from the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic to prepare contingency plans and coordinated commands, but did not. Once engaged, the US was slow to enact basic countermeasures on their east coast such as radio discipline, blackouts, and convoys instead choosing to scatter what little assets they had in ineffective hunter-killer. It took months or years to develop a coordinated, effective coastal ASW system, a system that should have already existed when war broke out.
Sources
- United States Naval Administration in World War II
History of Convoy and Routing Chapter IV, Coastal Convoys: Atlantic Seaboard, Gulf, Caribbean and Brazil - United States Atlantic Fleet Organization - 1942
- US Navy - Tenth Fleet Fights The U-Boats
- North American Coastal and Caribbean Convoys
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
2
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
1
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53890%2fdid-the-americans-trade-destroyers-in-the-destroyer-deal-that-they-would-later%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No.
It is true the US Coastal Command found itself with a lack of ASW assets in Dec 1941. According to uboat.net the Eastern Sea Frontier had...
- 4 Yard Patrol Boats
- 4 Subchasers
- 1 Coast Guard Cutter
- 3 Eagle-class patrol boats
- 103 aircraft, five of which were combat ready
However, the 50 old destroyers would not have made a significant difference. More assets would be brought in from other commands. The US's failure was more about organization and tactics than material.
Operation Paukenschlag ("Drumbeat") was initially conducted by just 5 long range U-Boats with 16 more to follow, a threat even a small but well coordinated ASW fleet could contain. Only later would shorter range U-Boats be able to operate and the numbers of U-Boats operating in US waters rose above 100.
The loaned destroyers were old, poorly maintained, WW1 surplus vessels poorly suited to submarine work. It took the British months to bring some into service. The resulting Town class destroyers were not well received by the British. For the British it was less about the destroyers, and more about opening the Anglo-American military partnership. The US would have to defend their newly leased bases on British territory allowing the British to transfer assets elsewhere.
While the US was severely lacking in modern ASW assets, the 2nd Happy Time came about because the US was slow to organize proper anti-submarine defenses. During their massive shipbuilding program they neglected dedicated ASW assets instead concentrating on fast fleet destroyers. Despite British intelligence that an attack was imminent, the US failed to prepare for the attack. This was all despite being actively involved in ASW warfare in the Atlantic for some time.
They failed to enact known successful anti-submarine tactics like convoys and blackouts and radio discipline. U-Boats could navigate using brightly lit cities, lighthouses, and civilian radio stations. Ships passing in front of brightly lit coastal cities were easy night targets.
The coordination between the US Navy and USAAF (US Army Air Force) was poor making many potential long range patrol aircraft unavailable out of inter-service spite, this was not worked out until March 1942. It wasn't until March 1942 that convoys were discussed, and it took until May to get them going.
Escort units were transferred away from Atlantic convoy duty to help coastal command, but due to the lack of coordination they often sat in port. The US was acting on the outdated assumption that convoys just concentrated targets, and that aggressive hunter-killer groups were the way to go. The British had learned the hard way this was wrong; the ocean is big and active hunting was futile. Reacting to radio reports of ships being attacked was also futile, by the time a warship was on the scene the attack was over and the U-Boat safely away.
50 more old destroyers would have just been 50 more ships to waste charging around the Atlantic.
No matter how many forces were available, convoys would have improved their effectiveness. Convoys are more difficult to spot than individual ships. At the vast scale of the ocean a convoy of many ships is as difficult to spot as one ship. With many ships concentrated into few convoys U-Boats find the ocean emptied of targets.
Some try to explain the lack of US coastal convoys on a lack of escorts, but the opposite is true. Convoys force the U-Boats to come to you. Instead of dispersing in a futile effort to find the U-Boats, convoys allow concentrating of limited ASW assets. Even a small submarine chaster is a threat to a U-Boat and would force it to dive where it's slow and blind. The limited US ASW fleet would have been better off protecting convoys than individual ships.
The sluggish American response finally produced the Tenth Fleet in May 1943. Having no ships of its own, it coordinated all Allied ASW operations, research, and intelligence.
Summary
While the US Eastern Sea Frontier command was severely lacking in ASW assets at the outbreak of the war, the 50 old destroyers were poor ASW ships. The lack of ships was initially made up for by transferring units from other commands. Instead the Second Happy Time was because the US allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed and had a sluggish response.
The US had ample lead time and vast shipyards and resources to develop and build ASW assets prior to 1942 and more than make up for 50 old destroyers. They had ASW experience from their Atlantic neutrality patrols and from the British. They had time to learn from the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic to prepare contingency plans and coordinated commands, but did not. Once engaged, the US was slow to enact basic countermeasures on their east coast such as radio discipline, blackouts, and convoys instead choosing to scatter what little assets they had in ineffective hunter-killer. It took months or years to develop a coordinated, effective coastal ASW system, a system that should have already existed when war broke out.
Sources
- United States Naval Administration in World War II
History of Convoy and Routing Chapter IV, Coastal Convoys: Atlantic Seaboard, Gulf, Caribbean and Brazil - United States Atlantic Fleet Organization - 1942
- US Navy - Tenth Fleet Fights The U-Boats
- North American Coastal and Caribbean Convoys
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
2
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
1
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
|
show 4 more comments
No.
It is true the US Coastal Command found itself with a lack of ASW assets in Dec 1941. According to uboat.net the Eastern Sea Frontier had...
- 4 Yard Patrol Boats
- 4 Subchasers
- 1 Coast Guard Cutter
- 3 Eagle-class patrol boats
- 103 aircraft, five of which were combat ready
However, the 50 old destroyers would not have made a significant difference. More assets would be brought in from other commands. The US's failure was more about organization and tactics than material.
Operation Paukenschlag ("Drumbeat") was initially conducted by just 5 long range U-Boats with 16 more to follow, a threat even a small but well coordinated ASW fleet could contain. Only later would shorter range U-Boats be able to operate and the numbers of U-Boats operating in US waters rose above 100.
The loaned destroyers were old, poorly maintained, WW1 surplus vessels poorly suited to submarine work. It took the British months to bring some into service. The resulting Town class destroyers were not well received by the British. For the British it was less about the destroyers, and more about opening the Anglo-American military partnership. The US would have to defend their newly leased bases on British territory allowing the British to transfer assets elsewhere.
While the US was severely lacking in modern ASW assets, the 2nd Happy Time came about because the US was slow to organize proper anti-submarine defenses. During their massive shipbuilding program they neglected dedicated ASW assets instead concentrating on fast fleet destroyers. Despite British intelligence that an attack was imminent, the US failed to prepare for the attack. This was all despite being actively involved in ASW warfare in the Atlantic for some time.
They failed to enact known successful anti-submarine tactics like convoys and blackouts and radio discipline. U-Boats could navigate using brightly lit cities, lighthouses, and civilian radio stations. Ships passing in front of brightly lit coastal cities were easy night targets.
The coordination between the US Navy and USAAF (US Army Air Force) was poor making many potential long range patrol aircraft unavailable out of inter-service spite, this was not worked out until March 1942. It wasn't until March 1942 that convoys were discussed, and it took until May to get them going.
Escort units were transferred away from Atlantic convoy duty to help coastal command, but due to the lack of coordination they often sat in port. The US was acting on the outdated assumption that convoys just concentrated targets, and that aggressive hunter-killer groups were the way to go. The British had learned the hard way this was wrong; the ocean is big and active hunting was futile. Reacting to radio reports of ships being attacked was also futile, by the time a warship was on the scene the attack was over and the U-Boat safely away.
50 more old destroyers would have just been 50 more ships to waste charging around the Atlantic.
No matter how many forces were available, convoys would have improved their effectiveness. Convoys are more difficult to spot than individual ships. At the vast scale of the ocean a convoy of many ships is as difficult to spot as one ship. With many ships concentrated into few convoys U-Boats find the ocean emptied of targets.
Some try to explain the lack of US coastal convoys on a lack of escorts, but the opposite is true. Convoys force the U-Boats to come to you. Instead of dispersing in a futile effort to find the U-Boats, convoys allow concentrating of limited ASW assets. Even a small submarine chaster is a threat to a U-Boat and would force it to dive where it's slow and blind. The limited US ASW fleet would have been better off protecting convoys than individual ships.
The sluggish American response finally produced the Tenth Fleet in May 1943. Having no ships of its own, it coordinated all Allied ASW operations, research, and intelligence.
Summary
While the US Eastern Sea Frontier command was severely lacking in ASW assets at the outbreak of the war, the 50 old destroyers were poor ASW ships. The lack of ships was initially made up for by transferring units from other commands. Instead the Second Happy Time was because the US allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed and had a sluggish response.
The US had ample lead time and vast shipyards and resources to develop and build ASW assets prior to 1942 and more than make up for 50 old destroyers. They had ASW experience from their Atlantic neutrality patrols and from the British. They had time to learn from the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic to prepare contingency plans and coordinated commands, but did not. Once engaged, the US was slow to enact basic countermeasures on their east coast such as radio discipline, blackouts, and convoys instead choosing to scatter what little assets they had in ineffective hunter-killer. It took months or years to develop a coordinated, effective coastal ASW system, a system that should have already existed when war broke out.
Sources
- United States Naval Administration in World War II
History of Convoy and Routing Chapter IV, Coastal Convoys: Atlantic Seaboard, Gulf, Caribbean and Brazil - United States Atlantic Fleet Organization - 1942
- US Navy - Tenth Fleet Fights The U-Boats
- North American Coastal and Caribbean Convoys
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
2
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
1
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
|
show 4 more comments
No.
It is true the US Coastal Command found itself with a lack of ASW assets in Dec 1941. According to uboat.net the Eastern Sea Frontier had...
- 4 Yard Patrol Boats
- 4 Subchasers
- 1 Coast Guard Cutter
- 3 Eagle-class patrol boats
- 103 aircraft, five of which were combat ready
However, the 50 old destroyers would not have made a significant difference. More assets would be brought in from other commands. The US's failure was more about organization and tactics than material.
Operation Paukenschlag ("Drumbeat") was initially conducted by just 5 long range U-Boats with 16 more to follow, a threat even a small but well coordinated ASW fleet could contain. Only later would shorter range U-Boats be able to operate and the numbers of U-Boats operating in US waters rose above 100.
The loaned destroyers were old, poorly maintained, WW1 surplus vessels poorly suited to submarine work. It took the British months to bring some into service. The resulting Town class destroyers were not well received by the British. For the British it was less about the destroyers, and more about opening the Anglo-American military partnership. The US would have to defend their newly leased bases on British territory allowing the British to transfer assets elsewhere.
While the US was severely lacking in modern ASW assets, the 2nd Happy Time came about because the US was slow to organize proper anti-submarine defenses. During their massive shipbuilding program they neglected dedicated ASW assets instead concentrating on fast fleet destroyers. Despite British intelligence that an attack was imminent, the US failed to prepare for the attack. This was all despite being actively involved in ASW warfare in the Atlantic for some time.
They failed to enact known successful anti-submarine tactics like convoys and blackouts and radio discipline. U-Boats could navigate using brightly lit cities, lighthouses, and civilian radio stations. Ships passing in front of brightly lit coastal cities were easy night targets.
The coordination between the US Navy and USAAF (US Army Air Force) was poor making many potential long range patrol aircraft unavailable out of inter-service spite, this was not worked out until March 1942. It wasn't until March 1942 that convoys were discussed, and it took until May to get them going.
Escort units were transferred away from Atlantic convoy duty to help coastal command, but due to the lack of coordination they often sat in port. The US was acting on the outdated assumption that convoys just concentrated targets, and that aggressive hunter-killer groups were the way to go. The British had learned the hard way this was wrong; the ocean is big and active hunting was futile. Reacting to radio reports of ships being attacked was also futile, by the time a warship was on the scene the attack was over and the U-Boat safely away.
50 more old destroyers would have just been 50 more ships to waste charging around the Atlantic.
No matter how many forces were available, convoys would have improved their effectiveness. Convoys are more difficult to spot than individual ships. At the vast scale of the ocean a convoy of many ships is as difficult to spot as one ship. With many ships concentrated into few convoys U-Boats find the ocean emptied of targets.
Some try to explain the lack of US coastal convoys on a lack of escorts, but the opposite is true. Convoys force the U-Boats to come to you. Instead of dispersing in a futile effort to find the U-Boats, convoys allow concentrating of limited ASW assets. Even a small submarine chaster is a threat to a U-Boat and would force it to dive where it's slow and blind. The limited US ASW fleet would have been better off protecting convoys than individual ships.
The sluggish American response finally produced the Tenth Fleet in May 1943. Having no ships of its own, it coordinated all Allied ASW operations, research, and intelligence.
Summary
While the US Eastern Sea Frontier command was severely lacking in ASW assets at the outbreak of the war, the 50 old destroyers were poor ASW ships. The lack of ships was initially made up for by transferring units from other commands. Instead the Second Happy Time was because the US allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed and had a sluggish response.
The US had ample lead time and vast shipyards and resources to develop and build ASW assets prior to 1942 and more than make up for 50 old destroyers. They had ASW experience from their Atlantic neutrality patrols and from the British. They had time to learn from the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic to prepare contingency plans and coordinated commands, but did not. Once engaged, the US was slow to enact basic countermeasures on their east coast such as radio discipline, blackouts, and convoys instead choosing to scatter what little assets they had in ineffective hunter-killer. It took months or years to develop a coordinated, effective coastal ASW system, a system that should have already existed when war broke out.
Sources
- United States Naval Administration in World War II
History of Convoy and Routing Chapter IV, Coastal Convoys: Atlantic Seaboard, Gulf, Caribbean and Brazil - United States Atlantic Fleet Organization - 1942
- US Navy - Tenth Fleet Fights The U-Boats
- North American Coastal and Caribbean Convoys
No.
It is true the US Coastal Command found itself with a lack of ASW assets in Dec 1941. According to uboat.net the Eastern Sea Frontier had...
- 4 Yard Patrol Boats
- 4 Subchasers
- 1 Coast Guard Cutter
- 3 Eagle-class patrol boats
- 103 aircraft, five of which were combat ready
However, the 50 old destroyers would not have made a significant difference. More assets would be brought in from other commands. The US's failure was more about organization and tactics than material.
Operation Paukenschlag ("Drumbeat") was initially conducted by just 5 long range U-Boats with 16 more to follow, a threat even a small but well coordinated ASW fleet could contain. Only later would shorter range U-Boats be able to operate and the numbers of U-Boats operating in US waters rose above 100.
The loaned destroyers were old, poorly maintained, WW1 surplus vessels poorly suited to submarine work. It took the British months to bring some into service. The resulting Town class destroyers were not well received by the British. For the British it was less about the destroyers, and more about opening the Anglo-American military partnership. The US would have to defend their newly leased bases on British territory allowing the British to transfer assets elsewhere.
While the US was severely lacking in modern ASW assets, the 2nd Happy Time came about because the US was slow to organize proper anti-submarine defenses. During their massive shipbuilding program they neglected dedicated ASW assets instead concentrating on fast fleet destroyers. Despite British intelligence that an attack was imminent, the US failed to prepare for the attack. This was all despite being actively involved in ASW warfare in the Atlantic for some time.
They failed to enact known successful anti-submarine tactics like convoys and blackouts and radio discipline. U-Boats could navigate using brightly lit cities, lighthouses, and civilian radio stations. Ships passing in front of brightly lit coastal cities were easy night targets.
The coordination between the US Navy and USAAF (US Army Air Force) was poor making many potential long range patrol aircraft unavailable out of inter-service spite, this was not worked out until March 1942. It wasn't until March 1942 that convoys were discussed, and it took until May to get them going.
Escort units were transferred away from Atlantic convoy duty to help coastal command, but due to the lack of coordination they often sat in port. The US was acting on the outdated assumption that convoys just concentrated targets, and that aggressive hunter-killer groups were the way to go. The British had learned the hard way this was wrong; the ocean is big and active hunting was futile. Reacting to radio reports of ships being attacked was also futile, by the time a warship was on the scene the attack was over and the U-Boat safely away.
50 more old destroyers would have just been 50 more ships to waste charging around the Atlantic.
No matter how many forces were available, convoys would have improved their effectiveness. Convoys are more difficult to spot than individual ships. At the vast scale of the ocean a convoy of many ships is as difficult to spot as one ship. With many ships concentrated into few convoys U-Boats find the ocean emptied of targets.
Some try to explain the lack of US coastal convoys on a lack of escorts, but the opposite is true. Convoys force the U-Boats to come to you. Instead of dispersing in a futile effort to find the U-Boats, convoys allow concentrating of limited ASW assets. Even a small submarine chaster is a threat to a U-Boat and would force it to dive where it's slow and blind. The limited US ASW fleet would have been better off protecting convoys than individual ships.
The sluggish American response finally produced the Tenth Fleet in May 1943. Having no ships of its own, it coordinated all Allied ASW operations, research, and intelligence.
Summary
While the US Eastern Sea Frontier command was severely lacking in ASW assets at the outbreak of the war, the 50 old destroyers were poor ASW ships. The lack of ships was initially made up for by transferring units from other commands. Instead the Second Happy Time was because the US allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed and had a sluggish response.
The US had ample lead time and vast shipyards and resources to develop and build ASW assets prior to 1942 and more than make up for 50 old destroyers. They had ASW experience from their Atlantic neutrality patrols and from the British. They had time to learn from the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic to prepare contingency plans and coordinated commands, but did not. Once engaged, the US was slow to enact basic countermeasures on their east coast such as radio discipline, blackouts, and convoys instead choosing to scatter what little assets they had in ineffective hunter-killer. It took months or years to develop a coordinated, effective coastal ASW system, a system that should have already existed when war broke out.
Sources
- United States Naval Administration in World War II
History of Convoy and Routing Chapter IV, Coastal Convoys: Atlantic Seaboard, Gulf, Caribbean and Brazil - United States Atlantic Fleet Organization - 1942
- US Navy - Tenth Fleet Fights The U-Boats
- North American Coastal and Caribbean Convoys
edited Jul 29 at 20:14
answered Jul 29 at 1:44
SchwernSchwern
38.1k10 gold badges102 silver badges148 bronze badges
38.1k10 gold badges102 silver badges148 bronze badges
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
2
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
1
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
|
show 4 more comments
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
2
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
1
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
@T.E.D. I wasn't happy with that wording either. Better now?
– Schwern
Jul 29 at 19:47
2
2
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
Yes. However, now the previous sentence is sticking out at me. I'm pretty sure I know (and agree) with your point, but a single convoy is not tougher to locate than a single ship. However, a single convoy is tougher to locate than one or more of the same number of ships spread out widely. It would be like playing the game Battleship, if each ship only took up one square, there was a fairly short time limit, the most hits wins, and you are allowed to stack them all in one spot.
– T.E.D.♦
Jul 29 at 20:10
1
1
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@T.E.D.: You both seem to be neglecting that the Germans broke the U.K. marine code in 1937 - and thus knew in advance the routes of every convoy. This means that using convoys was more dangerous because the known itineraries could be intercepted more efficiently by U-Boats.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 16:35
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@PieterGeerkens I read up on this. The cipher was broken, but its value is weighed against "general information such as convoy departures, cycles, and other related matters could scarcely be kept from an industrious enemy. Furthermore, Allied North Atlantic convoys observed no such thing as radio silence.". A convoy, even if you know when it sails and where its going, is still hard to find because "the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." And there's the escorts.
– Schwern
Jul 30 at 19:11
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
@Schwern: That's my line! I have driven from Toronto to Edmonton, across the top of Lake Superior - two thirds of the way there and still in "effing Ontario". I get how big the ocean is.
– Pieter Geerkens
Jul 30 at 19:34
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53890%2fdid-the-americans-trade-destroyers-in-the-destroyer-deal-that-they-would-later%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Even if they "needed the destroyers" there is also the issue if they had the crews to man them.
– SJuan76
Jul 28 at 22:47
1
"Need"? Obviously not. Look at how the war turned out ...
– only_pro
Jul 29 at 20:35
@only_pro: We were LOSING the war in January-July 1942. Things turned out well "later." So the supposed period of "need" was January-July 1942.
– Tom Au
Jul 29 at 21:57
@TomAu Right. And we obviously didn't "need" it. Because of how the war turned out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but it's accurate nonetheless.
– only_pro
Jul 30 at 16:17