History of Antisubmarine Operations

:'I -ooad .
i ~~
OEG REPORT N0 . 51
ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE
IN
WORLD BAR II
CHARLES M. STERNHELL AND ALAN M. THORNDIKE
Copyright CNA Corporation/Scanned September 2002
OPERATIONS EVALUATION GROUP

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
NAVY DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON, D . C ., 194b
Additional copies may be obtained from the Defense Documentation Center oz National Technical Information Service, U .S. Dept.
of Commerce. Request No. AD 221292.
Copyright CNA Corporation /Scanned October 2003
FOREWORD
HIS volume embodies the results of some of the
T statistical and analytical work done during the
period 1942-45 by members of the Anti-Submarine
Warfare Operations Research Group of the U. S. Navy,
later the Operations Research Group and, since September 1945, the Operations Evaluation Group . The
group was formed and financed by the Office of Scientific Research and Development at the request of the
Navy, and was assigned to the Headquarters of the
Commander in Chief, U. S . Fleet. The group has been
of assistance in :
a . The evaluation of new equipment to meet military requirements .
b. The evaluation of specific phases of operations

from studies of action reports.
c . The evaluation and analysis of tactical problems

to measure the operational behavior of new material .
d . The development of new tactical doctrine to meet
specific requirements .
e . The technical aspect of strategic planning .
f. The liaison for the Fleets with the development

and research laboratories, naval and extra-naval .
This book consists o a statistical review of the antisubmarine war in the Atlantic from 1941 to 1945, together with a unified analysis of the tactics which
proved most useful in this combat . It is believed that
this material will be of considerable help in providing
basic understanding of this extremely important branch
of naval warfare.
Certain aspects of the work of the group, which
impinge on the antisubmarine problem, such as the
Theory of Search and Screening and the more general
Methods of Operations Research, will be embodied in
other volumes to be published later.
PHILIP M . MORSE
Director, Operations Evaluation Group
Vii
PREFACE
HIS volume on antisubmarine warfare [ASW] repT'resents a compromise between two major aims, to
produce a unified summary of the events and problems of the antisubmarine war on the one hand, and
to illustrate the scientific evaluation of naval operations on the other. The approach is fundamentally
historical on both accounts, however, since the illustrations of scientific evaluation are taken from various analyses and studies made in connection with
antisubmarine warfare during World War II. Great
care should therefore be exercised in making predictions concerning the future o ASW from it . There is
no guarantee that the antisubmarine measures successful in the past will continue to be adequate in the
future .
A dear understanding of the events of World War
II, their reasons and consequences, is necessary, however, as background for any decisions which are to be
made in the postwar period . It is hoped that this volume may serve to some extent as a convenient reference and source of factual material . One overall conclusion is clearly evident from it : the introduction of
new weapons, gear, and tactics has led to a continual
interplay of measures and countermeasures in which
no other conclusion retains its validity for very long .
If this lesson alone is learned from it, the volume will
have served a useful purpose.
The general organization corresponds closely to
the dual aim described above, with two parts quite
different in character. Part I is a historical summary
of the progress of enemy submarine operations and
Allied antisubmarine operations during World War
II . No attempt has been made, however, to give a
complete chronology of all events . The point of view
is statistical, and every effort is made to describe the
progress of World War II in quantitative and objective terms. The data are interpreted, in terms of the
ever-changing tactical and strategical situation. Accordingly, the historical summary is divided into
seven chronological periods, as indicated in the
Table of Contents . This division is necessary because
of the radical changes in the nature of the U-boat war
due to changes in U-boat tactics and the introduction
of new weapons and countermeasures.
The periods were chosen in such a way that U-boat
strategy and tactics were fairly homogeneous in each .
The tactics of individual U-boats varied consider-
ably, however, from the typical characteristics which

were common to the operations of most of the
U-boats during the periods in question . In particular
the division points between periods are somewhat indefinite and represent the approximate dates at which
a majority of the U-boats had made a major change in
their methods of operation.
The data for a given period are further divided
into three main sections .
1. A chronological narrative of the most important
activities and accomplishments of the U-boats and
Allied antisubmarine forces .
2. A more detailed account of the main Allied
countermeasures to the U-boats, subdivided into
a. Convoys
b. Aircraft
c. Scientific and technical

d. Sinkings of U-boats.
3. A survey of the results achieved during the
period, from both the U-boats' and the Allies' point
of view . This section attempts to explain the reasons
for the new tactics which characterize the new period .
Part II of the volume is a more detailed analysis of
certain of the major problems of ASW, in particular
those which were the subject of operations research
studies . The emphasis is on the evaluation of tactics
and materiel both by theoretical analyses and by special studies of operational data . Although the principles of ASW derived from such evaluation are
strictly applicable only to the situation which obtained during World War II, the methods of evaluation are of more general interest .
The U-boat war spread over all the oceans of the
world, but the main battle was fought in the Atlantic .
Consequently U-boat activity in other regions has not
been discussed as completely as the Battle of the Atlantic. A standard subdivision into areas, which has
been used throughout the text, is given in the frontispiece.
There are, in fact, many aspects of the war which
are omitted from the discussion . The operations of
midget submarines and small battle craft are generally excluded, since they are not considered U-boats .
The importance of the training of personnel and developments along this line are not considered . The
activities of Naval Intelligence in obtaining information upon which operations are planned are not deix
PREFACE
scribed in any detail. The indirect effects of factors

such as strategic bombing are largely neglected . The
net result is to limit the discussion fairly closely to
Navy antisubmarine operations, though Royal Air
Force Coastal Command aircraft and those of the
United States Army Air Forces are included when flying antisubmarine missions . The distinction is not a
hard and fast one.

The sources of material used are so widely scattered
through correspondence and informal memoranda
that it has not been practical to quote references to
them.
In addition,
numerous letters, notes, informal memos, and even
oral conversations go to make up the background of
this volume . One of its chief aims has been to set
down in writing a fair sample of this store of material,
whose previous status verged on that of folklore .
No effort has been made, therefore, to assign credit
for the work discussed. It originates with various
members of British and United States operations research groups, military services, and civilian war
agencies . We have tried to collect available information and tell a reasonably unified story, not of the
accomplishments of a particular group, but of the
progress of a special type of naval warfare.
C. M. STERNHELL
A. M. THORNDIKE
Editors
CONTENTS
PART I
HISTORY OF ANTISUBMARINE OPERATIONS

CHAPTER
1
2
PAGE
First Period-Submerged Daylight Attacks on Independents, September 1939-June 1940

Second Period-Night Surfaced Attacks on Convoys, July
1940-March 1941
.
.
.
Third Period-Start of Wolf Packs ; End-to-End Escort of

Convoys, April 1941-December 1941
.
Fourth Period-Heavy Sinkings on East Coast of United

States, January 1942-September 1942 .
Fifth Period-Large Wolf Packs Battle North Atlantic
Convoys, October 1942-June 1943 .
Sixth Period-Aircraft Defeat U-Boats' Attempted ComeBack and Force Adoption of Maximum Submergence,
July 1943-May 1944
.
.
_
16
5
6
7
8
Seventh Period -Schnorchel U-Boats Operate in British

Home Waters, June 1944-End of War .
Summary of Antisubmarine Warfare, World War II .
25
34
44
64
80
PART II
ANTISUBMARINE MEASURES AND THEIR
EFFEC TI VENESS
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Safety of Independent Shipping .
Convoying and Escort of Shipping .

Attacks by Surface Graft .
Attacks by Aircraft .
Offensive Search
93
.
100
113
127
139
Employment of Search Radar in Relation to Enemy

Countermeasures .
.
_
Countermeasures to the German Acoustic Torpedo .

Epilogue .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
153
161
Appendix I
.
.
177
Glossary
Index .
181
183
191
40-
50-
Ocean Areas Referred to in the Text

AZA
BCA
BDA
BLA
BTA
BZA
CCZ
CSE
Azores Area
Biscay Channel Area
Bermuda Area
Baltic Area
Barents Sea Area
Brazilian Area
Canadian Coastal Zone
Caribbean Sea FrontierEast
CSW
ESF
ERA
GMA
GSF
IND
MED
NEA
Caribbean Sea FrontierWest

Eastern Sea Frontier
Freetown Area
Gibraltar Morocco Area
Gulf Sea Frontier
Indian Ocean
Mediterranean Red Sea Area
Northeast Atlantic Area
NSA
NTE
NTW
NWA
PSF
SEA
SWA
North Sea Area

Northern Transit AreaEast
Northern Transit AreaWest
Northwest Atlantic Area
Panama Sea Frontier
Southeast Atlantic Area
Southwest Atlantic Area
PART I
SUBMARINES IN WORLD WAR I
HE GREAT CAPABILITIES of the submarine as a
T weapon of war were first revealed during World
War I when the U-boat campaign almost proved decisive. Fortunately, the Germans themselves did not
fully realize in 1914 how valuable the U-boat's ability
to submerge and escape detection would be for offensive operations against enemy shipping . The small
number of U-boats available to the Germans were
used at first only to attack naval ships and it was
not until 1915 that a concerted attack was begun on
English merchant shipping.
During 1915 and 1916 there were on the average
only about 15 U-boats at sea at any time . These Uboats were sinking about 200,000 gross tons of shipping a month, while about 11/2 U-boats were being
sunk each month. This situation was extremely satisfactory to the Germans, as the average life of a Uboat at sea during this period was about 10 months,
during which the U-boat would sink about 13,000
gross tons of shipping a month, for a total of 130,000
gross tons o shipping sunk before the U-boat itself
was sunk .
Encouraged by these successes, the Germans in
February 1917 started a large scale campaign of unrestricted warfare on merchant shipping in an attempt to blockade England . This attempt almost
proved successful as Allied shipping losses rose
steadily to a peak in April 1917 . Four hundred and
forty-four ships of about 900,000 gross tons were sunk
by U-boats during that month. The British Fleet was
confined to its bases for there was only 8 weeks' supply of fuel oil in England. Various countermeasures
had been tried without success and defeat seemed
just around the corner unless an antidote to the
U-boat could be found.
INTRODUCTION OF CONVOYING
Admiral Jellicoe was brought to Admiralty to deal
with the situation. The convoy system, twice turned
down on account of lack of escort vessels and loss of
time to shipping, was introduced in April 1917 and
proved immediately successful in reducing the shipping loss rate. The result of all the various British
countermeasures, of which the convoy system was the

most effective, was that by October 1917, 1501 ships
in 99 convoys had been brought into port with the
loss of only ten ships sunk while in convoy (a loss
rate of less than 1 per cent).
LACK OF SATISFACTORY
COUNTERMEASURES
Although shipping losses had been checked, it
should be kept in mind that, from an offensive point
of view (i .e., destruction of U-boats), the U-boat had
not been definitely beaten in World War I . After the
start of unrestricted U-boat warfare early in 1917, the
Germans maintained an average of about 40 U-boats
at sea at any time . During this period the average
number of U-boats being sunk each month was only
about seven; the maximum number of U-boats sunk
in any month was only 14 in May 1918 . Therefore,
the average life of a U-boat at sea during the last year
of World War I was still about 6 months. Shipping
losses, even during the last year of World War I, were
still running at the level of about 300,000 gross tons
a month, so that at that time each U-boat was still
sinking about 45,000 gross tons before it, itself, was
sunk .
These figures indicate that other factors besides
U-boat losses must have contributed to the mutiny
of U-boat crews in 1918, as the rate of U-boat losses
has reached far higher levels in World War II without any corresponding crack-up in morale . Another
point to be considered is that a large part of German
U-boat losses in the latter part of World War I was
due to mines, whose effectiveness was greatly increased by the fact that the geographical position of
the German U-boat bases necessitated passage
through the North Sea. Of the 178 U-boats sunk during the first World War, about 45 per cent were sunk
by surface craft, about half of these by depth charges
and half by gunfire and ramming. About 30 per cent
were sunk by mines, another 10 per cent were torpedoed by submarines, and the other 15 per cent by
other causes . It is therefore clear that the Allies had
not developed any offensive weapon during World
War I which could deal so effectively with the U-boat
at sea that further operations would not beprofitable .
That the Germans themselves still thought the

U-boat was an effective weapon at the end of World
War I may be seen from the fact that there were
about 220 U-boats under construction in November
1918 . Admiral Scheer's building program of October
1, 1918 provided for at least 30 U-boats a month beginning the middle of 1919 and would probably have
been fulfilled if hostilities had continued. If the war
had not ended in November 1918, the Allies would
have had to face a second and more intensive U-boat
campaign .
NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL ADVICE
One of the most significant points about antisubmarine warfare which became apparent early in
World War I was the necessity of having scientific
and technical aid in combatting the U-boat . The essential problem was that of having some means of
detecting a submerged U-boat and then of having
some weapon that would provide a good chance of
destroying the U-boat .
The first crude attempt to develop an instrument
to detect the submerged U-boat resulted in the installation of hydrophones on Allied naval ships in
1915. The hydrophone was simply an instrument for
listening to the noise produced by the submarine,
and sonic frequencies below 10 kc were used . No
range and only a rough bearing were obtained from
these early hydrophones and it was impossible to
make attacks on U-boats with any degree of precision.
The main effect of hydrophones was on U-boat
morale, as U-boats found that they were being followed after diving instead of being free of their
pursuers .
The first depth charges to be used in attacking
submerged U-boats were also introduced in 1915 .
However, so few were available that the Germans
did not realize they were being used until 1917 .
In September 1918 the British formed a small committee, consisting largely of scientists, called the
Anti-Submarine Division International Committee
(the initials spell ASDIC, the name given by the
British to their echo-ranging detector). This committee developed a method of transmitting sound of
supersonic frequencies under water and then using
the echo returning from the submerged submarine
to fix its position . Although the Asdic set vas still in
the experimental stage when World War I ended,
the labors of the committee were not wasted, as effective underwater echo-ranging gear was developed in
the 1930's and proved to be quite a surprise to the
Germans at the start of World War II . Due to the
ability of Asdic to provide both range and bearing, it
proved far better than the hydrophones used in
World War I . Hydrophones, themselves, were also
improved by using supersonic frequencies and making them directional, thereby enabling the operator
to obtain more accurate bearing.
ORDER OF BATTLE-SEPTEMBER 1939
At the start of World War II, England had only
about 220 Asdic-fitted antisubmarine craft consisting
of approximately 165 destroyers, 35 patrol craft (i .e .,
sloops, frigates, corvettes) and 20 trawlers . This total
may be compared with the more than 3000 ships
(about 450 destroyers, 170 patrol craft and the remainder trawlers and small craft) available to the
Allies for antisubmarine warfare in 1918 .
The British, profiting from their experience in
World War T, had learned that the ocean convoy
system did more than anything else to reduce shipping losses. They knew that the convoy system works
best in open water where evasion can be employed
and that its success depends upon efficient escorts
armed with effective offensive weapons. They were
also aware of the fact that an efficient U-boat tracking
system is necessary to practice effective evasion, and
a daily U-boat plot based on contacts, DF fixes, and
intelligence was used throughout the war.
Meanwhile the Germans had done considerable research in developing and improving their U-boats.
The U-boats available to the Germans at the start of
World War II were faster than those used in World
War I and were also considerably stronger, being
able to dive deeper and to withstand more depthcharge punishment . The Germans had also developed an electric torpedo which left no visible wake .
However, in September 1939, the Germans seem to
have had available only about 60 U-boats, of which
30 were of the small 250-ton type (of limited endurance-suitable for coastal operations only) and 30 of
the larger ocean-going type, 20 of which were of 500
tons and 10 of 750 tons . This small number suggests
that Germany, possibly not anticipating that England would enter the war at that early date, had given
higher priorities to the building of tanks and aircraft
for land warfare than to the building of U-boats.
Chapter 1
FIRST PERIOD
SUBMERGED DAYLIGHT ATTACKS ON INDEPENDENTS

SEPTEMBER 1939-JUNE 1940
.1
voyed during the month without the loss of a single

ship while in convoy . In addition, two U-boats were
His first phase of U-boata warfare was greatly in- sunk during the month by British surface craft. The
Tfluenced by the rapidly changing overall military Germans apparently had no knowledge of British
situation. Germany invaded Poland on September 1, Asdic and still believed that they could counter
1939, and England and France declared war on Ger- underwater detection by reducing internal noises .
many on September 3. Some U-boats had left GerThe lack o knowledge of British Asdic probably
many early in August and when the war began there accounted for the early U-boat tactics. The U-boats
were about six at sea, ready to start an offensive in preferred attacking their targets during the daylight,
the Northeast Atlantic in the Western Approaches believing themselves relatively invisible because o
to England.
their powers of submergence, while they could obAccording to statements of early prisoners of war, serve the targets through their periscopes . The U-boat
the commanding officers of U-boats had been ordered
attacks were generally made by torpedo from perito observe International Law, which forbade U-boats
scope depth, but if the target was an unarmed merto sink merchant vessels without having first_ chant vessel, the U-boat usually surfaced and atplaced the passengers and crew in a place of safety .
tempted to sink the ship by gunfire .
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
At the beginning of September, these instructions

seem to have been generally obeyed, with the notable
exception of the Athenia, which was torpedoed without warning on September 3 . However, this situation
did not last long and, toward the end of September,
even neutral ships were being torpedoed without
warning.
Anticipating unrestricted U-boat warfare, the British had prepared plans before the war for the hnmc=
diate establishment of the convoy system and the first
trade convoy sailed on September 6 . As the British
defenses against U-boat attacks were based on the
needs of protecting primarily the fleet and secondarily merchant shipping, the limited number of antisubmarine vessels available for convoy escort was
inadequate to provide direct protection to the convoys. Nevertheless, it was believed that the British
antisubmarine measures were sufficiently effective to
ensure that no U-boat could betray her presence by
attacking a convoy without running a severe danger
of subsequent destruction by the escorting craft.
The experience during September tended to justify these expectations, as over 900 ships were cona The term U-boat is used to refer to any enenzy submarine
German, Italian, Vichy French, or Japanese) with a displacement of 200 tons or more .
During September, while the convoy system was

still not fully established, there was a sufficient number of unescorted targets at sea to enable the U-boats
to sink 39 ships of 151,000 gross tons . Ten of these
ships were sunk by gunfire alone, from surfaced
U-boats, and this led the British to take immediate
steps to arm as many merchant ships as possible to
defend themselves against such attacks .
At the start of the war antisubmarine forces in the
Western Approaches were augmented by aircraft carriers, but after HMS Courageous was sunk by U-boat
torpedoes on September 17, the carriers were withdrawn . However, shore-based aircraft of the Coastal
Command helped considerably by flying over 100,400
miles in September, sighting some 50 U-boats or supposed U-boats, and attacking over 30 of them . Although none of the aircraft attacks were very effective, they did cause the U-boats to submerge and
thereby reduced their effective operating period .
The September U-boat campaign was followed by

a lull during the first ten days of October during
which, although U-boats were at sea, hardly any ships
were attacked . This lull seemed to reflect the political
situation at the time ; as it was accompanied by Hitlet's offer of peace on October 6 . U-boat activity
flared up again on October 12, and by the end of the
month 28 ships of 136,000 gross tons had been sunk

by U-boats . In addition Kapitan-leutnant Prien, in
command of U-47, penetrated the harbor of Scapa
Flow in the middle of October, and sank HMS Royal
Oak, a British battleship . This served to direct British attention to the necessity of protecting harbors
against U-boats by means of fixed defenses, such as
booms, indicator loops, mine fields, and harbor defense Asdics .
During November and December the main effort

of the German U-boats seems to have centered upon
a mine-laying campaign on the East Coast of England, particularly in the Thames Estuary. The mines
laid were both the old type of contact mine and a
new type of magnetic mine, which at first proved
rather difficult to sweep. Monthly losses due directly
to U-boats (torpedoes and gunfire) fell to 18 ships of
about 65,000 gross tons and were exceeded by the
100,000 gross tons of shipping sunk by mines during
each of these months .
U-boat activity began increasing again in the second week of January 1940 and by the end of. the
month there were as many U-boats at sea as at the
start of the war. In February, the U-boat effort was
greater than during any previous period and 35 ships
of 153,000 gross tons were sunk. The U-boats continued to follow a policy of attacking Allied and
neutral ships without warning. They preferred attacking single ships or stragglers from convoys, thus
making it difficult for the antisubmarine ships to conduct an effective search and counterattack . The respect the U-boats had been showing for the British
convoys is indicated by the fact that only 7 of the 169
ships sunk by U-boats during the first six months of
the war were in convoy when sunk, although roughly
half the shipping sailed in convoy at this time .
Losses due to mines fell off during January and
February as better methods of sweeping the magnetic
mines were developed and more ships were degaussed
(magnetic field of ship changed to protect it against
magnetic mines) .
There was a marked lull in U-boat activity
throughout March, featured by the complete absence
of U-boats from Atlantic waters after about the 12th
of the month. Early in April, every available U-boat
left Germany to take up patrol positions in the North
Sea to help in the impending military operations
against Norway. The average number of U-boats at
sea reached a peak of about 15 during the second
week of April, when Germany invaded Norway. De-
spite the large concentration of U-boats, the damage

done by them was remarkably small. No British
capital ship was even attacked by U-boats and only
six ships of 31,000 gross tons were sunk by the U-boats
during the whole month of April, a new low for the
war. In addition, the Germans lost six U-boats during
the month, a new high for the war.
There was very little U-boat activity during the
first half of May as Germany started her invasion of
Holland and Belgium on May 10 . It is believed that
during May no U-boat proceeded to the Western
Approaches until the 21st and only 10 ships of 48,000
gross tons were sunk by U-boats during the month.
Shipping losses to U-boats were exceeded for the first
time during the war by the 154,000 gross tons sunk
by aircraft . These losses were incurred largely in connection with the operation and evacuation of the
British Expeditionary Force, which left Dunkerque
on May 29 .
The Germans announced on May 29 that U-boat
warfare was about to recommence and warned neutrals not to enter the protection of British convoys.
This threat was followed by a period of intense
U-boat activity as convoys were attacked with greater
boldness than in earlier periods, advantage being
taken of the paucity of escorts, rendered inevitable
by the demands of the military evacuation and the
Home Fleet. The losses for June were the highest of
the war, with 56 ships of 267,000 gross tons being sunk
by U-boats. The German ace, Kit. Prien, contributed
his share by sinking ten ships of about 67,000 gross
tons during one cruise . By the end of June, France
was out of the war and Italy had entered the war
with over 100 U-boats, about 60 of which were
ocean-going (650 tons and over).
1.2
COUNTERMEASURES TO THE
U-BOAT
''2'1
Convoys
The convoy system was by far the most effective

countermeasure in keeping down shipping losses to
U-boats during this first period, just as it had been
during World War I. This was still true, even though
the number of antisubmarine vessels suitable for
ocean escort was insufficient to provide direct protection to the convoys. The British met this problem by
keeping their convoy system flexible, changing the
number of escorts and the distances for which con-
COUNTERMEASURES TO THE U-BOAT
voys were escorted in accordance with U-boat activity. It should be noted that the Germans made this
problem more difficult by sending the U-boats out in
waves, so that peaks of U-boat activity occurred in
September 1939 and in February and June of 1940 .
Although the first convoys sailed early in September 1939, the convoy system was not fully in force
until the beginning of October . The designations of
the main convoy routes that were set up then were :
OB
HX
SL
Outward bound from England to America

and Africa .
Homeward bound to England from Halifax.
Homeward bound to England from Sierra
Leone.
In order to illustrate some of the problems involved in setting up the convoy system a detailed
account is presented of the changes made in the HX
convoy route during this period . On October 7, 1939,
it was decided to discontinue the convoys from Kingston, Jamaica, and all ships in the West Atlantic were
routed independently to Halifax, taking advantage
of U. S. waters as far as possible . Convoys were divided into slow (9- to 12-knot) and fast (12- to 15-knot)
convoys, which left Halifax at about the same time in
order to arrive four days apart at the rendezvous
point. At this point, located at about 15 west longitude, the convoys were met by one or two destroyers
which provided antisubmarine escort to England.
The ocean escort, provided between Halifax and the
rendezvous point primarily for protection against
surface raiders, consisted of a battleship, cruiser, or
armed merchant cruiser, and one or two submarines
when available.
The first of these convoys, HX 6 and HXF 6, consisted of 62 and 6 ships, respectively . The dividing
line was then altered to 11 knots to equalize the
number of ships, and during November 1939 the
number of ships in these sections averaged 32 and 12 .
On February 12, 1940, the fast convoys were discontinued, and all HX convoys sailed at 9 knots, at 3- and
5-day intervals . These convoys consisted of ships with
speeds between 9 and 15 knots, ships of higher speeds
sailing independently . At the beginning of April, in
order to equalize the size of the convoys, 4-day intervals were started.
Early in May 1940 Bermuda began to be used as an
assembly point for vessels from the West Indies and
other points in that vicinity, and HX 41 was the first
combined Bermuda and Halifax convoy . The sec-
tions formed at sea, as arranged, at about 41 north

latitude and 43 west longitude, and the Bermuda
escort then returned to base . This change enabled
about 60 per cent of the ships that formerly sailed
from Halifax to cut down their voyage by 500 miles
and to avoid the fog off Newfoundland . The average
number of ships in these HX convoys had risen to 46
by May 1940 .
In addition to the above-mentioned convoys, the
British also sailed coastal convoys to protect shipping
on short trips around the English coast and Scandinavian convoys to and from Norway . The main
energies of the French light craft were also devoted
to the protection of merchant shipping. They were
fitted with Asdic as soon as possible after the opening
of the war and provided escorts for purely French
convoys, helped escort the Gibraltar convoys for
most of the way, and assisted in covering the military
cross-Channel convoys.
The extreme value o the British convoy system
may best be appreciated by noting that during this
period about 2500 ships were being convoyed
monthly, while only about 5 of these were being sunk
monthly by U-boats (2%2 in escorted convoys, 112 in
unescorted convoys, and 1 straggler) . The rate at
which independent merchant vessels were being sunk
by U-boats was roughly about four times as high .
Aircraft
Another important countermeasure to the U-boat
was the use of aircraft . These had seen very little use
against U-boats during World War I and consequently it took some time before the problems of how
to use aircraft most efficiently against U-boats were
solved . In addition, the aircraft were still armed only
with bombs. Consequently the direct contribution of
aircraft toward sinking U-boats was negligible during this period.
Nevertheless, aircraft performed a defensive function of great value in helping to protect shipping.
Coastal Command aircraft flew, on the average,
about 4500 hours monthly on purely antisubmarine
work . About 20 U-boats were sighted monthly and
12 of these were attacked, with about .l0 per cent of
the attacks resulting in some damage to the U-boat .
This effort reached a peak of 9500 hours during
June 1940, when about 2800 hours were spent on
antisubmarine patrol and 6700 hours on convoy
escort duty .
The main value of this flying was in causing the

U-boats to submerge, thus preventing them from
shadowing or approaching convoys on the surface.
It also helped to discourage them from operating
close to the shores o England where the flying was
heaviest . U-boats at this time were under orders to
submerge as soon as they sighted a plane and the
British took advantage of this by starting to use, in
November 1939, light aircraft of the Moth type to
patrol around the coast. These aircraft were known
as "scarecrows," carried no bombs, and were used
solely to sight and report U-boats, and to make them
submerge . These flying hours and sightings also
helped considerably in keeping an accurate U-boat
plot .
'~2~3
Scientific and Technical
Applying the lessons learned in World War I, considerable scientific work was being done during this
period to improve antisubmarine attacks. Some of
the typical problems being investigated then were :
1 . Development of an Asdic receiver-amplifier
with automatic sensitivity control so that both long
and short range echoes would be clearly recorded .
2. Theoretical investigation of improved methods
of carrying out antisubmarine attacks and of the best
type of depth-charge pattern to ensure destruction of
the submarine.
3. Assistance to antisubmarine personnel iii distinguishing between submarine and non-submarine
targets, as a great amount of effort and a large number of depth charges were being expended on wrecks,
whales, and other non-submarine targets .
Sinking of U-Boats
Surface craft, equipped with Asdic and depth
charges, were by far the most potent enemy of the
U-boat during this first phase of U-boat warfare .
Twenty-one German U-boats are known to have
been sunkb as a result of Allied action during this
10-month period ; 15 were sunk by surface craft, one
by the coordinated action of two ships and one plane,
one by a plane from a British battleship, two were
torpedoed by submarines, and two were mined in
b The estimates given here for U-boat sinkings are based on
Allied assessments. Incidents assessed A or B are considered to
have sunk the U-boat . Justification for this assumption is given
in Appendix I .
attempting to pass through the Dover Barrage in

October. Two other German U-boats were sunk
under unknown circumstances while one is known to
have been sunk in the Baltic after being rammed
accidentally.
In addition to the 24 German U-boats mentioned
above, 10 Italian U-boats were sunk in the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean between June
10, when Italy entered the war, and the end of the
month.
1 .3
SURVEY OF RESULTS
1.3.'
From the U-boat Point of View
The average number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic during this first phase of the U-boat war was about
six. The average number of ships sunk monthly by
them was 26 of about 106,000 gross tons, so that about
four ships of about 18,000 gross tons were being sunk
per U-boat month at sea . However, about two out of
the six U-boats at sea were being sunk each month,
so that the average life of a U-boat at sea was only
about three months. This relative rate of loss of
U-boats was extremely high, much higher than at
any stage of the first World War, and makes readily
understandable the fact that they preferred attacking
unescorted ships to attacking convoys, lightly escorted as they were . It also helps to explain why the
German U-boats felt it necessary to change their
tactics during the next phase of the U-boat war; this,
despite the fact that the overall exchange rate (i .e.,
13 ships of about 53,000 gross tons sunk for each
U-boat sunk) might be considered satisfactory for the
U-boats. The rate of loss of U-boats simply was higher
than the Germans could afford .
The fact can be clearly seen from another approach . The Germans started the war with about 30
ocean-going U-boats (i.e ., 500 tons or larger) . By the
end of June 1940, 18 of these had been sunk while
only about 15 new ones had been commissioned, so
that the Germans only had about 27 ocean-going
U-boats available at the start of the second period of
the U-boat war.
1.3 .2
From the Allies' Point of View
At the end of June 1940 England was left alone in

the war against Germany and her ability to carry on
the war was dependent on her keeping her sea lanes
open . Total shipping losses of the Allied and neutral
SURVEY OF RESULTS
nations were about 280,000 gross tons monthly as

compared to a building rate of only about 88,000
gross tons monthly, for a total net loss of 1,920,000
gross tons due to all causes during this 10-month
period out of a total of about 40,000,000 gross tons of
shipping at the start of the war. It appeared that
shipping losses were still on the upgrade and the
only hope of keeping the rate of net loss down was a
large increase in shipbuilding.
Of the 280,000 gross tons of shipping lost monthly,
about 223,000 gross tons were lost by enemy action,
with U-boats accounting for 106,000 gross tons or 48
per cent of the total lost by enemy action . Mines
accounted for 58,000 or 26 per cent, aircraft for
27,000 or 13 per cent, surface craft for 14,000 or 6
per cent, and other and unknown causes for the other
7 per cent of the losses .
The U-boat appeared definitely to be the main
threat to Allied shipping. The convoy system had
been the main factor in keeping the shipping losses

due to U-boats down to a moderate level. Although
the number of British Asdic-fitted antisubmarine
vessels increased from about 220 at the beginning of
the war to about 450 at the end of June 1940, most of
the increase took place in trawlers and other small
ships . The 450 ships consisted of about 180 destroyers, about 55 patrol craft, and about 215 trawlers
and other small craft. However, the number of these
ships that could be spared for escort duty was still
insufficient to provide adequate protection to the
convoys. The British had been fortunate during the
first period that the enemy had only a small number
of U-boats available and these had operated in a
limited area, almost all the sinkings of ships occurring in the Northeast Atlantic (east of 20 west longitude and north of 30 north latitude) . This had
helped to make the escort problem easier during the
first period .
Chapter 2
SECOND PERIOD
NIGHT SURFACED ATTACKS ON CONVOYS
JULY 1940-MARCH 1941
2.1
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
HE SECOND PHASE of the U-boat war was marked

T by a complete change in enemy tactics . The Ger-
mans, having discovered as a result of their high rate

of loss that the U-boats were quite vulnerable to
Asdic when submerged, decided to make use of the
hours of darkness to regain their relative invisibility .
At night, trimmed down on the surface, a U-boat
offers a very small target to the human eye and is also
rather difficult to detect by Asdic. The surfaced
U-boat has the advantage of high speed and maneuverability and therefore has good chances of avoiding detection by the escorts. Acting on this principle
and encouraged by the results achieved at night during the first period by a few of the more successful
U-boat captains, the U-boats started, in July 1940,
the general practice of attacking convoys at night
from a surfaced position and then using their high
surface speed to escape . Occasional daylight attacks
were still made on ships sailing independently, and
on stragglers from convoys.
Accompanying this change in the enemy's tactics
came the occupation of the French ports and their
establishment as U-boat bases, marked by the first
visit of a U-boat to Lorient on July 22 . The use of
French bases served to cut down the transit time of
the U-boats and enabled them to extend their area
of operations further westward in the Atlantic . From
his air bases in France, the enemy was also able to
send out long-range reconnaissance aircraft to pick
up convoys in the Atlantic .
In addition, after the fall of France there developed the threat of a sea-borne invasion of England.
This confined a large number of destroyers to the
East and South coasts of England and consequently,
as the number of ships available for convoy escort
was necessarily limited, the U-boats were encouraged
to attack convoys more frequently. Aircraft were also
diverted from antisubmarine patrols over the Western Approaches to England, where the U-boats were
operating, to anti-invasion patrols to the eastward.
Some Italian U-boats had also started operation in

the Atlantic in August 1940 . These Italian U-boats
used Bordeaux as a base and followed the same
methods as German U-boats, presumably working
directly under German orders . Their operational
areas were usually southward of the ones used by the
German U-boats.
Increased U-boat activity, which had commenced
in June 1940, continued throughout July and August
with over 200,000 gross tons of shipping being sunk
in each of those months . Up to the middle of July,
the most active area vas still the Western Approaches
between the latitudes of 48 north and 51 north.
After the threat o air attack from French bases had
led to the rerouting of British convoys around the
north of England, the U-boats lost no time in shifting
their area of activity to the Northwestern Approaches
to meet the increased traffic there. This activity was
marked by increased attacks on convoys while antisubmarine escorts were actually present, but these
attacks were generally on large convoys which, owing
to the shortage of escort vessels, were guarded by only
about two Asdic-fitted ships.
On August 15 Germany proclaimed a complete
blockade of the British Isles and called upon neutral
governments to forbid their ships to sail through the
Anglo-German war zone . U-boat activity was considerably intensified after that date and the shipping
losses continued to increase, with about 300,000 gross
tons being sunk by U-boats in September, and a new
high for the war was reached in October when fit
ships of 346,000 gross tons were sunk by U-boats. The
scene of greatest activity during these months was
still the Northwestern Approaches, with night attacks on convoys being the most favored method of
attack by the U-boat. Of the 59 ships attacked in this
area in September, 40 were in convoy ; 71 per cent of
the total were night attacks. The concentration of
aggressive operations into the period of, and immediately following, the full moon was especially notable during October when 31 ships were attacked on
October 18 and 19 .
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
It should be kept in mind that during these months

of heavy losses the average number of U-boats at sea
was still only about six. This means that ten ships of
about 60,000 gross tons were sunk by the average
U-boat at sea during October 1940, probably an alltime high in operating efficiency for submarines . In
addition to inflicting these heavy losses, the U-boats
were almost invariably escaping unscathed, as, for
example, in October when only one U-boat was sunk
in the Atlantic . These were the days when the star
German commanders (U-boat aces) such as Prien
and Kretschmer were operating. These aces had survived the hazards of operating during the first period
and had profited from the experience gained then .
The U-boats making these night attacks on convoys
were operating individually and usually only one or
two U-boats would be involved in the attack. Despite
this, some of the convoys suffered rather heavy losses,
as, for example, HX 79, which lost 12 ships to two
U-boats in one night in October.
The normal procedure for U-boats attacking convoys at this time seems to have been as follows: The
U-boat gained contact with the convoy during the
day, either as a result of reports from long-range
German reconnaissance aircraft, reports from other
U-boats, or by sighting smoke, and then proceeded
to shadow the convoy at visibility distance on the
bow or beam . When darkness had fallen, the U-boat,
trimmed down on the surface, closed the convoy, and
endeavored to reach a position broad on its bow. She
kept very careful watch for the escorts and endeavored to pass astern of those stationed on the bow of
the convoy . The approach was pressed home as close
as the U-boat captain dared, and it is possible that,
in some cases, a firing range of about 600 yards was.
achieved . Having reached a firing position on the
beam of the convoy, most U-boats increased to full
speed, fired a salvo of four torpedoes, turned away
still at full speed, firing stern tubes if possible, and
retired as rapidly as possible on the surface in the direction considered safest . If their retreat was unseen,
they might reload their torpedo tubes on the surface
and attack again in the same manner later in the
night.
The serious damage inflicted on British convoys by
these new U-boat tactics caused a considerable number of changes to be made in the convoys. The spacing of the convoy columns was opened up to reduce
the chance of more than one ship's being hit by a
salvo. Escorts were stationed farther away from the
convoy and new plans were developed for searching

for the U-boat with illuxninants following attack . To
improve the tactical efficiency of the escorts, these
ships were formed into groups and as far as possible
ships of one group were to work together. Admiralty
took over the responsibility for the routing of all
ocean-going convoys, thus enabling emergency
changes to be made without delay. In addition, great
efforts were made to equip all convoy escorts with
radar, which would enable them to locate U-boats
on the surface at night outside visibility distance and
possibly before they could attack the convoy .
By November 1940 Lorient had become the principal U-boat base and during this month one German U-boat had left this port and gone as far south
as Freetown, sinking four ships in three days . November vas also marked by several heavy air attacks on
the ports of Lorient and Bordeaux, which were considered to have inflicted severe damage on both
U-boats and their bases.
The first known successful counterattack against
the German method of night attack on convoys occurred on November 21 after two ships of convoy
OB 244 had been torpedoed. The British corvette
HMS Rhododendron, stationed astern as a rescue
ship, sighted an object momentarily at a range of
1500 yards about an hour after the torpedoing .
Three minutes later Asdic contact was gained and
then depth charges were dropped with the result that
considerable metallic wreckage and oil were blown
to the surface .
This successful counterattack, plus the loss of two
other U-boats, might account in part for the reduced
number of attacks on escorted convoys in November
and December 1940 . Heavy winter weather in the
North Atlantic was probably also a factor in accounting for the decrease in shipping losses to U-boats, as
only 150,000 gross tons were sunk in November and
200,000 gross tons in December.
Early in December a westerly movement of the
U-boats became noticeable, with most of them stationed as far out as 20 west longitude . This may have
been due in part to Coastal Command flying and in
part to an attempt to intercept incoming convoys
before the antisubmarine escort joined . However,
this actually increased the enemy's difficulty in locating convoy traffic.
As a counter to the fact that U-boats in the Northwestern Approaches had been attacking British convoys in longitudes 20 to 25 west, which is an area
1U
beyond the point which could be reached by the

escorts, new evasive routing measures were adopted
in December. It was decided to make use of dispersion to the maximum extent that the endurance of
merchant ships permitted, and the routes of the convoys were spread between 631/2 and 57 north latitude . The cycles of convoys were also opened out,
with the object of reducing the strain on escorting
forces .
This thorough diversion of convoy routes seems to
have been the main factor in the reduction of shipping losses, just as it had been in World War I . No
attacks were made on escorted convoys from December 1940 until January 29, 1941, and the shipping
losses to U-boats in January dropped to 21 ships of

127,000 gross tons, the lowest figure since the Germans announced their intensified U-boat campaign
in May 1940 . This occurred despite the fact that the
average number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic had
increased to about 12 . Most of the ships lost during
these two months were not in convoy, since the
U-boats had difficulty finding convoys and resorted
to the much easier task of picking off stragglers or
ships sailing independently .
The month o February 2941 opened with a continuation of the comparative lull in U-boat activity.
Evasive routing had frustrated the normal German
"hit and run" method of night attack on the convoys .
However, it became clear in February that this had
provoked intensified enemy offensive measures, in
the form of greater cooperation between aircraft and
U-boats, and special searching patrols . The days of

wolf-pack attacks were foreshadowed as the U-boats
started operating in groups of three to five, each
U-boat being given a limited patrol area within the.
wider area covered by the group . The first U-boat to
gain contact shadowed the convoy while others were
ordered to concentrate in a position to attack . The
shadower usually emitted radio signals to home other
U-boats or aircraft to the attack . Similarly, aircraft
were able to home U-boats to a convoy .
Cooperation between U-boats, aircraft, and surface craft is well illustrated by the attack on HG 53,
consisting of 21 ships escorted by one sloop and one
destroyer. The convoy was attacked by a U-boat at
0435 on February 9, two ships being sunk . The
U-boat continued to shadow the convoy and probably homed six Focke-Wulf aircraft to it during the
afternoon of the 9th. Five ships were bombed and
sunk while one plane was shot down . The U-boat

continued to shadow the convoy and again attacked
on the 10th, sinking one ship . After this, she maintained touch with the convoy, reporting its position .
Her reports were evidently intended for a German
"Hipper" class cruiser. While closing HG 53, this
cruiser came upon the unescorted slow portion of
SL 64 and directed her attack against this easy target,
sinking seven ships.
Three other convoys were attacked by U-boats in
the last week of February, and as the month drew to
an end, with the losses mounting to 36 ships of 189,000 gross tons, it was evident that the expected spring
offensive of the U-boats had commenced . The average number o U-boats at sea in the Atlantic rose to
16 in March and these included some o Germany's
most skillful U-boat captains. Their tactics included
a repetition of the concentrated night attacks upon
convoys, and six convoys were attacked during the
month. The upward trend of shipping lost by U-boat
action reported in February was maintained during
March with the total losses reaching 40 ships o 239,000 gross tons . These losses were considerably less
than those recorded during September and October
1940, the last previous period of intense U-boat activity, and were not considered unduly alarming considering the fact that the number of U-boats at sea in
March 1941 was more than twice as great as in the
earlier period.
More encouraging was the evidence of the increased efficiency of antisubmarine escorts and of the
fact that U-boats which attacked adequately escorted
convoys could be dealt with effectively . This evidence
was clearly demonstrated by the loss to Germany,
during March, of her three outstanding U-boat aces
(Prien, Kretschmer, and Schepke), the top three
U-boat captains in terms of tonnage sunk, each having more than 200,000 gross tons of shipping to his
credit .
Prien, commander of U-47, was the first to he lost
as a result of his attack on Convoy OB 293 when he
sank one ship shortly after midnight on March 8,
1941 . HMS :Wolverine, one of the escorts, sighted
smoke about 20 minutes after the attack on the convoy and subsequently made contact with the U-boat .
The U-boat was attacked for over five hours, during
which time there occurred a remarkable chase of the
U-boat on the surface for over an hour, before it was
finally considered sunk . There were no survivors but
11
prisoners of war from U-boats sunk subsequently

have supplied information from which it is believed
that the Wolverine's attacks were made on U-47,
commanded by Prien . Berlin subsequently admitted
the loss of Prien.
U-100 (Schepke) and U-99 (Kretschmer) were both
sunk as a result of the attack on Convoy HX 112, during which five ships were sunk . U-100 located the
convoy, which had been reported earlier by U-99, on
the evening of March 16 . Later she sighted a destroyer astern and dived . At 0137 on the 17th, HMS
Walker obtained Asdic contact and attacked with

depth charges . Three further depth-charge attacks
were carried out by HMS Vanoc and HMS Walker
before contact was lost at 0250 . Meanwhile U-100,

which had been considerably damaged by the depth
charging, had surfaced . While the escorts were preparing to take station for an organized search,
Vanoc's radar operator reported a contact 1000 yards
away and U-100 was subsequently sighted on the surface and rammed by HMS Vanoc . Schepke, who was
caught and crushed between the stove-in side of the
bridge and the periscope, was carried down with the
sinking U-boat .
While HMS Vanoc was picking up survivors of

U-100, HMS Walker obtained Asdic contact . Although it was considered unlikely that another
U-boat would remain so close, tale Asdic operator was
so convinced that he had a submarine contact that
HMS Waltzer fired six depth charges. This attack was
extremely accurate and brought U-99 to the surface
almost at once . Both destroyers opened fire and U-99
was abandoned shortly afterward, with Kretschmer
and other survivors taken as prisoners. Kretschmer
had been quite successful up to that point as he
claimed a record total of 86,000 tons of shipping sunk
on this last cruise, while his total sinkings had
reached 338,000 gross tons, more than any other
U-boat captain.
There were immediate indications that the enemy
was severely shaken by the results of his attacks on
adequately escorted convoys. The only subsequent
attack during the month was made far west before
the antisubmarine escort had joined, when three
ships were sunk from HX 115 at 22 west longitude.
Beside the effect on the tactics and operations of
U-boats, the loss of three of Germany's most skillful
U-boat commanders must have had a profound effect
on U-boat morale .
2.2
U-BOAT
Convoys
The high percentage of hits obtained by U-boats
in night attacks made it necessary in November 1940
to increase the distance apart of convoy columns
from about 600 yards to about 1000 yards. The distance between ships in the same column was about
400 yards . In December 1940 the distance between
columns during the daytime was reduced back to
600 yards to increase protection against air attacks.
To counter the heavy losses suffered as a result of

the night attacks by surfaced U-boats in September
and October 1940 the escorts were stationed in positions down each wing at a greater distance from the
convoy than before . In the event of an attack, they

were instructed to proceed outward from the convoy
for a distance of 10 miles at full speed, firing star shell
to illuminate the area where the U-boat might be, in
an attempt to sight her or force her to submerge,
thereby improving the chances of Asdic detection . If
contact was made, two escorts were to hunt the
U-boat, while the remainder were to rejoin the
convoy.
Later, when radar-equipped escorts became available, they were stationed one on each beam of the
convoy, about 4 miles from it in order to avoid back
echoes from the convoy on the radar set. The beam
escorts were to steam on the same and opposite
courses as the convoy, zigzagging as requisite for selfprotection . Another method of sweeping, which was
under trial in order to effect an economy in fuel, was
for the escort to start a slow turn of 360 when in a
position abeam of the leading ships, thus sweeping
outwards and astern at about 1 per second, and on
completion assuming station abeam of the rear ships.
The remainder of the escorts were disposed as before,
but were instructed to bear in mind that, at night,
the rear wing positions were the most important and
that, in the event of a U-boat attack, star shell searches
were to he made in the rear of the convoy also .
By the beginning of this period, in July 1940, the
convoy system vas fully established and most of the
subsequent changes were made necessary by enemy
activity. This may again be illustrated by continuing
the history of the transatlantic HX convoys, the main
line of supply to England. Besides the serious U-boat
12
threat, enemy air and surface craft activity also had

their effects on these convoys.
The first HX convoy to be routed around the
north of England in July 1940 made a rendezvous
with the local antisubmarine escort at about 17 west
longitude. Slow convoys to include ships between
7j~2 and 9 knots were organized in August to assemble
at Sydney, Nova Scotia, and were designated SC . This
reduced the HX convoys to a reasonable size of about
45 ships. The HX convoys sailed on a 4-day cycle,
while the SC convoys were on an 8-day cycle. In December, Sydney was abandoned as a convoy assembly
port, but the SC convoys were to continue to sail
from Halifax.
In order to extend the antisubmarine escort further west, the convoy intervals were lengthened, with
HX convoys sailing at alternate 6- and 4-day intervals, while the SC convoys sailed at 10-day intervals.
In addition, Loch Ewe, in the northern part of Scotland, was started as an assembly port for ships on the
east coast of England, and destroyers serving as antisubmarine escorts were able to refuel there and operate further west .
In February 1941, two HX convoys were routed on
a southern course but heavy air attacks resulted in
these convoys being rerouted to the north. Following
an attack by a surface raider and the sighting of two
German battle cruisers in the Atlantic, it was decided
to give close battleship cover to all Halifax convoys.
This threat of surface raiders also led to the discontinuance of the Bermuda section of HX convoys and
ships were routed independently to the Halifax
assembly.
British convoys were much harder hit during this
second period than in the previous period: The number of ships convoyed monthly increased to about
3600, with 26 of these being sunk monthly by
U-boats (13 in escorted convoys, 3 in unescorted convoys, and 10 stragglers) . This meant that the total
loss rate to U-boats was about 0 .7 per cent, more than
three times as high as in the earlier period .
Moreover, the HX and SG convoys sailing across
the Atlantic to England were much harder hit than
other convoys. Of the 360 ships sailing monthly in
these convoys (only 10 per cent of the total convoyed
shipping), about 14 ships were sunk monthly by
U-boats (over 50 per cent of the total losses of convoyed shipping) . The loss rate to U-boats on these
vital convoys was about 4 per cent, more than five
times as high as for all convoys.
Despite these high losses in convoys, the chances

of being sunk by a U-boat were still higher for independently routed ships. Comparable figures are available for shipping passing through the Northwestern
Approaches during the 6-month period from September 1940 through February 1941 . About 80 per
cent of the total losses to U-boats occurred in that
area. Of the 1180 ships sailing through this area
monthly in convoy, about 29 were sunk monthly by
U-boats for a loss rate of about 21/2 per cent . Of the
70 independently routed ships sailing through this
area monthly, about three were sunk monthly by
U-boats for a loss rate of about 4 per cent . In making
this comparison, one should keep in mind that the
ships sailing independently were generally capable
of making a speed of at least 13 knots, much higher
than the average speed which ships sailing in convoys were capable of making . This means that if all
shipping had sailed independently the loss rate
would probably have been much higher than the
4 per cent experienced by the select group of ships
that sailed independently .
2'2'2
Aircraft
During the second period, increased use was being

made of aircraft as a counter to U-boats. Though
suffering from many limitations for antisubmarine
operations, the airplane possesses obvious advantages
denied to surface craft (e .g., speed, cheapness, large

field of vision, and economy of personnel and materiel) . A U-boat on the surface can rely on the fact
that she will almost certainly sight an enemy ship
before she, herself, is seen . However, she must always
keep a vigilant lookout against being surprised by a
plane sweeping down out of the clouds .
In an attempt to improve the lethality of aircraft

attacks, Coastal Command tried using naval depth
charges modified for air use. Sunderland aircraft
started carrying both depth charges and bombs in
July 1940 . The first success of this new weapon came
on August 16 when a U-boat was severely damaged as
a result of a depth-charge attack . The Sunderland
plane, carrying two depth charges and four 250pound antisubmarine bombs, first dropped a single
depth charge set to explode at a depth of 100 feet
about 20 yards ahead of the conning tower of the
submerging U-boat . The U-boat was forced to the
surface and two minutes later the second depth
charge, set for 150 feet, was dropped about 20 feet
13
ahead of the conning tower. The U-boat was again as the number of sightings made monthly dropped
blown to the surface and was then observed to sink to about 14 and the attacks to about 8 . This decrease
sideways . On the third attack the stick of four bombs in the number of sightings, despite the increased
was dropped on the submerged U-boat . Air and oil number of U-boats at sea, was due mainly to the
came to the surface. In view of the initial successes movement of the U-boats further westward, out of
of depth charges, steps were immediately taken to range of much of the flying. Again, about 10 per cent
modify other Coastal Command aircraft in order to of the attacks resulted in some damage to the U-boat
enable them also to carry depth charges. It was ex- but the lethality of the attacks improved, as two
(about 21/2 per cent) of the attacks resulted in the
pected that the lethal value of aircraft attacks on
U-boats would be considerably increased by this probabl e sinking of a U-boat .
change .
The night attacks on convoys led, in September 2'2'3
1940, to the fitting of radar to the aircraft of Coastal
Considerable research was done during this period
Command and the Fleet Air Arm. This was supposed on improving Asdic sets with one of the chief goals
to be especially valuable for detecting U-boats on the being tl-e development of practical depth-determinsurface at night and it was hoped that this would ing gear . Very little progress was made on this diffimake it possible to operate aircraft at night for con- cult problem and the only immediate solution was
voy escort work . It was also intended to provide the the use of larger depth-charge patterns to countermaximum air escort for the three hours before dark- balance the large effect of the unknown factor of
ness falls, as this is the period in which U-boats could depth.
be found in shadowing positions preparatory to the
Another scientific development during this period
night attack .
was the extensive use of high frequency - direction
After the evasive routing of shipping had led to the
finding [HF/DF] towards the end of 1940, after GerFebruary
1941,
the
start of wolf-pack tactics in
many had acquired the French bases and the U-boats
shadowing U-boat became the main problem . Hav- had started widespread operations in the Atlantic .
ing contacted a convoy, the U-boat took great care
The principle of HF/DF was that a shore station
could determine the bearing of any U-boat making
not to reveal her presence by attacking in daylight,
a radio transmission, and it was hoped that the point
but shadowed the convoy at some distance . There
of interception of the bearings from several shore
was, therefore, only a small chance of the limited
stations would determine the transmitting U-boat's
number of escorts discovering these U-boats and this
position . However, as more HF/DF shore stations
task fell to the escorting aircraft . In view of this it
became available around the Atlantic shores and as
was decided to reinforce the number of Coastal ComU-boats started to operate in numbers on the Atlanmand aircraft available for escort duty in the Northtic trade routes, it became clear that shore-based
western Approaches . Consideration was also given to
HF/DF could only provide a rough indication of the
the problem of evolving the best type of aircraft
patrol, round the convoy, to prevent the U-boat from general area in which the U-boat was and, at best, it
shadowing it.
could only provide a warning for a threatened conDespite the curtailment of routine antisubmarine voy and so assist convoy routing. The Germans appatrols in favor of anti-invasion patrols during this preciated this and felt that shipborne direction-findperiod, the average number of hours flown monthly ing was restricted to medium frequencies . They
by Coastal Command aircraft on antisubmarine therefore used high-frequency communications exduties increased by about 1000 hours over the pre- tensively once contact had been made with the convious period to reach 6300 hours, 5 100 hours on convoy. As a result it was realized that HF/DF on convoy
voy escort and 1200 hours on patrol . The number of escorts themselves might do a great deal more ; it
flying hours on antisubmarine work dropped to might even enable the escorts to find U-boats before
about 4000 during the winter months of December they could launch their attacks. The immediate re1940 and January 1941, due to longer hours of dark- quirement was an HF/DF outfit for ships which was
ness and poorer weather . By March 1941 it was again quick and easy to operate.
However, the main scientific achievement during
up to about 8000 hours. This increased amount of
flying was less productive than during the first period, this period was the introduction of radar sets on
14
both ships and aircraft . Radar worked an the principle of transmitting short pulses of very high-frequency radio waves and then receiving the echoes
from objects, like a U-boat on the surface. The echoes
would enable the range and bearing of the object to
be determined even at night and in conditions of
poor visibility .
We have seen that the heavy shipping losses suffered at the start of this period as a result of night
attacks on convoys had made radar an urgent necessity . As a stop-gap, the first radar sets fitted in destroyers were of a Royal Air Force design known as
air-surface vessel [ASV] or in the British Navy as
radio direction-finding [RDF] Type 286 M. The fitting of these sets on ships was started about November 1940 and by April 1941 radar had been fitted on
about 40 destroyers of the Western Approaches Command. It was hoped that radar would enable the
escorts to detect the presence of any U-boat on the
surface within a radius of some two or three miles.
Type 286 M had a fixed aerial and received echoes
from a target over an arc covering about 50 degrees
on each side of the bow and also over a similar arc
astern at considerably shorter ranges (back echoes).
The wavelength of these early sets was relatively
long, over a meter, and consequently the aerial had
to be very high above the surface of the sea before
any considerable range could be obtained on small
objects. This limited the effectiveness against U-boats
of early radar sets on ships, but not on aircraft, as'a
plane flying at 2500 feet could expect to detect a
U-boat on the surface at a range of about 15 miles.
Radar could be used in antisubmarine warfare for
several subsidiary purposes, besides the main one of
detecting U-boats. It could give warning of the approach of aircraft; it could be used in low visibility
to make contact with single merchant ships or convoys ; to pick up navigation buoys; to keep station on
a convoy at night; or for making landfall .
By January 1941 it appeared that, as an antisubmarine device, radar on surface ships had been a disappointment. Escorts had considerable trouble owing to confusing "back echoes" from the convoy. As a
temporary measure it was hoped to alleviate this
trouble by reducing the range scale from ten miles
to five miles. Work was also being done on a newly
designed aerial, screened to cut out back echoes . At
the end of this period, in March 1941, new types
using shorter wavelengths and directional aerials
were under trial and an improved radar set of naval
design, Type 290, was in production and was to

replace Type 286.
2~2~'
Sinking of U-boats
Surface craft continued to be the most effective

craft in attacking and sinking U-boats during this
period, making about 25 attacks a month. Of the 23
U-boats sunk or probably sunk in the Atlantic, surface craft could be credited with 13, or about 53 per
cent . Submarines proved highly effective early in this
period, patrolling close to the French bases, and torpedoing five U-boats in September 1940 and another
in December . These submarine attacks made it necessary for the U-boats to enter and leave their bases
submerged. Two U-boats were probably sunk as a
result of aircraft attacks, one was sunk as a result of
a combined attack by a ship and plane, and another
was mined.
In addition, one German U-boat was known to
have been sunk under unknown circumstances while
Z 1 Italian U-boats were sunk in the Mediterranean,
with surface craft again accounting for six, or 55 per
cent of them . Italian U-boats operating outside the
Atlantic had very little success against Allied shipping, as only five ships of 28,000 gross tons were sunk
in the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans during the
first two years of the war, from September 1939 to
September 1941 .
213
2.3.1
SURVEY OF RESULTS
From the U-boat's Point of View
The new U-boat tactics adopted during this second

period had accomplished their primary objective of
reducing the high rate of loss of U-boats. The average
number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic during this
period rose to about 10, while only about 22 of these
were lost monthly. The average life of a U-boat at
sea had increased by about 33 per cent, from 3
months to 4 months .
In addition, the efficiency of U-boats in sinking
ships increased slightly, as the average U-boat sank
four ships of about 22,000 gross tons per month at
sea. The combined effect of these two factors improved the overall exchange rate to 16 ships of about
88,000 gross tons sunk for each U-boat sunk or probably sunk, an extremely profitable transaction for
the U-boats.
SURVEY OF RESULTS
From a quantitative point of view, the position of

the German U-boats toad improved considerably during this period as the increased U-boat building program, which the Germans had started shortly after
England entered the war, began to take effect. As a
result of commissioning about 45 new ocean-going
U-boats while losing only about 18 of the large ones
(500 tons or larger) Germany had about 54 oceangoing U-boats available at the end of this period,
about twice as many as it had at the start of the
period.
Thus the Germans would be able to send many

more U-boats out to sea during the third period than
they had sent during the early periods of the war.
However, they had lost many of their ablest and most
experienced captains and crews, and these were not
as easily replaced as the U-boats themselves . The
necessity of sending out relatively inexperienced
U-boat captains was probably a factor influencing the
Germans to decide, in February 1941, to operate their
U-boats in groups, so that several inexperienced captains could operate together with a more experienced
one.
2'3'2
Total shipping losses o the Allied and neutral

nations were about 456,000 gross tons a month during the second period, more than 60 per cent higher
than during the first period . Meanwhile the building
rate had increased only slightly to about 114,000
gross tons a month, making the net loss of shipping
about 342,000 gross tons a month. Total shipping
available had decreased from about 38,000,000 gross
tons at the start of the second period to about 35,000,000 gross tons at the end of the second period .
Of the 456,000 gross tons o shipping lost monthly,
about 404,000 gross tons were lost by enemy action .
U-boats accounted for 42 ships of 224,000 gross tons
a month (55 per cent of the total tonnage lost by
15
enemy action), more than twice the monthly tonnage

sunk by U-boats during the first period . Monthly
shipping losses due to enemy surface craft jumped to
87,000 dross tons (22 per cent) and those due to enemy
aircraft increased to 61,400 gross tons (15 per cent) .
Monthly losses due to mines dropped from second
place in the first period to only 27,000 gross tons (7
per cent), with other and unknown causes accounting
for the other 1 pee cent of the total losses due to
enemy action .
There is no doubt that the U-boats had inflicted a
serious defeat on the Allies in the Battle of the Atlantic during the second period, but the situation was
beginning to look more promising toward the end
of this period . One favorable element was the increasing number of antisubmarine ships and aircraft becoming available for convoy escorts as the threat of
the invasion of England was decreasing . The number
o antisubmarine ships suitable for ocean escort (i .e .,
destroyers and patrol craft such as sloops, frigates,
corvettes) had increased from about 235 at the start
of this period to about 375 (includes 240 destroyers)
at the end of the period . Important factors in this
increase were the coming into service of the new
corvette and also the transfer of the 50 old Town
class destroyers from the United States to England
in September 1940 . These destroyers were equipped
with U. S. echo-ranging gear, called sonar, which was
similar in principle to the British Asdic.
In addition, an increasing number of ships and
planes were being equipped with radar in order to
combat the L'-boat's night activity . Officers and crews
had increased experience and training in antisubmarine warfare and had shown in March 1941 that
they could inflict heavy losses on U-boats attacking
adequately escorted convoys . It appeared as if the
main problem during the third period would be that
of meeting the westward movement of the U-boats by
extending antisubmarine escort westward, without
weakening the escort strength.
Chapter 3
THIRD PERIOD
START OF WOLF PACKS ; END-TO-END ESCORT OF CONVOYS
APRIL 1941-DECEMBER 1941
3.1
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
HE ]TRUITS Of the intensified German U-boat conTstruction program, started late in 1939, were beginning to appear as the average number of U-boats
at sea in the Atlantic steadily increased from about
18 in April 1941 to about 36 in August 1941 . The
main features of U-boat tactics during this third
period were the increasing use of wolf-pack attacks
forced upon the Germans by the evasive routing of
British convoys and the scarcity of experienced
U-boat commanders .
The outstanding successes achieved by escorts in
the Northwestern Approaches during March 1941
produced the direct result that, in April, U-boats
abandoned the method of close attack on the surface
while antisubmarine escorts were in company. The
U-boats continued their search for weak spots in the
antisubmarine defenses by moving away from the
vicinity of England, where air coverage was heavy,
and extended their operations further westward
where they could attack convoys before the antisubmarine escort had joined. There was also a southward movement of the U-boats with increased activity in the Azores and Freetown Areas:
April opened somewhat disastrously with heavy
attacks, started before the antisubmarine escort had
joined, on Convoy SC 26 . About five U-boats participated in these attacks, ten ships were sunk, and, in
addition, the armed merchant cruiser ocean escort
was damaged by a torpedo hit. One of the attacking
U-boats was sunk after the antisubmarine escorts had
joined . Towards the end of April, four ships were
sunk from Convoy HX 121 as a result of the first
submerged daylight attack by a pack of U-boats. The
shipping losses to U-boats in April were about the
game as in March, with 41 ships o 240,000 gross tons
sunk . However, only about 30 per cent of the tonnage sunk by U-boats was in convoy in April as compared with 60 per cent in March. About 13 per cent
of the tonnage sunk by U-boats in April was sunk in
16
the Azores Area and another 15 per cent in the

Freetown Area .
The total shipping losses, from all causes,
amounted to 682,000 gross tons in April 1941, a
higher figure than for any previous month in the war .
This was due mainly to the heavy shipping losses to
enemy aircraft, about 296,004 gross tons, most of
these losses occurring in the Mediterranean in connection with the evacuation from Greece and Crete.
As a result of the heavy attack on Convoy SC 26 at
about 28 west longitude, the Iceland routing scheme
was adopted earlier than was originally intended .

Escorts were based on Iceland, making it possible to
meet convoys where the escort from England had to
leave, and then to escort the convoys out to about 35
west longitude, the escort there picking up an incoming convoy and then turning it over to an escort
group from England . Sunderland and Hudson aircraft were also moved to Iceland to provide air coverage for convoys in waters which could not be
covered by aircraft based on England .
Obviously this considerable increase in the distance over which transatlantic convoys were escorted
was only achieved at the expense of weaker individual escorts with each convoy . This was partly compensated by reinforcing the Western Approaches
with Asdic-fitted minesweepers . It is equally clear
that the use of Iceland necessitated a certain rigidity
of routing and tended to make the location of convoys by U-boats and enemy aircraft a simpler business . Against this, the daylight hours in these northern latitudes were rapidly lengthening as the summer months approached and the U-boat danger in
daylight was a lesser menace than at night .
The upward trend in shipping losses to U-boats

continued as 58 ships of 325,000 gross tons were sunk
in May. Over half . the losses occurred in the Freetown Area, where a group of about six U-boats sank
32 ships of 186,000 gross tons during the month . To
meet the increased U-boat activity in that area, additional escorts were added to the Freetown forces and
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
action was taken to divert ail shipping from the

Freetown Area, except those ships which must of
necessity pass through those waters .
Attacks on independents continued to increase as
only about 20 per cent of the shipping sunk by
U-boats in May was in convoy . In addition, the
U-boats continued to move further westward and on
May 20 located Convoy HX 126 at about 41' west
longitude, before the antisubmarine escorts had
joined . Eight ships were sunk before the convoy was
forced to disperse . This attack forced the adoption of
complete transatlantic escort .
It was felt that the considerable weakening in the
number of escorts with a convoy must be accepted in
order to provide some degree of protection throughout the voyage . Complete transatlantic escort was
accomplished by basing escort forces in St . John's,
Newfoundland, and escorting in stages from Eng-~
land, using Iceland as a refueling base. The Royal
Canadian Navy cooperated in these measures by placing all available destroyers and corvettes at the service of the Newfoundland Escort Force. Canada had
about 35 ships fitted for antisubmarine service at
that time . The first escorts from St. John's sailed on
May 31, 1941, and, as a natural sequence to this development, it was decided by the middle of June to
escort the convoys all the way from Halifax. The
long-endurance corvettes were to run all the way between Halifax and Iceland, with the destroyers being
limited to St . John's .
Areas of U-boat activity in June were further afield
and wider spread than before, with reports of U-boats
near Newfoundland and south of Greenland. Despite the magnitude of the effort exerted, the shipping losses showed an improvement over May, with
57 ships of 296,000 gross tons being sunk by U-boats
in June . Despite the increasing number of U-boats
at sea, the losses were kept down by the efficiency of
British countermeasures as five U-boats were sunk
during June by surface craft. Losses in the Freetown
Area were greatly reduced and the U-boats had difficulty in locating the transatlantic convoys.
When they did finally locate Convoy HX 133 on
June 23, the results must have been rather disappointing to the Germans, as only five ships were sunk
at the cost of at least two U-boats sunk . This successful defense of this convoy was due in large measure
to the fact that, when DF bearings indicated that HX
133 had been sighted by a U-boat, the escort was increased from one destroyer and three corvettes to two
17
destroyers, one sloop, and ten corvettes. This was

accomplished by taking the risk of stripping the escorts from two OB convoys within comparatively
easy reach. Fortunately, one of these OB convoys
escaped unscathed while the other suffered the loss
of only one ship .
On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia and
this seemed to end the threat of invasion of England
for the time being. This released additional air and
surface craft to help in the battle against the U-boats.
In addition, German aircraft were diverted to the
Eastern Front and attacks on shipping by aircraft
were greatly reduced during the last half of 1941 .
The average number of U-boats at sea continued
to increase during July and August, but they had
very little success as only about 23 ships of 90,000
gross tons were sunk in each of these months . This
meant that the average U-boat at sea in the Atlantic
was sinking less than one ship a month, a much lower
rate than had been experienced in the past. In an
endeavor to make the interception of shipping easier
the U-boats withdrew to the eastward towards the
end of July and concentrated in the waters west of
Ireland and to the east of 25 west longitude. This
placed them at a focal point of shipping where they
could intercept both the East-tilTest and the NorthSouth convoys. However, the U-boats had no better
luck there in August than they had in July . By this
time, even the Gibraltar and Freetown convoys had
more or less complete end-to-end escort . Towards the
end of August, there were indications that the
U-boats were resorting to long-range attacks on convoys, probable firing a browning salvo, and also to
deliberate attacks on escorts. This policy of attacking escorts might have proved more profitable in the
earlier days of the war, when the number of escorts
with convoys was much smaller and when the general
escort situation was much tighter.
In addition to the defensive successes scored in
August, this month was marked by one of the outstanding events of the U-boat war, the surrender of
U-570 to a Hudson aircraft on August 27, 1941 . U-570
left on her first cruise on August 24 and was at sea for
only 74 hours before she surrendered. The U-boat
came to the surface at 1030 on the 27th, the precise
moment the Hudson from Squadron 269 was overhead. The U-boat tried to crash dive but the Hudson
was too quick for her, diving from 500 feet to 100
feet, and dropping four depth charges. Captain
Rahmlow, believing the U-boat more seriously dam-
18
START OF WOLF PACKS ; END-TO " END OF CONVOYS
Pwuxr. 1 . Surrender of U-57Q (HMS Graph) to Hudson aircraft 5-269 on August 27, 194I . Note German crew crowded
into conning tower.
aged than was actually the case, ordered the crew to

put on life jackets and go to the conning tower. The
Hudson opened fire and kept the crew from abandoning the U-boat . After a white flag was displayed
by the U-boat the Hudson guarded it until relieved
by a Catalina . A trawler arrived at 2250 and U-570
was towed to Iceland. She was subsequently repaired
and re-christened HMS Graph, proving an invaluable addition to the British Navy . This was the first
U-boat actually captured by the British and proved
to be an extremely valuable source of information
about the operating characteristics of U-boats.
U-boat activity continued at a high level in September and their intensive efforts met with greater
success than during the previous two months . Allied
shipping losses rose sharply to 54 ships of 205,000
gross tons sunk by U-boats, with 70 per cent of the
tonnage sunk being in convoy . This increase was due
in a large measure to the severe casualties suffered by
four large convoys as a result of determined and sustained attacks by wolf packs. Two o these convoys
were slow SC convoys which were intercepted and
heavily attacked south of Greenland, losing 21 ships
and one escort . Two U-boats were sunk by escorts
during these attacks. The other two convoys, homeward bound from Freetown and Gibraltar, lost 15
ships and one escort to the U-boats.
However, in viewing the situation at this time it
would be well to compare it with the previous year .
In September 1940, when about seven U-boats were
at sea, the losses to U-boats were about 300,000 gross
tons. In September 1941, when there were about 35
U-boats at sea, the losses to U-boats were only about
200,000 gross tons. In September 1940 the U-boats
were attacking convoys with impunity . Rarely was a
U-boat sighted during her attack, and even more
rarely was she counterattacked . In contrast to this, in
September 1941 it was a matter of the keenest disap-
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
pointment if a convoy were attacked and the enemy

escaped unpunished . The limited number of escorts,
usually about one destroyer and three or four corvettes, although unable to prevent the U-boats from
attacking the convoy, were generally able, with the
help of covering aircraft, to shake off the pursuing
U-boats by persistent counterattacks . No convoy was
attacked for more than three successive nights in
September 1941 .
The effect of Coastal Command aircraft on U-boat
operations may be seen by the fact that, of the tonnage sunk in the North Atlantic during September
by U-boats, about 75 per cent was lost in the area
outside the economical range of Whitley and Wellington aircraft (400 miles) . Aircraft made 45 sightings and 39 attacks on U-boats in September, the
highest monthly figures recorded to that date .
September was also marked by the introduction
of HMS Audacity, an auxiliary aircraft carrier, as a
convoy escort . One of her fighter aircraft shot down
a Focke-Wulf attacking the rescue ship of Convoy
OG 74.
As the radius of U-boat operations in the Atlantic
extended further west and U. S. ships were being
sunk by U-boats, the U. S. Navy announced on September 15, 1941, that it would provide protection for
ships of every flag carrying land-aid supplies between
the American continent and the waters adjacent to
Iceland, on which a U. S. base had been established
in July 1941 . On September 16 the first convoy (HX
150) to have U. S. Navy ships as part of its escort
sailed from Halifax.
The losses in October 1941 dropped to 32 ships of
157,040 gross tons sunk by U-boats. Only one convoy
(SC 48) was heavily attacked by U-boats; nine ships
and two escorts were sunk and the USS Kearny was
torpedoed but arrived at Iceland. The USS Reuben
James was sunk by a U-boat torpedo on October 31
while acting as an escort of Convoy HX 156. In a
number of other cases the convoys were located by
U-boats but the escorts were able to drive them off
without suffering serious losses .
An interesting feature of the operations during
October was the disinclination of the U-boats to pursue their quarry too far northward or eastward, presumably because they did not care to enter the areas
swept by Coastal Command aircraft . This is indicated by the fact that of the 26 ships sunk within 800
miles from air bases, 14 were lost in portions more
than 600 miles out and 12 in the 400- to 600-mile
19
zone (covered lightly by Catalinas) . No ships were

sunk within 400 miles from Coastal Command bases.
This meant that the U-boats were being forced ever
further westward, with consequent greater wastage of
time and U-boats, particularly in winter. In addition,
air attacks on transit U-boats in the Bay of Biscay
began to increase in frequency and effectiveness,
thereby further cutting down the operational time
of U-boats.
During the first week of November, the scale of the

U-boat effort was probably the greatest and the scope
of their patrol the widest spread of the whole Atlantic campaign up to that time . When Convoy SC 52
was intercepted shortly after rounding Newfoundland and four ships were sunk on November 3, it was
considered prudent not to risk it upon a transocean
journey for the greater part of which many U-boats
might have maintained continuous harrying attacks .
The convoy put back to port and the ships sailed
later in Convoy SC 54, which consisted of 71 ships .
This decision proved fortunate, as there followed a
period of successful evasion which lasted for the remainder of the month . The total losses for November
1941 dropped to 12 ships of 62,000 gross tons, the
lowest figure since May 1940 . Weather contributed to
the reduction in shipping losses but the main factor
was skillful evasive routing . Successful evasion meant
fewer chances of contacts between escorts and
U-boats and therefore less chance for the destruction
of U-boats .
In the meantime the British offensive in Libya had

been launched and the Germans withdrew a large
proportion of their U-boats from the Atlantic to the
Mediterranean to help the Italian Fleet and temporarily, at least, to use their U-boats for the transport of military supplies to RommeI . Toward the end
of November, convoys from Gibraltar were suspended and every available ship was used in an endeavor to close the Straits of Gibraltar to the passage
of U-boats and to destroy U-boats attempting passage. Two German U-boats attempting the passage
were sunk during the month, one by surface craft
and the other by a Dutch submarine .
The perceptible slackening in tension in the North
Atlantic that started toward the end of November
continued throughout December 1941 . The losses in
the Atlantic continued at a very low level, with only
10 ships of about 50,000 gross tons sunk by U-boats
during the month. However, the tendency of the
U-boat war to become world wide became apparent,
20
START OF WOLF PACKS; END-TO-END OF CONVOYS
as for the first time the losses to U-boats outside the

Atlantic became significant. Seven ships of 27,000
gross tons were sunk by U-boats in the Mediterranean, three in the eastern approaches to Gibraltar
and four while on passage between Alexandria and
ToUruk . However, the enemy paid a heavy price for
these seven ships, as five U-boats were sunk in the
Mediterranean during December .
Japanese submarines sank nine ships of 42,400
gross tons in the Pacific during the remainder of December after their attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 . One Japanese submarine was probably sunk . Over 200,000 gross tons of shipping were
lost in the Pacific due to capture by the Japanese or
unknown causes . Accordingly, the total shipping
losses for the month (from all causes) rose to over
500,000 gross tons .
The outstanding feature of the month's operations
in the Atlantic was the prolonged engagement between Convoy HG 76 and a pack of half a dozen
U-boats. The escorts sank four U-boats (including
U-567, commanded by Endrass, one of the leading
U-boat aces) and only two of the merchant ships of
the convoy were lost . However, one escort and HMS
Audacity, an auxiliary aircraft carrier, were also sunk
by the U-boats. As 1941 drew to an end, the number
of U-boats in the Atlantic began to rise again, the
majority leading westward .
2
3.2.1
Convoys
U-BOAT
U-boat activity during the early months of this

period forced the adoption of complete end-to-end
escort of British convoys. Thanks to the steadily increasing number of escorts becoming available, and
to cooperation from the Canadian and United States
Navies, this did not result in the anticipated serious
weakening in the protection of the convoys. In fact,
ships sailing in convoy were safer in this period than
they had been in the preceding period, as of the 4100
ships being convoyed monthly only 14 (about 1/3
of 1 per cent) were sunk monthly by U-boats. By the
end of 1941, it appeared, as evidenced by the battle
of Convoy HG 76, that the wolf-pack attacks on convoys could be beaten off without serious losses to the
convoy and in turn these attacks could prove costly
to the U-boats, provided a sufficient number of escorts were present.
An analysis of 17 0 the convoys attacked by the

U-boats at about this time gives us some information
about the "average attacked convoy ." This convoy
was engaged by 4.2 U-boats, of which 2.6 succeeded
in delivering effective attacks. A total of 4 .6 ships in
the convoy were torpedoed, 1 .7 ships being torpedoed
in each effective attack . Of the 4.2 U-boats engaging
the convoy 32 (or 76 per cent) were attacked by the
air and surface escorts and 0.65 (or 15 per cent) of
them sunk .
There were not many changes made in the convoy
system during this period . The minimum speed for
HX .convoys was raised from 9 knots to 10 knots, with
the minimum speed for SC convoys remaining at 7i/2
knots. In July 1941 a rule was introduced requiring
ships of less than 15 knots, crossing the Atlantic, to
sail in convoy. The designation of the OB convoys
(outward-bound from England) was changed to ON
for the north-bound convoy heading for Halifax and
to OS for the south-bound convoys heading for Freetown . July 1941 also marked the introduction of
CAM ships in convoy. These were merchant ships
equipped with a catapult-launched fighter aircraft
which was to be used against enemy reconnaissance
aircraft . In August 1941, the first convoy to Russia
sailed for Archangel . NO losses were suffered on the
convoys sailing between England and Russia during
1941 .
Aircraft
At the beginning of this period, in April 1941, it
was apparent that an improvement in the quality of
aircraft attacks was urgently needed . Actual kills by
aircraft had been disappointingly few and it was felt
that, on the relatively rare occasions when a pilot
sights a U-boat, he should have a reasonably good
chance of bringing off a kill . A committee of Coastal
Command scientists and naval representatives was
therefore formed to review this situation .
Analysis showed that in 35 per cent of the aircraft

attacks the U-boat was still visible at the time of release of the depth charges and that in 15 per cent of
the attacks the U-boat had disappeared less than 30
seconds previously . The solution adopted was to concentrate on those U-boats which were still on or near
the surface and to adjust tactics, depth-bomb settings
and spacing, so as to give the aircraft the maximum
chance of killing in these conditions, since the probability of hitting the U-boat under these conditions
is much greater than it is after the U-boat has been
submerged for some time .
Instructions were accordingly issued by Coastal

Command in June 1941 providing that the depth
setting for all depth charges should be 50 feet, the
spacing between charges should be 60 feet, and all
depth charges were to be released in one stick. The
need for more frequent practice and training was also
stressed and a standard for bombing accuracy was set
up requiring a mean radial error of all bombs
dropped of not more than 20 yards.
This change resulted in a significant improvement
in the quality of aircraft attacks on U-boats. Aircraft
made about 27 sightings a month during this period
and about 18 of these resulted in attacks on U-boats.
The proportion of these attacks which resulted in at
least some damage to the U-boat rose from about 10
per cent in the earlier periods to about 25 per cent
in this period. The lethality of the aircraft attacks
did not change much, as only about 21/2 per cent of
the attacks resulted in the U-boat's being sunk . However, it was realized at the end of this period that
even the 50-foot depth setting was too deep for surfaced U-boats and steps were being taken to modify
depth charges to allow a 25-foot depth setting.
As the U-boats moved further westward, the total
number of flying hours by Coastal Command aircraft on antisubmarine duties decreased, but transit
U-boats crossing the Bay of Biscay on their way to
and from French bases began to receive more atten-
tion . In the period September to November 1941, 36

attacks were made on U-boats in this area. This was
equivalent to each U-boat's being attacked in the
Bay on one out of every three cruises and was a sufficient menace to force them to remain submerged in
the Bay during the daytime in December, thereby
increasing their transit time . By December 1941,
Coastal Command had initiated night antisubmarine
patrols with radar-fitted aircraft in the Bay of Biscay.
Midway in 1941, the British scraped together a

squadron of long-range planes, new untried Liberators rejected by U. S. Air Forces . Fitted with Mark
II radar, they did a dual job, ranging far out on
patrol and giving air cover to convoys asking for help .
The flying effort during this period was marked
by the increased use of protective sweeps around convoys to put down shadowing U-boats, as distinct from
the close convoy coverage provided earlier. It was
also marked by the first attempt, in May 1941, by
radar-equipped aircraft to hunt a U-boat to exhaustion . Although this attempt did not succeed, much
useful information was obtained from this operation.
3.2 .3
21
A new antisubmarine weapon for use by surface

craft was coming into production at the end of 1941 .
This weapon was "Hedgehog," a multispigot mortar
which throws 24 projectiles fitted with contact fuzes
so as to produce a pattern in the form of a ring whose
center is about 250 yards ahead of the ship . The
Hedgehog pattern, theoretically, has a greater chance
of killing a submarine than the depth-charge pattern
due to the fact that its design incorporates the following three important principles :
1 . Ahead thrown. This permits a reduction in
blind time from 45-90 seconds to 15-20 seconds.
2. Multiple small charge . Three hundred pounds
of high explosive (lethal range of 21 feet) has about
one half the chance of killing the U-boat as ten 30-1b
charges (lethal radius of 6 feet) . The lower limit of
the charge is the smallest weight which will have a
reasonable chance of sinking the U-boat when it explodes on the target .
3. Contact firing . The contact fuze "sweeps" all
depths . This is of particular importance in view of
the fact that the antisubmarine gear used at that time
did not determine the depth of the U-boat.
However, against these advantages of Hedgehog
must be considered the fact that the large explosion
of depth charges has a desirable anti-morale effect
and produces considerable shaking up of the U-boat
in cases where the depth charges are not lethal .
Hedgehog fails to do this since the charges explode
only on hitting the U-boat.
During this period, the results from radar were
more promising as a consequence of increased training and knowledge of the gear . A new set, Type 271,
was being fitted on British corvettes. This was a shortwave (I0 cm) "beam"-principle set and constituted a
great advance in radar for antisubmarine purposes .
The average range at which radar contact was made
on a U-boat during this period was about 4000 yards,
with the maximum range being 7400 yards.
Coastal Command vas also experimenting, during
this period, with a searchlight, carried in a Wellington aircraft, to provide illumination for night attacks
on U-boats.
3.2.4
Sinkings of U-boats
The steadily upward trend in the number of

U-boats sunk or probably sunk monthly continued
throughout this period, reaching a new high for the
START OE WOLF PACKS; END-TO-END OT CONVOYS
22
3r : .
fly'
~.' 4
~J
/`~ . .
Picuxr. 2, Hedgehog ready to fire .
war in December 1941 when 13 U-boats are believed

to have been lost . However, it should be kept in mind
that the rate of increase in the number of U-boats
sunk was much lower than the rate of increase in the
number of U-boats at sea, so that the average U-boat
at sea had a much smaller probability of being sunk
in this period than in either of the two preceding
periods.
The total number of enemy U-boats sunk during
this 9-month period was 44 . Thirty of these were lost
in the Atlantic (22 German and 8 Italian) and 13 in
the Mediterranean (6 German and 7 Italian) . One
Japanese U-boat 'was probably sunk in the Pacific
during December . Two German U-boats were known
to have been lost in the Baltic as a result of collisions
with their own craft.
Surface craft continued to be the most effective
craft in sinking U-boats, accounting for 20 of the 30
U-boats sunk in the Atlantic . Another two were sunk
as a result of combined attacks by ships and aircraft .

Two were lost as a result of aircraft attacks and one
was torpedoed by a submarine. The circumstances
under which the other five U-boats, known to have
been lost in the Atlantic, were sunk are not known.
During the last six months of 1941, one out o
every three U-boats attacked by surface craft was at
least damaged, while one out of every seven attacked
was sunk or probably sunk .
3.3
3 .3 .1
SURVEY OF RESULTS
The average number o U-boats at sea in the Atlantic during the third period was about 30, three
times as many as in the previous period. Their main
effort was directed in the form of wolf-pack attacks
against the North Atlantic convoys. They did succeed
in forcing the Allies to adopt complete end-to-end
23
SURVEY OF RESULTS
The number of ocean-going German U-boats in

commission was expanding at a very rapid rate, increasing from about 54 at the beginning of this
period to about 200 at the end of 1941 . About 174
German U-boats were commissioned during this
period while only about 28 were lost . From the point
of view of number alone, the U-boats offered a considerable threat and it seemed likely that with increased experiences the effectiveness of these new
U-boats would increase .
3.3.2
FIGURE 3. DE firing Hedgehogs on shakedown cruise .

Projectiles can be seen above the bow.
escort of their transatlantic convoys but they definitely failed in their main objective of cutting off
supplies to England and toward the end of this
period there were signs of their shifting to other
areas.
Despite this threefold increase in the average
number at sea, the U-boats were able to sink only
about 34 ships of about 166,000 gross tons monthly in
the Atlantic during this period, or about 25 per cent
less than in the previous period . This meant that the
average U-boat was only sinking a little over one ship
of about 5500 gross tons per month at sea, and was
therefore only about one-fourth as effective as in the
previous period . This drop in efficiency reflects the
successful evasive routing of convoys and the very
rapid expansion in U-boat personnel. This latter
condition resulted in a high proportion of U-boats
being sunk on their first cruise . The evasive routing
of convoys also resulted in fewer contacts between
convoy escorts and U-boats and consequently the
average U-boat was relatively much safer during the
third period . About 3r/3 U-boats were sunk monthly
in the Atlantic, of the 30 at sea on the average, and
consequently the average life of a U-boat at sea was
about 9 months, more than twice as long as it had
been in the previous period . The average U-boat
during this period was sinking ten ships of about
50,000 gross tons before it was sunk itself . Hence,
despite the longer lifetime of the average U-boat, the
exchange rate was about 40 per cent less than in the
previous period, reflecting the decreased effectiveness of U-boats in sinking ships.
Total shipping losses of the Allied and neutral

nations decreased to 363,000 gross tons monthly during the third period, while the building rate of new
shipping increased to about 175,000 gross tons
monthly. Consequently, the net monthly loss of shipping was only 188,000 gross tons, about 45 per cent
less than during the preceding period.
about 323,000 gross tons were lost by enemy action .
U-boats accounted for 175,000 gross tons a month,
54 per cent of the total lost by enemy action . Monthly
losses to enemy aircraft increased to 75,000 gross tons,
while the losses to enemy surface craft dropped to
only 17,000 gross tons . Mines were responsible for
only 19,000 gross tons a month, while other and unknown causes accounted for 37,000 gross tons a
month.
The total shipping available decreased from about
35,000,000 gross tons at the beginning of this period
to about 33,300,000 at the end of 1941, but the upward trend in shipping losses seemed to have been
checked. The number of British antisubmarine ships
suitable for ocean escort had increased from about
375 at the start of the period to about 500 at the end
of 1941 . In addition, the entry of the United States
into the war added about 175 destroyers to the above
numbers, but many of them were committed to
action in the Pacific.
From the defensive point of view the U-boats,
which constituted the main threat to Allied shipping,
seemed to have been defeated in the Battle of the
Atlantic during this third period . They were experiencing difficulty in locating Allied convoys and even
when they did locate a convoy, the escorts were generally able to beat off the wolf-pack attacks without
serious losses . Shipping losses to U-boats had been
kept to a reasonable level, considering the number of
24
START OF WOLF PACKS; END-TO-END OF CONVOYS
U-boats at sea, while shipping construction was gradually increasing . However, from an offensive point of
view, the U-boats were still relatively safe . Surface
craft acting as convoy escorts were the only serious
threat to the U-boat, although aircraft were gradually becoming more effective in harassing and dam-
aging U-boats. It seems, therefore, that the general

situation in the Battle o the Atlantic at the end of
1941 was roughly the same as the situation which
prevailed at the end of World War I-that is, with
shipping losses checked, but with the U-boats relatively safe at sea.
Chapter 4
FOURTH PERIOD
HEAVY SINKINGS ON EAST COAST OF UNITED STATES
JANUARY 1942--SEPTEMBER 1942
.I
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
HF GFRMANS started this period with about 200

T ocean-going U-boats and new U-boats were being
commissioned at the rate of about 20 a month. Admiral lloenitz was therefore able to maintain a largescale U-boat offensive over widely spread areas
throughout this period . The average number of
U-boats at sea in the Atlantic increased steadily from
22 in January 1942 to 93 in September 1942 . In addition, there were about 20 U-boats in the Mediterranean and about 20 available for operations in the
Barents Sea. These U-boats were used in a specific
effort to cut supply lines to Allied forces in Libya and
Russia . Japan, at the start of this period, had about
75 U-boats which operated in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans .
Despite this widespread U-boat activity, the main
battle continued to be fought in the Atlantic Ocean.
There, during the previous period, U-boat operations against escorted shipping had been steadily becoming less and less profitable . The average yield
had been reduced to about one ship sunk per U-boat
month at sea during the last period . The operation
against Convoy HG 76 in December 1941 had been
particularly costly, as only two merchant ships were
sunk as against four U-boats sunk . It was natural,
therefore, after the entry of the U. S, into the war,
that the U-boats, continuing their search for weak
spots in the Allied defenses, headed westward for the
American coast in January 1942 .
The U-boats, working their way down the American coastline from the Newfoundland banks, found
exactly the weak spot they were looking for. The demands of the war in the Pacific and commitments in
transatlantic escort (including destroyers transferred
to the British in 1940) contributed to the United
States' lack of preparedness for the scale of attack
launched by the U-boats on the Atlantic coast in
1942 . The forces available to combat these enemy
activities were relatively untrained and inexperienced. With the limited number of antisubmarine
craft, both surface and air, at their disposal, the U. S.

Navy was unable to start convoying coastal shipping
immediately, but tried during the early months o[
1942 to cover the long coastal route by patrol . This
produced a number of attacks on U-boats but it
failed to prevent extremely heavy losses of shipping
sailing unescorted along the coast.
U-boat activity in the West Atlantic began on
January 12, 1942, when the first sinking west of 60
west longitude occurred. A force of about 20 U-boats
began to operate off the Atlantic seaboard of the
United States and in the coastal area of Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland . These U-boats were rather selective in their choice of targets, preferring tankers
and larger cargo ships and avoiding convoys. As long
as worth-while targets abounded in the form of unarmed and unescorted ships, the U-boats kept clear of
escorts, as even minor damage might well have prevented their return to distant bases .
The U-boats inflicted their heaviest losses in January in the Eastern Sea Frontier, sinking 14 ships of
about 100,000 gross tons with a large proportion of
the losses occurring at focal points of shipping such
as Gape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Hampton
Roads, Virginia . About 50,000 gross tons of shipping
were sunk by U-boats in each of the Northwest Atlantic, Canadian Coastal, and Bermuda Areas, There
was comparatively little activity in the remainder of
the Atlantic, but Japanese U-boats sank 50,000 gross
tons of shipping in the Pacific and Indian Oceans .
The total losses for the month, 61 ships of 324,000
gross tons sunk by U-boats, were higher than those in
any month in the previous period .
The situation became much worse in February
1942 with the world-wide shipping losses to U-boats
reaching a new high for the war as 82 ships of 470,000
gross tons were sunk . About 90 per cent of these losses
occurred in the U. S. Strategic Area as the number of
U-boats operating in the West Atlantic increased and
U-boat activity spread further south with ships being
sunk off the coast of Florida and in the Caribbean
Sea. Tanker losses continued to be severe, with the
25
26
HEAVY SINKTNGS ON EAST COAST OF UNITED STATES
tanker traffic to and from the West Indian and Venezuelan oil fields being an obvious objective of the
U-boats. This was shown by an attack carried out by
several U-boats on February 16 on six tankers off
Aruba and in the Gulf of Venezuela, five being sunk
and one seriously damaged.
During March the U-boats continued the same
tactics with increased success as they sank 94 ships of
532,000 gross tons . The Eastern Sea Frontier continued to be the most active area, with over 150,000
gross tons of shipping sunk there by U-boats. Possibly
by way of diversion, a group of U-boats operated in
the Freetown Area, sinking over 50,000 gross tons
there.
The one encouraging feature of the month's operations was the first successful attacks on U-boats in
the U. S. Strategic Area . Two U-boats were sunk in
March as a result of attacks by U. S. Navy aircraft in
the Canadian Coastal Zone . On April 15, USS Roger
sank U-85 off Cape Hatteras, picking up 29 bodies,
for the first confirmed sinking of a U-boat off the U . S.
coast. The number of attacks on U-boats in the U. S.
Strategic Area had increased from about 15 in January to about 60 in April.
These more effective countermeasures probably
played some part in causing a small decrease in shipping losses in April, but a more important factor was
the temporary suspension of sailings in certain areas.
U-boat activity spread to the Brazilian Area during
April as three ships were sunk off the north coast
of Brazil, probably by Italian U-boats.
In the middle of May 1942, the U. S. Navy was able
to start convoying shipping along the east coast.
The effect of the institution of these convoys was immediately apparent. The U-boats avoided escorted
shipping and the tonnage sunk by U-boats in the
Eastern Sea Frontier in May dropped to 23,000 gross
tons . Logically enough, the U-boats sought out the
remaining soft spots, where unescorted traffic had to
pass through focal areas, and operated actively off the
mouth of the Mississippi and in the Yucatan Channel
between Cuba and Nicaragua.
Although the average number of U-boats at sea in
the Gulf Sea Frontier in May 1942 was only about
four, these U-boats sank 41 ships of 220,000 gross tons
there during the month, an all-time high for sinkings
by U-boats in any area . The average number of ships
at sea in the Gulf Sea Frontier was about 75, so the
average life of a ship at sea at that time was less than
two months at that rate of sinkings .
Sinkings in the Caribbean Sea Frontier also increased, reaching about 170,000 gross tons in May.
Consequently, despite the decrease in the Eastern
Sea Frontier, the losses in the U. S. Strategic Area
reached a peak of 116 ships of 567,000 gross tons sunk
by U-boats in May. The world-wide shipping losses
to U-boats also reached a new high for the war as 124
ships of 604,000 gross tons were sunk during this
month. The number of attacks an U-boats in the
Western Atlantic showed a promising increase, however, and two U-boats were sunk by U. S. Coast
Guard cutters, one in the Eastern Sea Frontier and
one in the Gulf Sea Frontier .
The world-wide shipping losses to U-boats reached
their highest point in the war in June 1942, when 141
ships o 707,000 gross tons were sunk . The bulk of
the increase over the figures for May was accounted
for by increased activity by Japanese U-boats, which
sank 70,000 gross tons in the Indian Ocean, mostly in
the Mozambique Channel. The shipping losses in
the U. S. Strategic Area were about the same as in
May, falling off in the Gulf Sea Frontier but continuing to increase in the Caribbean and Panama
Sea Frontiers. Mines were laid in the Chesapeake,
causing several casualties in June . This mine-laying
may have represented the first effort of one of the
1600-ton mine-laying U-boats introduced by Germany at about that time . Over 100 attacks were made
on U-boats in the U. S. Strategic Area in June ; three
of these attacks resulting in sinking U-boats.
During July 1942 the convoy system on the east
coast of the U. S. was greatly extended, with the bulk
of shipping traveling in convoy . This increase in the
number of convoys and an improvement in the
strength of escorts were probably mainly responsible
for the general reduction in sinkings of shipping
throughout the U. S. Strategic Area . Only 230,000
gross tons of shipping were sunk by U-boats in the
U. S. Strategic Area in July, less than half the amount
sunk in June ; this, despite the fact that the average
number of U-boats at sea in the U. S. Strategic Area in
July was about 45, higher than in any previous
month. Increased aircraft patrols and better cooperation between surface and air units also contributed
materially to this reduction of U-boat effectiveness in
the West Atlantic . Another significant factor was the
increase in the number of U. S. craft available for
antisubmarine warfare; 134 ships in July as compared to 68 in April and 580 planes in July as compared to 350 planes in April. The increased effec-
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
tiveness of U . S . countermeasures is also illustrated
by the fact that the number of U-boats lost in the
U . S . Strategic Area reached a new high in July as
seven were sunk, two in Eastern Sea Frontier, one in
Gulf Sea Frontier, two in Panama Sea Frontier, and
two in the Northwest Atlantic Area .
As a result of the greatly reduced losses in the West
Atlantic, the world-wide shipping losses to U-boats

dropped to 94 ships of 472,000 gross tons in July 1942 .
However, increased losses were suffered in the Freetown and Azores Areas with over 50,000 gross tons
sunk by U-boats in each of these areas . Heavy losses
were also suffered in July in the Barents Sea Area,
where ten ships of 62,000 gross tons were sunk by
U-boats from Convoy PQ 17 heading for Russia . In
addition, 13 ships were sunk from this convoy by
enemy aircraft . The convoy had been ordered to
scatter when southeast of Spitzbergen to reduce losses
from the enemy surface craft attack then apparently
pending.
The shipping losses to U-boats increased slightly

in August to 108 ships of 544,000 gross tons, still well
below the record highs established in May and June
1942 . This increase was due entirely to increased activity in the U. S. Strategic Area, where the losses
mounted again to 84 ships of 407,000 gross tons sunk
by U-boats. Over half of these losses occurred in the
Caribbean Sea Frontier, where the main sore spots
were the eastern approaches to Trinidad and the
Windward Passage area . A group of about five
U-boats achieved considerable success, especially
against tankers, east of Trinidad . Twenty of the 23
ships sunk there were sailing independently . In the
Windward Passage area 14 ships were sunk from convoys running between Key West and Trinidad and
between Panama and Guantanamo. The activities of
probably two U-boats off the Brazilian coast resulted
in seven sinkings and brought Brazil into the war on
the side of the United Nations . The coastal waters of
the Atlantic from Nova Scotia to the tip of Florida
were free from attacks by U-boats during the entire
month of August.
The other significant trend of the month's operations was the resumption of large-scale attacks on the
transatlantic convoys. In view of the reduced effectiveness of U-boats in the Eastern and Gulf Sea Frontiers, due to the start of convoying and the heavy aircraft coverage, it was natural that the U-boats would
resume their attacks on the transatlantic convoys,
especially in areas in the North Atlantic out of the
27
range of land-based Allied aircraft. Over 20 ships of

about 120,000 gross tons were sunk by U-boats in the
Northwest Atlantic Area in August . The heaviest
losses were suffered by Convoy SC 94, which lost 11
ships as a result of U-boat attacks.
In these attacks on convoys, the first indication of
the presence of U-boats was often an HF/DF bearing,
and these were of great assistance to escort commanders in appreciating the subsequent situation.
Shipborne 10-cm radar (SG and Type 271) also
proved a most efficient detector at night, and the
quick action taken by escorts in many cases thwarted
night attacks . This apparently influenced some of
the U-boats to temporarily abandon their tactics of
night surfaced attack and to attack submerged in
daylight. As many as five ships were torpedoed by one
salvo on a day attack, and to lessen the chance of such
an event recurring instructions were issued in the
third week of August to open out the distance between the columns of a convoy to about 1000 yards
by day as well as by night.
The number of U-boats destroyed during August
reached a new high for the war as 20 were sunk or
probably sunk, 12 in the Atlantic, five in the Mediterranean, and three in the Pacific. Two U-boats were
sunk by escorts of Convoy SC 94 and a U-boat was
sunk in the Caribbean Sea Frontier for the first time.
U-464, sunk by a U . S. PBY plane southeast of Iceland, turned out to be one of the new 1600-ton supply
U-boats. These were used to refuel other U-boats at
sea and thereby enabled them to extend their cruises.
These supply U-boats were intended to stay at sea for
as long as six months .
At the end of August, the coastal convoy system

was further extended and New York included as one
of the ports in the system . In September, New York
also became the main western port for the transatlantic convoys, with HX and SC convoys beginning
and ON convoys ending their passages there . Another new development in September was the establishment of a temporary reinforcing group whose
primary objective was the destruction of U-boats
rather than the immediate defense of shipping . This
group consisted of ten British escorts .
The shipping losses to U-boats decreased slightly

in September to 99 ships of 496,000 gross tons .
The principal areas of attacks on shipping were
in the eastern approaches to Trinidad and in the
area to the north and south of the Equator between
Freetown and Ascension Island . There was also con-
28
siderable activity along the convoy routes in the

Northwest Atlantic as well as in the Gulf of St .
Lawrence .
In the Northwest Atlantic Area, U-boats sank 20
ships of 110,000 gross tons. The chief sufferer on the
North Atlantic convoy routes was ON 127, with
which five or six U-boats were in contact for four
days in succession . In the course o these attacks, two
of which were made in daylight, 11 merchant ships
and one escort were torpedoed, four of the ships managing to reach port .
The two North Russian convoys had co fight their
way through incessant U-boat and aircraft attacks,
losing 16 ships in all, eight to U-boats. Six very promising attacks were carried out by the escorts who were
assisted by Swordfish aircraft from HMS Avenger .
This was the first operation in which this type of
escort carrier had taken part . The losses to U-boats in
the Caribbean Sea Frontier in September 1942 were
27 ships of 130,000 gross tons, considerably less than
in August . A notable feature of the operations
around the Trinidad Area was the sinking of ten
ships engaged in the valuable bauxite trade. With
the tremendous increase in shipping to and from the
South Atlantic, the Trinidad Area had become one of
the largest shipping focal points in the Western
Hemisphere. U-boat activity had increased accordingly and was highly successful at first. Lack of suitable long-range surface and air craft restricted the distance that east-bound convoys could be escorted from
Trinidad . Beyond the dispersal points the U-boats
had good hunting.
Aircraft available in the Trinidad Area, especially
the RAF Squadron 53 (Hudsons), were utilized to
the utmost and reinforcement aircraft from other
areas, including a specially trained "Killer" group of
U. S. Army Air Force B-18's, were ordered into the
area . Emphasis was placed on offensive operations,
using sweeps over most likely U-boat locations and
routes along which convoys passed . The results were
rather encouraging in September as one U-boat was
sunk and several other promising attacks were made.
The situation became somewhat eased after September as the number of U-boats in the area started decreasing . Therefore, in just over nine months from
their entry into World War IT, the United States,
by the institution of escorted convoys and the provision of air cover and air patrols, had achieved a
high degree of immunity from U-boat attack in their
coastal waters .
4~2
4.2.1
Convoys
U-BOAT
In January 1942, the U-boats transferred their attention from the transatlantic and East Atlantic convoys to the unescorted shipping in the West Atlantic .
This is reflected in the fact that only 10 per cent of
the shipping sunk by U-boats during the first six
months of 1942 was in convoy when sunk . This proportion increased again to about 30 per cent during
the period .July to September 1942 when the bulk of
U. S. coastal shipping was being convoyed and the
U-boats were attacking the transatlantic convoys
again .
It was realized during the early months of the war
that convoying was the only solution to the heavy
losses off the Atlantic Coast. However, the U . S. Navy,
due to its commitments in transatlantic escort and in
the Pacific, did not have enough escorts to start the
convoying of coastal shipping at the beginning of
1942 . To provide additional forces, 24 British antisubmarine trawlers were allocated for service on the
American coast and ten British corvettes were
turned over to the U. S . Navy . Further, the whole
system o transatlantic escort was recast and all antisubmarine forces (U . S. Navy, Royal Canadian Navy,
and Royal Navy) were pooled in a single cross-Atlantic convoy scheme . This resulted in a certain economy and released a limited number of U. S. destroyers .
With the forces thus available and with the increased production of antisubmarine ships in the
United States, it was possible to start convoying in
the Western Atlantic in May 1942 . Coastal convoys
between Norfolk, Virginia, and Key West, Florida,
started running on May 14 . By opening up the transatlantic convoy cycle, the British were able to divert
enough forces to the Caribbean to start convoys,
mainly for tankers, over the Trinidad-Halifax and
Aruba-Curacao-Trinidad routes .
During July, the convoy system on the east coast

was greatly extended, with convoys running between
Trinidad and Key West by way of Curacao and
Aruba. Convoys were instituted between Panama
and Guantanamo to connect with the other convoys.
Convoys were also started in the Gulf of Mexico and
the Gulf of St . Lawrence .
At the end of August, convoys running in both
directions between Curacao and Halifax and be-
29
tween Key West and Trinidad were discontinued, as

were also the convoys between Hampton Roads and
Key West . A new convoy system was started with
convoys running between New York and Guantanamo [NG and GN], and between the latter port and
Trinidad by way of Curacao [GAT and TAG] . Convoys were also started between New York and Key
West [NK and KN].
During the five months from May through September 1942 about 1800 ships were convoyed
monthly in the U. S. coastal convoys and only about
12 of these ships were sunk monthly by U-boats for
a loss rate of less than 1 per cent per trip . During the
first nine months of 1942, about 1000 ships were convoyed monthly in ocean convoys and about 15 of
these ships were sunk monthly by U-boats for a loss
rate of about 11/2 per cent per trip . (It should be considered that the average voyage for these convoys is
considerably longer than for the coastal convoys.)
The convoy run to and from Russia was particularly
hazardous during this period, with about 34 ships
sailing monthly and about three of these being sunk
monthly by U-boats for a loss rate of about 9 per cent
per trip . In addition, these convoys suffered considerable losses from enemy air and surface craft attack .
The effect of convoying in reducing shipping losses
is clearly illustrated by the experience in the U. S.
Strategic Area during the first nine months of 1942 .
There were about 600 ships at sea in this area
throughout this period . During the first six months,
before extensive convoying of coastal shipping had
started, only about 40 per cent of the shipping was in
convoy . There were, on the average, about 30 U-boats
at sea in this area during the first six months and each
U-boat was sinking about 2.7 ships a month. About
20 per cent of the independent shipping and about
4 per cent of the convoyed shipping were sunk each
month by U-boats.
During the next three months, after extensive convoying of coastal shipping had started, about 80 per
cent of the shipping was in convoy . The average
number of U-boats at sea in this area had increased
to about 50, but each U-boat was only able to sink
about 1.4 ships a month, about half as much as during the first six months . Thus, despite the face that
the loss rates for both independent and convoyed
shipping had increased (about 33 per cent of the independent shipping and about 6 per cent of the convoyed shipping were sunk monthly by U-boats) during the last three months of this period, the efficiency
of the average U-boat in sinking ships was halved .

This was mainly due to the fact that about 40 per
cent of the shipping was exposed, during the latter
three months, to the much lower loss rate experienced by convoyed shipping instead of to the high
loss rate experienced by independent shipping .
Another consequence of the shift from independent to convoyed shipping is the increased danger
which the U-boat faces when he attacks a convoy.
Only about 113 U-boats were sunk monthly in the
U. S. Strategic Area during the first six months of
1942, while 4i3 were sunk monthly in the same area
during the next three months, most of them by forces
escorting convoys.
4'2'2
Aircraft
At the beginning of 1942, the U . S . Navy sent out

all available planes and blimps to battle the U-boats
along the coast. They were helped by the First
Bomber Command, initial Army Air Forces contribution, which was activated in December 1941 . The
Army planes patrolled and escorted under the operational control of the Navy . A second Army Air Forces
unit broke into the picture in June 1942 . This was
the Seasearch-Attack Development Unit [SADU],
based at Langley Field, Virginia, and assigned a
combination mission : (1) to develop tactics and techniques for using antisubmarine devices, and (2) to
conduct general seasearch. SADU had two British
loaned B-24's (Dumbos I and 11) . In these had been

installed two early British microwave sets known as
DMS-1000 and equipped with the first airborne
Plan Position Indicator [PPI] scopes . In addition to
the Army and Navy flying, there was also patrolling
by the Civilian Air Patrol [CAP], mostly within 100
miles from shore .
The flying hours by U. S: Army and Navy aircraft

in the Eastern Sea Frontier increased from about
5000 hours in January 1942 to a peak of about 25,000
hours in July 1942 . In the Gulf Sea Frontier, only
about 7000 hours were flown in May 1942, when sinkings of ships were at their peak, as compared to 12,000
hours in July 1942 . In both of these sea frontiers, the
number of U-boats at sea decreased rapidly after
July 1942 . In the Caribbean Sea Frontier, the number of flying hours increased from about 5000 in
April 1942 to almost 10,000 in September 1942, when
the number of U-boats at sea there started decreasing.
U. S. aircraft made about 30 attacks a month on
U-boats during this period, varying from about 12 a
30
HEAVY SINKINGS ON EAST COAST OE UNITED STATES
month during the first four months of 1942 to about

45 a month during the next five months . About 20
per cent of these attacks resulted in some damage to
the U-boat, while only about 2 per cent of the attacks
resulted in the sinking or probable sinking of the
U-boat, The average height at which these attacks
were made was about 150 feet, The depth bombs
used were generally set for a depth of 50 feet at the
beginning of this period (too deep for a surfaced
U-boat) but toward the end of 1942 most of the attacks were made with settings of 25 feet, In addition,
bombs were fitted with flat noses in order to reduce
their forward motion under water and also to reduce
ricocheting .
At about the beginning of 1942, Coastal Command
aircraft had started using the 25-foot depth setting on
their depth charges. The usual height at which their
attacks were made was about 50 feet. Torpex-filled
depth charges, which had a greater lethal radius,
were introduced in April 1942 . These factors produced a considerable improvement in the quality of
Coastal Command attacks on U-boats. About 20 per
cent of their aircraft attacks during this period resulted in at least some damage to the U-boat, while
about 4 per cent of their attacks resulted in sinking
the U-boat .
During the early months of 1942, when most of the
U-boats were operating in the West Atlantic, Coastal
Command aircraft started maintaining offensive
patrols against transit U-boats. They operated both
on the northern route, to the northward of Scotland,
and in the approaches to the Bay of Biscay ports.
During the first five months of 1942 only about 600
flying hours a month were spent on the Bay of Biscay
offensive. This effort resulted in about seven sightings a month, enough to keep the U-boats submerged
during the daytime.
In June 1942 Coastal Command introduced into
operation about ten Wellington aircraft, fitted with
the Leigh Searchlight and Mark II radar. These aircraft, operating in the Bay of Biscay, flew 190 hours
in June, sighted seven U-boats, and attacked five of
them . This success was achieved despite the fact that
the night offensive in the Bay was considerably hampered by the presence of French fishing boats.
With the introduction o the Leigh-Light Wellington in June 1942 the scale of the Bay offensive was
greatly increased, with about 3400 flying hours being
put into it monthly during the period from June
through September 1942 . About 30 sightings (9 per
1000 hours on patrol) and 23 attacks were made

monthly during this period. It is believed that 43 per
cent of all U-boat transits through the Bay were
sighted and that five U-boats were destroyed during
those four months. The immediate reaction of the
enemy to the Coastal Command offensive in the Bay
was an increased effort to intercept antisubmarine
aircraft, to which Coastal Command replied by sending out Beaufighters to intercept the interceptors .
4.2 .3
The Germans were fully alive to the possibilities

of meter-wave radar and they were aided by the capture of a Mark II radar set in Tunisia in the spring of
1942 . They accordingly concluded that radar was responsible for the night attacks in the Bay of Biscay
and tests in the summer of 1942 confirmed that the
transmissions were easily detected by a single receiver
and aerial . Admiral Doenitz ordered the speediest
equipping of all U-boats with a makeshift equipment . The aerials of wood and cable (Southern Cross
Aerial) were easily made and the Paris firm of Nletox
turned out the R-600 receiver. The first U-boat German Search Receiver [CSR] was designed to detect
meter radar and came into operation about October
1942 .
Another new device introduced by the U-boats in
the latter half of 1942 was Submarine Bubble Target
[S$T] or "Pillenwerfer." These were tablets which
were to be released by the U-boats when attacked by
surface craft. The bubbles formed by the dissolving
tablets produced false sonar targets which were intended to throw the attacking ships off the trail of
the U-boat.
In the early months of 1942, a new form of passive
defense against torpedo attacks, known as Admiralty
Net Defense [AND], was being fitted to new merchant ships of speeds not less than 11 knots and not
more than 15 knots. Early trials indicated that these
nets would stop about 50 per cent of U-boat torpedoes
fired at the ship .
In March 1942, the Hedgehog charges were made
more lethal by filling them with Torpex, a new explosive which was, volume for volume, 1.7 times as
powerful as TNT. About the middle of 1942, the
U. S. Navy put into operation the "Mousetrap" projector, which fires a number of relatively small, fastsinking charges equipped with contact fuzes and is
suitable for installation on small antisubmarine
SURVEY OF RESULTS
ships. As the light construction o these ships does

not permit any great amount of deck thrust, the projector utilizes the rocket principle for launching. The
projectiles are copies of the Hedgehog projectiles
fitted with suitable rocket motors in the tail .
Magnetic Airborne Detector [MAD] was also developed during this period in order to enable aircraft to follow submerged submarines . This device
detects the change in magnetic field produced by a
submarine but its detection range is only about 500
feet .
Sinking of U-boats
The number of enemy U-boats sunk during this
9-month period was 78 (50 German, 17 Italian, and
11 Japanese) . Forty o the U-boats were lost in the
Atlantic (21 of them in the U. S. Strategic Area), 21
in the Mediterranean, 11 in the Pacific, two in the
Barents Sea, one was mined in the Baltic, and three
were lost under unknown circumstances.
Surface craft continued to be the main factor in
sinking U-boats in all areas, accounting for 34
U-boats (44 per cent of the total number sunk) while
coordinated attacks involving both surface and aircraft accounted for another six U-boats (8 per cent) .
Aircraft played a significant part in sinking U-boats,
for the first time, accounting for 19 (24 per cent); all
of these sinkings occurred in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Submarines were an important factor in
both the Mediterranean and Pacific, accounting for
14 U-boats (18 per cent of the total) .
In the U. S. Strategic Area, the main scene of
U-boat activity, there were about 360 surface craft
attacks made on U-boats during this period. About
12 per cent of these attacks resulted in at least some
damage to the U-boat while about 4 per cent of them
resulted in sinking it . A British study of 106 surface
craft attacks in the North Atlantic and Western
Mediterranean during this period indicates that
about 25 per cent of the attacks resulted in at least
some damage to the U-boat while about 10 per cent
of these resulted in sinking it.
4.3
.1
SURVEY OF RESULTS
This was by far the most successful period o the

war for the U-boats. The total world-wide losses
31
amounted to 878 ships of 4,587,400 gross tons sunk

by U-boats (about 98 ships of 510,000 gross tons sunk
monthly) . The main U-boat battle continued to be
fought in the Atlantic where about 90 per cent of
these losses occurred . The number of U-boats lost
during this period vas %8 (about nine a month) so
that the world-wide exchange rate was 11 ships of
59,000 gross tons sunk for each U-boat sunk .
Japanese U-boats sank "l6 ships during this ninemonth period (48 in the Indian Ocean and 28 in the
Pacific) while 11 U-boats were sunk (all in the Pacific)
so that their exchange rate was about seven ships
sunk for each U-boat sunk . In the Barents Sea Area,
15 ships were sunk by U-boats as against two U-boats
sunk while in the Mediterranean, 17 ships were sunk
as against 21 U-boats lost . Life was much more hazardous for U-boats in the Mediterranean than for
those in any other area .
In the Atlantic, the main theater of activity, the
average number of U-boats at sea was about 57,
almost twice as many as during the previous period .
These U-boats sank about 85 ships of 456,000 gross
tons a month during this period, more than 21/2
times as much as in the previous period . About 85
per cent of these losses occurred in the U. S. Strategic
Area, where their main effort was directed against
the weak spot off the east coast of the United States .
The average U-boat in the Atlantic sank about 1i2
ships of 8000 gross tons per month at sea, about 50
per cent more than the corresponding figure for the
previous period. However, it should be kept in mind
that this sinking rate was still far below that achieved
during the period from July 1940 to March 1941,
when the U-boat Aces were operating and the average
U-boat was sinking four ships per month at sea.
The U-boats operating in the Atlantic were relatively safer during this period than at any other time
in the war. Of the 57 U-boats at sea, about 41/2 were
sunk monthly so that the average life of a U-boat at
sea reached a new high of 13 months . This meant
that the average U-boat in the Atlantic, during this
period, was sinking 19 ships of about 140,000 gross
tons before it, itself, was sunk, the highest exchange
rate of the war (about twice as high as during the
previous period) .
This record exchange rate was achieved by concentrating the U-boat effort in the U. S. Strategic
Area, of the United States, where the defenses were
rather weak and the bulk of shipping unescorted . Of
the 57 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic, about 37 were
32
in the U. S. Strategic Area, where they were able to

sink 71 ships of 375,000 gross tons a month while
only 213 U-boats were lost monthly.
During the first half of 1942, the U-boats achieved
their main successes in the Eastern and Gulf Sea
Frontiers. The number of U-boats in these areas
reached a peak in July 1942 when there were, on the
average, eight at sea in the Eastern Sea Frontier and
six in the Gulf Sea Frontier . However, by then the
bulk of shipping was in convoy and surface and aircraft had each been making over two attacks a month
on each U-boat . Under these conditions, the effectiveness of U-boats in sinking ships was greatly reduced,
and the number of U-boats operating in these coastal
regions decreased rapidly after July 1942 . In the
Caribbean, it was not until August 1942 that a corresponding level of attacks on U-boats was reached
and the reduced effectiveness of the U-boats in sinking ships first became apparent in September 1942,
when there was a peak of about 10 U-boats at sea
there. The number of U-boats at sea in the Caribbean started falling off after September 1942 .
It was natural, therefore, that as the combination
o convoying and heavy air coverage reduced the
effectiveness of U-boats along the East Coast of the
United States, the U-boats would look for other weak
spots in the Allied defenses . The most likely looking
spot was the "gap" in the Northwest Atlantic Area
where the U-boats could operate against the vital
transatlantic convoys in a region outside the range of
Allied air cover . The number of U-boats in this area
had increased from about seven during the first half
of 1942 to 14 in August and September while the
shipping losses to U-boats in the Northwest Atlantic
Area had mounted to over 100,000 gross tons in each
of these months . It seemed likely that the crucial
battle of the U-boat war would be fought against
these convoys in the North Atlantic during the next
period .
The Germans were in an excellent position to conduct an intensive U-boat campaign at the end of
September 1942 . The number of ocean-going U-boats
available had increased from about 200 at the beginning of 1942 to about 350 at the end of this period .
This was accomplished by commissioning about 200
new U-boats while only 50 were lost . In addition,
many of the new U-boat commanders and crews had
gained considerable experience and confidence as a
result of their successful operations in the West
Atlantic .

Total shipping losses from all causes of the Allied
and neutral nations reached the highest level of the
war during this period, amounting to 700,000 gross
tons a month, almost twice as high as during the
previous period. Fortunately, the building rate of
new shipping was also greatly increased, averaging
about 515,000 gross tons a month. This increase reflected chiefly the great expansion in U. S. construction of shipping from less than 100,000 gross tons in
January 1942 to almost 700,000 gross tons in September 1942 . Consequently, the net monthly loss of
shipping was only about 185,000 gross tons, slightly
less than during the preceding period .
about 655,000 gross tons were lost as a result of enemy
action . U-boats accounted for 510,000 gross tons a
month (about 78 per cent of the total lost by enemy
action), a much higher proportion than in the past .
Monthly losses to enemy aircraft dropped to 67,004
gross tons (10 per cent of the total) . Monthly losses to
enemy surface craft were about 39,000 gross tons,
while the monthly losses to mines were only about
11,000 gross tons .
The total shipping available decreased from about
33,300,000 gross tons at the beginning of 1942 to
about 31,600,000 gross tons at the end of this period .
Particularly serious was the heavy destruction of
tankers during this period, 190,000 gross tons lost
monthly as compared to 70,000 gross tons constructed
monthly. The size of the tanker fleet declined by over
1,000,000 gross tons, or about 10 per cent of its size at
the beginning of 1942 .
The number of ships suitable for ocean escort,
available to the Allies, increased from about 670 at
the beginning of 1942 to 745 at the end of September.
This was due mainly to an increase of about 60 in
the number of destroyers . Twelve new auxiliary aircraft carriers were also completed during this period .
However, the gravity of the U-boat situation at the
end of this period resulted in a sizeable expansion in
the construction program for 1943, with the U. S.
Navy expecting to produce over 500 escort ships,
more than half of which would be destroyer escorts
[DE], designed especially for convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare.
Although the Allies had suffered extremely heavy
losses in the Western Atlantic during this period,
convoying and aircraft had succeeded in driving the
SURVEY OF RESULTS
U-boats out of these coastal regions by the end of this

period. The main problem facing the Allies during
the next period was that of maintaining the flow of
war material from the United States to England, in
particular, that of assuring the safety of the North
33
Atlantic convoys. It was becoming increasingly apparent that, although the defeat of the U-boats
would not, of itself, win the war, the Allies could
not possibly win the war without first defeating the
U-boats.
Chapter 5
FIFTH PERIOD
LARGE WOLF PACKS BATTLE NORTH ATLANTIC CONVOYS
OCTOBER 1942-JUNE 1943
5.1
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
FSPITE the fact that the U-boats had been driven

Dfrom the coastal areas of the United States by the
beginning of this period, the shipping losses to
U-boats continued to run at the same high level as
during the previous period. The Atlantic continued
to be the chief area of U-boat activity with about 85
per cent of the shipping losses to U-boats occurring
there. There were over 100 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic during most of this period . This enabled the
enemy to conduct an intensive U-boat campaign in
the Northwest Atlantic Area against the strategically
important North Atlantic convoys and still maintain
a number of subsidiary campaigns in other widespread areas (such as the Caribbean, Brazilian, Freetown, and Southeast Atlantic Areas) in an attempt to
force the Allies to disperse their forces .
The total shipping losses to U-boats continued to
be rather heavy in October 1942 as 93 ships of 614,000
gross tons were sunk. The intensity of the U-boat
campaign against the transatlantic convoys increased
with the number of U-boats in the Northwest Atlantic Area rising from 14 in September to 22 in October .
These U-boats sank 24 ships with the bulk of the
losses occurring in the "gap," the region outside the
range of shore-based aircraft . Experience indicated
that a convoy, not protected by aircraft, may be so
disorganized by a concentrated attack and the resultant breaks in formation for rescue work and
other adjustment that the escorts may become comparatively ineffective for either protection or offense.
However, the presence, even for a few hours, of one
or two aircraft has again and again prevented a concentrated attack from developing .
This was well illustrated during October . On the
4th, Convoy HX 209 was in some peril when about
300 miles south of Iceland. U. S. Navy Catalinas provided close escort for 1512 hours and protective
sweeps were laid on by seven aircraft from Iceland
and three Fortresses from England. In the course of
these operations the aircraft made nine sightings and
34
carried out six attacks; the attack on the convoy did

not develop. On the other hand, Convoy SC 104 was
heavily attacked on the nights of the 13th and 14th
when out of the range of aircraft and eight ships were
torpedoed. On the following day there was a change
for the better. The weather improved and air cover
arrived enabling the surface escort to go over to the
offensive and sink two U-boats.
Another development during October was the
start of the expected U-boat operations in the Southeast Atlantic Area, near Capetown . This new "soft
spot" was exploited by two groups, each of about six
U-boats, which reached the Capetown area and eventually passed into the southern part of the Indian
Ocean, where Japanese U-boats had previously
achieved considerable success. These groups sank 25
ships in the Southeast Atlantic Area during October.
All of these ships were independently routed and
some carried rather valuable cargoes.
However, some of the heavy shipping losses suffered in October and November may be charged to
the success of Operation Torch, the landings in
North Africa early in November 1942 . A great deal of
merchant shipping and many escorts were naturally
diverted from their normal use in October, when the
foundations were firmly laid for the achievement of
the safe arrival of the first military convoys. In addition, the enemy disposed an abnormally large proportion of his Atlantic U-boat force east of the
Azores and Madeira. This suggests that, in a broad
sense, the German command had appreciated the
likelihood of an Allied attack on Africa . One consequence directly resulting from this redisposition of
U-boat forces was that Convoy SL 125 was severely
mauled, losing 12 ships during a 4-day pursuit by a
pack of about six U-boats. However, the pursuit was
abruptly dropped before it drew the LT-boats away
from the area southwest of Portugal ; it may have
been regarded as of greater importance that they
should stay there and reconnoiter than that they
should further pursue an ordinary trade convoy .
Despite the fact that convoys of the expeditionary
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
forces had to pass through concentrations of 30 to

40 U-boats before reaching Gibraltar, no U-boat successes were achieved against these convoys until after
the assault troops had landed . The number of
U-boats in the Western Mediterranean increased
from about 10 on November 8 to about 20 on November 11 . The losses to LT-boats in Operation Torch
amounted to only about 84,000 gross tons of shipping
and six naval vessels. The total shipping losses from
all enemy causes in this operation amounted to about
134,000 gross tons, against which can be offset a gain
to the Allies of about 181,000 gross tons of serviceable
tonnage acquired in French ports. In addition to the
defensive success achieved against the U-boats in
Operation Torch, the Allies also scored a notable
offensive success, sinking 15 U-boats in the Mediterranean during November . A large factor in these victories over the U-boats was the heavy air cover provided, since aircraft from Gibraltar made 110 sightings and 64 attacks on the large concentration of
U-boats.
In contrast to the successful landings in North
Africa, world-wide shipping losses reached their
highest point of the war in November 1942, as 862,000 gross tons of shipping were lost from all causes .
U-boats also sank the greatest tonnage of the war in
November, accounting for 116 ships of 712,000 gross
tons . The tonnage sunk during October and November was swelled by the loss of a number of large, fast,
independently routed ships which, on account of
their speed, had been regarded as fairly safe from
U-boat attack . Losses in the Northwest Atlantic continued at their high level as 26 ships of 144,00(3,gross
tons were sunk there by U-boats. Losses in the Southeast Atlantic fell off slightly to 23 ships of 127,000
gross tons but shipping losses in the Caribbean and
Brazilian Areas mounted again as the U-boats sank
34 ships of 210,000 gross tons there. These heavy
losses in widespread areas occurred despite the intensive effort made by the U-boats in opposing the
Allied landings in North Africa .
The shipping losses to U-boats in December 1942
were 62 ships of 344,000 gross tons, only about half
the record total of November. This steep decline was
probably due to the cumulative effect of various contributing factors, such as the concentration of
U-boats in the Atlantic approaches to the Western
Mediterranean and a consequent withdrawal elsewhere (particularly from the West and South Atlantic), the heavy bombing. by Allied aircraft of the
35
Biscayan U-boat bases, and some effective work by

surface and air escorts on the North Atlantic routes,
as well as adverse weather and some luck in routing.
The enemy attributed the smaller sinkings to bad
weather.
Only one convoy, ONS 154, suffered heavy losses in
the North Atlantic . This convoy was given a southerly route and was attacked by a pack of about 20
U-boats as it drew out of the range of air cover. These
U-boats followed the convoy for four days and sank
14 ships. This again demonstrated the immense importance of efficiently combining surface and air
escort and indicated that surface escorts are physically incapable of warding off concerted attacks
by a pack of U-boats which outnumbers them by
more than a 2-to-1 ratio. In selecting convoy routes
at this time, the advantage of the northerly route
within the range of air cover from Iceland had to be
balanced against the increased time of the trip due to
greater distance and worse weather. In addition the
bad weather reduced the efficiency of the escorts.
The shipping losses to U-boats in January 1943
dropped to only 35 ships of 203,000 gross tons, less
than in any month of 1942 . Bad weather was the primary factor responsible for this reduction and it was
recognized that the gravity of the U-boat threat was
much more serious than indicated by the low shipping losses . The fate of a tanker convoy bound from
Trinidad to Gibraltar seemed a truer index of the
strength of a U-boat pack operating in favorable conditions at the beginning of 1943 . Convoy TM 1, made
up of nine tankers and four escorts, lost seven tankers
as a result of U-boat attacks, all well outside the
range of shore-based aircraft . This was the highest
proportion of ships sunk from any convoy by U-boats
during the war.
Of the 100 or more U-boats at sea in the Atlantic
on any one day, over a third were operating in the
Northwest Atlantic Area . The U-boats were concentrating against the North Atlantic convoys which
carried cargoes of immediate importance for military operations . Grand Admiral Doenitz had become
supreme commander of the German Navy and it was
becoming evident that the critical phase of the
U-boat war in the Atlantic was approaching.
To meet to some extent the need for shore-based
air cover for Atlantic convoys, the Allies planned to
introduce Very Long Range [VLR] aircraft with an
endurance of 2000 to 2500 miles. Some flying was also
done from Greenland although weather conditions
36
were a severe handicap. Continuous shore-based air

cover was available between Gibraltar and Freetown .
In February 1943 the U-boat effort in the North
Atlantic increased in intensity. The world-wide shipping losses to U-boats increased to 63 ships of 359,000
gross tons, with about half these losses occurring in
the Northwest Atlantic Area. Two of the North Atlantic convoys were heavily attacked by packs of
about 20 U-boats. Convoy SC 118 lost 12 ships to
U-boat attacks early in the month, seven of them
during a period of three hours. However, at least
two U-boats were sunk and six damaged during this
action . Convoy ON 166 suffered the loss of 14 ships
over a period of five days as a result of U-boat attacks
outside the range of shore-based aircraft . The enemy
was concentrating his forces in an effort to interrupt
the flow of supplies from America to Great Britain
and the U-boats were displaying increased boldness
in attempting to achieve this objective. However,
about 20 VLR aircraft had become operational in
February 1943 .
In March 1943 the world-wide shipping losses to
U-boats mounted to 107 ships of 627,000 gross tons .
The tempo of the U-boat offensive against the transatlantic convoys increased as the number of U-boats
in the Northwest Atlantic Area rose to about 50 .
These U-boats sank 38 ships in that area, a high for
the war, and an additional 15 ships were sunk in the
adjacent Northeast Atlantic Area . The enemy's resources were such that he was also able to maintain
offensives in the South Atlantic and in the Caribbean and Azores Areas. About two-thirds of the tonnage sunk by U-boats during Match was in convoy
when sunk and the figure of over 400,000 gross tons
of shipping sunk in convoy by U-boats during the
month was a record for the war. The main reason for
the large increase in tonnage sunk in convoy was an
increase in the number of convoys attacked and not
a weakening in the protective value of the escorts.
The intensity of the U-boat effort in the North
Atlantic during March is clearly indicated by the attacks on four consecutive eastbound transatlantic
convoys. The U-boats generally outnumbered the escorts by about two to one and were able to torpedo
30 ships from these four convoys, in addition to eight
stragglers . Convoy SC 121 was badly scattered by
heavy weather and lost five ships in convoy and seven
stragglers . Convoy HX 228 lost four ships to the
U-boats but the escorts were able to sink two U-boats
in one of the dramatic incidents of the U-boat war.
After an attack on the convoy, HMS Harvester

sighted a U-boat and rammed it at about 26 knots .
The U-boat hung under the stern and could not be
dislodged for about ten minutes. The FFS Aconit
finished off the damaged U-boat, in spite of considerable damage, HMS Harvester was able to proceed on one engine for several hours until she became
completely disabled and was torpedoed . The FFS
Aconit then sank the U-boat which had destroyed
HMS Harvester .
Convoys HX 229 and SC 122 were routed closely

together and ran into a concentration of about 40
U-boats, the largest pack employed up to that time,
losing 20 ships to the U-boats. On the night of March
16-17, 13 ships were sunk when the convoys were
about 850 miles from the nearest air bases. The following day the convoys received some air cover from
VLR aircraft, with one plane sighting six U-boats .
In all, 54 sorties were flown in defense of these two
convoys resulting in 32 sightings and 21 attacks. The
U-boats were finally forced to disengage on March
20 and this date may well be considered as the turning point in their offensive power as sinkings of merchant vessels were at a much lower rate thereafter .
Although the shipping losses in March were very
heavy, there were signs that the situation in the
North Atlantic was improving. Advances had been
made towards the provision of continuous air cover
for transatlantic convoys by the increased use of VLR
aircraft from Newfoundland, Iceland, and England
and by the introduction of escort carriers and Merchant Aircraft Carriers [MAC] ships. MAC ships
were merchant ships whose decks were converted so
that they could carry four Swordfish aircraft which
could take off and land. The USS Bogue, the first
U. S. escort carrier, started operations as an escort
for the North Atlantic convoys during March. At
the Atlantic Convoy Conference held in Washington
in March, it was agreed that, starting in May, the
United Kingdom and Canada should be responsible
for the security of convoys across the North Atlantic,
the United States providing certain air and sea forces
to help them . It was also decided to set up a unified
air command in Newfoundland corresponding to the
Coastal Command system . The United States was to
base a substantial force of VLR aircraft in this region, which, together with the VLR Liberators of the
RCAF, were to close the gap in the North Atlantic.
Although the number of U-boats at sea continued
at the same high level in April 1943, the shipping loss
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
was greatly reduced with the U-boats sinking 56 ships

of 328,000 gross tons . The shipping losses to U-boats
in the Northwest Atlantic Area in April were only
18 ships of 108,000 gross tons, less than half the
March record. Ten ships were sunk by U-boats in the
Freetown Area and ,Japanese U-boats sank six ships
in the Southwest Pacific, off the east coast of
Australia.
Accompanying the decrease in shipping losses
there was a considerable increase in the number of
U-boats sunk, 17 being sunk in the Atlantic for a
record high to that date . April also marked the first
sinking of a U-boat in which planes from an escort
carrier took part . A plane from HMS Biter found
and attacked a U-boat which HMS Pathfinder, one
of the escorts, sank .
A more satisfactory criterion that the U-boat offensive strength had passed its peak was the fact that,
for the first time, U-boats failed to press home attacks
on convoys when favorably situated to do so . In none
of the attacks on transatlantic convoys did the enemy
succeed in obtaining anything like the upper hand .
All of the U-boats' efforts tended to avoidance of detection and, once it was apparent that they had failed
in this endeavor, they seldom pressed home their
attacks . There were five Support Groups operating
in the North Atlantic during April, two of them

having their own escort carrier, and the number of
VLR aircraft available had risen to over 30 . More
important, .there was a noticeably enhanced standard
of group training, better use of HF/DF vas made,
and cooperating between surface and air components
of the escorts was greatly impruved .
May 1943 seems to have been the crucial month in

the Battle of the Atlantic . The number of U-boats at
sea in the Atlantic reached a peak of about 120, with
about half of these U-boats concentrated in the
Northwest Atlantic Area . The decisive battle took
place at the beginning of the month between Convoy
ONS 5 and a pack of about 40 U-boats. On May 4,
when HF/DF activity indicated that the U-boats had
made contact, the convoy consisted of about 30 ships
and four stragglers. The average number of escorts
present during the battle was about eight. Despite
the bad weather, aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air
Force provided air cover during the afternoon of the
4th and carried out two promising attacks, one of
which is considered to have sunk the U-boat. The
U-boats started attacking shortly after midnight and
12 ships were sunk on May 5, about half during the
37
night and half during the next day. Due to bad

weather, air cover was provided for only an hour on
the morning of the 5th. By midnight the weather had
become calm and foggy and from then onwards the
escorts had the upper hand . In the course of the night
they frustrated about 24 attacks by the U-boats without suffering any losses and, in addition, inflicted
heavy losses and much damage on the enemy. At
least five U-boats are considered to have been sunk
by the escorts during the battle. The U-boats broke
off the action in the course of the day and did not
renew it . In no succeeding convoy operation did the
enemy display the same determination .
Several other convoys were threatened in the first
half of the month but no serious losses were suffered
and the toll of U-boats mounted steadily . After May
17, no ship was lost in the Atlantic north of 45 north
latitude . The world-wide shipping losses to U-boats
in May 1943 decreased to 50 ships of 265,000 gross
tons . Only 14 ships were sunk in the Northwest Atlantic Area while diversionary U-boats sank 15 ships
in the Freetown and Southeast Atlantic Areas.
The most notable feature of the operations during
May was the success of our offensive against the
U-boats. The number of U-boats sunk during the
month reached a record high of 44, almost twice the
previous high, with 38 of the sinkings occurring in
the Atlantic . A record number of 15 were sunk in
the Northwest Atlantic Area and the number sunk
in the Bay of Biscay also reached a new high of 11 .
Shore-based aircraft accounted for over half the
U-boats sunk during the month while carrier-based
aircraft participated in three of the attacks in which
the U-boat was considered to have been sunk .
By the end of May it vas clear that the U-boats had
been decisively beaten as the number at sea in the
Atlantic dropped to about 85, with no small proportion of the reduction due to sinkings of U-boats. The
U-boats could not afford to suffer the heavy losses
experienced in May and they were forced to withdraw from the battle against the vital North Atlantic
convoys. This was an admission of defeat in itself .
It should be noted that superior leadership and tactics, quick initial action, and well-coordinated attack
and defense played as much of a pare in the defeat o
the U-boats as did concentration of forces at the decisive points and weapon superiority .
By June 1943 the U-boats had retired from the
main battlefield of the North Atlantic convoy routes
and a considerable number had moved into the
38
Azores Area, outside the range o shore-based aircraft. As a result, June was an interim phase for the
U-boats and they were able to sink only 20 ships of
96,000 gross tons during the month, the smallest
amount of shipping sunk by U-boats since November
1941 . Not a single ship was sunk in the Northwest
Atlantic Area during June and only seven ships were
sunk by U-boats in the whole Atlantic . Seven ships
were sunk in the Indian Ocean and six in the
Mediterranean.
suspension of sailings of the Sierra Leone and Gibraltar convoys for several months due to lack of escorts.
Shortly after these landings new convoys were started
between the United States and the Mediterranean
(designated UG and GU), to supply Allied forces in
North Africa . The U. S. Coastal Convoy System was
extended to Brazil in December 1942 following increased U-boat activity in that area .
There were, however, a number of extensive
changes in the routing of independent shipping. At
The offensive against the U-boats continued
the beginning of this period, the Allies were forced,
throughout June, but as the opportunities to attack
by a concentration of U-boats between Natal and
U-boats were rarer due to their redisposition, only
Dakar, to discontinue the route to the Red Sea and
19 were sunk during the month . Aircraft continued
India via the Atlantic and the Cape of Good Hope.
to play an outstanding part, sinking ten U-boats, two
Shipping was instead routed via the Panama Canal
by carrier-based aircraft from the USS ,8ogue in reand Cape Horn to Capetown . However, after the
gions where the U-boats thought they would be safe
U-boats had started operations in force around Capefrom shore-based aircraft. The 2nd Escort Group led
town, the bulk of the Indian Ocean traffic was routed
by HMS Starling sank three U-boats during the
transpacific from Balboa south of New Zealand to
month and clearly demonstrated that a well-trained
Fxemantie for onward routing to destination . This
escort group could deal effectively with a U-boat .
route through the South Pacific proved entirely safe .
On June 2, this escort group made contact with
There have been losses in the Indian Ocean due to
U-202 . Twelve depth-charge attacks were made withraiders and U-boats but, in general, this transpacific
out positive evidence of success, so it was decided to
route was so successful that it was maintained until
hunt the U-boat until its batteries were exhausted
the Mediterranean was considered open in July 1943 .
and it had to surface . One ship maintained contact
It can be seen that there was a considerable gain in
while the remainder formed a square patrol . Despite
effective shipping due to the use of the short Medievery maneuver and artifice, including the release of
terranean route instead of the long circuitous route
19 SBT's, the U-boat was compelled to surface after
across the Pacific.
contact had been firmly held for 14i2 hours . She was
During this period, the main efforts of the U-boats
immediately attacked by gunfire and the crew aban- were concentrated against convoyed shipping, in pardoned ship . On June 24, the 2nd Escort Group, actticular against the North Atlantic Trade Convoys
(ON, ONS, HX, and SG). The proportion of tonnage
ing as a striking force in cooperation with aircraft
engaged in the Bay offensive, destroyed two more
sunk by U-boats, which was in convoy when sunk, inU-boats in the space of 9 hours .
creased. from about 30 per cent during the last three
As the period closed, it was apparent that the months of 1942 to 67 per cent in March 1943 and
U-boats had been decisively defeated in the battle then dropped back to about 25 per cent in June 1943
against the North Atlantic convoys. The Allies had after the U-boats had withdrawn from the North
meanwhile taken the initiative and joined battle in Atlantic convoy routes . About 720 ships sailed
the approaches to the Bay of Biscay, through which monthly in the North Atlantic Trade Convoys and
about 21 of these ships were sunk monthly by
all U-boats must pass to and from their bases.
U-boats, so that the loss rate was about 3 per cent per
crossing . This loss rate reached a peak of about 5 per
5.2
cent in March 1943 . By June 1943 the U-boats had
U-BOAT
been forced to withdraw and 850 ships arrived safely
in these convoys without the loss of a single ship to
5.2.1
Convoys
the U-boats.
the
conThe strategy of the U-boats in their battle against
There were only a few minor changes in
the
North Atlantic convoys was to maintain patrols
voy system during this period. The landings in North
Africa in November 1942 resulted in the temporary in positions designed to find convoys at a time when
they were about to leave the protection of air cover,

and it was in this gap that the U-boats scored their
greatest success.There were three main U-boat formations for attacks on convoys, namely (1) Patrol line,
(2) Reconnaissance sweep, and (3) Attack formation.
In the first, U-boats up to perhaps 25 in number are
spread about 20 miles apart on a given line of bearing
across the convoy routes . Each U-boat patrols at slow
speed on either side of and at right angles to the line,
not going further than half an hour's run from it . IF
the U-boat sights a convoy she must report it to
Admiral, U-boats, who passes the signal to the other
U-boats in the line . This Patrol line formation is a
pool from which groups of U-boats may be detached
for any given duty, such as an attack on a convoy or a
Reconnaissance sweep of an area through which a
convoy is expected to pass .
For the Reconnaissance sweep formation, Admiral,
U-boats, signals the limits of the area to be swept, the
time at which the sweep is to start, and the U-boats
which are to take part . The U-boats ordered to the
area, the limits of which may be 150 miles apart, proceed at a speed of about 10 knots on parallel courses
and spread about 25 miles apart. When one of the
U-boats has established the position o the convoy, a
group of U-boats are ordered by Admiral, U-boats, to
take up an attack formation. These U-boats may be
formed up into a semicircle around the line of approach of the convoy. Once the order to attack is
given, there is no such thing as coordinated action
between the U-boats, though they may keep in touch
with each other by radio. Each U-boat attacks at its
discretion . The U-boats continue their attacks until
ordered by Admiral, U-boats, to break off.
An analysis of attacks by U-boats on the North
Atlantic convoys at about the beginning of this period indicated that about 70 per cent of the attempted attacks were frustrated by the escorts. About
two ships were torpedoed in each successful attack .
In only about half the successful attacks did the
U-boat escape detection. Radar was responsible for
more than half the cases in which the U-boat was
detected :
5'2'2
Aircraft
The primary function of aircraft in the defense of

convoys was the prevention of the gathering of
U-boat packs capable of making destructive attacks.
This function is accomplished in two ways . First, as a
39
pack is gathering on a trailed and reported convoy,

protective sweeps far ahead and to the flanks of the
convoy enable aircraft to make killing and damaging
attacks or at least to force U-boats to remain submerged at slow speed sufficiently long to delay the
formation of an effective pack . Second, through keeping the trailing U-boats, on which the others are
homing, submerged, aircraft can break the enemy's
contact, enabling the convoy to escape by a change
of course .
What the U. S. Navy needed in late 1942 was more
long-range bomber coverage . The U. S. Army was
anxious to help and set up the 1st Anti-Submarine
Army Air Command in October 1942 . This was an
expansion of the 1st Bomber Command. Two antisubmarine squadrons were sent to England in December 1942 . Early in February 1943 they operated
in the Bay of Biscay and in March 1943 the two
squadrons were ordered to Port Lyautey, Morocco,
where they were to help the U . S. Navy protect the
Mediterranean Approaches . By the end of this period
two other U. S . Army squadrons had been sent to
England while two U. S. Navy squadrons were operating from Iceland under Coastal Command.
When the U-boats started using GSR at the beginning of this period in October 1942 the need for
microwave radar became more urgent. As a stop-gap
14 DMS-1000's were crash-built at a U. S. laboratory
and rushed into British service. By the end o 1942
the U. S. Navy's AN./APS-2 [ASG] radar (S-band)
was coming into service. The U. S. Army equivalent
was the SCR-517 .
The first effect o the introduction of GSR was a
sharp reduction in the effectiveness of the aircraft
offensive in the Bay of Biscay . The U-boats could
detect radar-fitted aircraft ranges which allowed
them ample time to dive and the number of sightings
and attacks on U-boats dropped sharply . This lull

lasted through January 1943 . Only four sightings per
1000 hours on patrol were made during this fourmonth period, as compared to nine during the previous four-month period, when the number of U-boat
transits was actually smaller . The search receiver for
Mark II ASV enabled the U-boats to make safe night
passages across the Bay and only 13 per cent of the
transits were sighted . No U-boat is considered to have
been sunk by any of the attacks made in the Bay during this period .
This situation was changed by the introduction of
Mark III ASV (S-band) on Allied aircraft in Febru-
40
ary and March 1943 . This set operated on a much wards most of the U-boats sighted were in packs of
shorter wavelength (10 cm) and could not be de- from three to five . Although this change should have
tected by the R-600 GSR. The proportion of aircraft no effect on the number of U-boats sighted, the numapproaches undetected by U-boats rose and conse- ber attacked will be less as each aircraft can normally
quently the sightings and attacks began a steady in- only attack one U-boat . This effect appeared in June
crease . This period of increased productivity in the when there were 60 sightings in the Bay but only 28
Bay offensive lasted through July 1943 . About 5500 attacks. The other advantages of this change, for the
hours were flown monthly during this 6-month pe- U-boats, are that they will have a better chance of
riod with about 61 sightings and 33 attacks made seeing aircraft, they will have much stronger antimonthly. About five U-boats were sunk monthly as a aircraft fire support, and it will be easier to provide
result of this offensive. The average number of sight- fighter protection for them. Admiralty reacted imings per 1000 hours on patrol jumped to 11 and about mediately to this measure by sending surface craft
60 per cent of all transits were sighted during this hunting groups into the Bay to cooperate with airperiod .
craft and to follow up aircraft attacks. If the surface
The German High Command had no idea as to craft arrive at the scene of the attack quickly enough,
what caused this huge increase in sightings and at- several U-boats will be pinned down and the search
tacks and after running into several blind alleys in should be easier . This countermeasure resulted in
attempting to solve the problem, they were forced to two of the U-boat kills made by the Second Escort
make a number of changes in U-boat tactics. The Group in June . In addition, Mosquito fighters were
first step was the strengthening of the antiaircraft sent into the Bay in June to operate against German
armament of U-boats. This development first became aircraft covering the U-boats.
apparent in April 1943 when on a number of occaAircraft finally came into their own as an offensive
sions U-boats, sighted by aircraft, stayed on the sur- power during this period . The 25-foot depth setting
face and fought back using their antiaircraft guns . was in general use and, especially during the later
Although a number of aircraft were lost as a result months, planes were able to attack U-boats still on
of this measure, it did provide aircraft with a much the surface . About 60 aircraft attacks were made
larger proportion of surfaced targets and increased monthly on U-boats during this period, with about
their chances of sinking a U-boat. Four U-boats that 25 per cent o the attacks resulting in at least some
stayed up and fought back were sunk in April and damage to the U-boat, while over 10 per cent of the
nine such U-boats were sunk in May.
attacks proved lethal . In addition aircraft were used
night-flying
Welto bomb U-boat bases and lay mines near them .
During the spring of 1943, the
lingtons, equipped with Leigh Lights and Mark III These operations dislocated the servicing facilities at
ASV, made night surfacing in the Bay so hazardous the bases and increased the turn-around time of
for the U-boats that they changed their policy to one U-boats operating from these bases .
of surfacing in the daytime to charge batteries and
renew their air supply. This, in turn, produced the 5.2 .3
period of greatest productivity in the campaign during May, June, and July 1943, with the result that
The main scientific battle during this period conduring the last two of these months every U-boat tinued to center about radar. As we have seen, the
transit was sighted once on the average. May 1943 Metox R-600 GSR was able to detect Allied meterwas a record month for Coastal Command aircraft wave radar. The Allied countermeasure to GSR was
with the squadrons in the United Kingdom, Iceland, the introduction of short-wave (S-band 10-cm) radar
and Gibraltar accounting for 213 sightings and 136 about February 1943 . This was made possible by the
attacks, 17 of which are considered to have been British invention of the strapped magnetron in the
lethal . One of the U-boats sunk in May was the victim spring of 1940 which enabled sufficient power to be
of the first rocket attack against U-boats. This attack produced to make use of the shorter wavelengths
was made by a Swordfish aircraft .
practical. The Metox GSR vas particularly unsuited
The next indication of a change in U-boat tactics to detecting these short wavelength radar transmiswas the sighting of five U-boats making the transit sions and the number of aircraft attacks on U-boats
of the Bay in company on June 12 . From then on- increased sharply: The Germans had no idea of what
SURVEY OF RESULTS
was causing the trouble and, suspecting supersonic

modulation, they fitted GSR sets with a visual tuning
indicator of the Magic Eye type . As this did not prove
to be of any help they explored other blind alleys,
suspecting infrared detection or intermittent operation of radar sets, without finding any solution during this period. The best the Germans could do was
the fitting of a permanent GSK aerial, which did not
have to be dismounted before diving, on some
U-boats. Meanwhile it was evident in May and June
1943 that there was a progressive lessening of confidence in GSR on German U-boats . Radar was fitted
on some U-boats, apparently primarily as an offensive weapon against shipping in low visibility . However, there was a great reluctance to use radar for
fear of being detected by a hypothetical Allied search
receiver . Radar decoy balloons were also used by
some U-boats in an attempt to produce a large number of false targets.
A similar lack of appreciation of the situation was
apparent in the U-boat's attitude toward HF/DF. As
the new technique of using shipborne HF/DF was
learned and applied, the successes became more frequent, and by November 1942 HF/DF was accepted
as an essential part of the equipment of escort craft.
The U-boats overrated the accuracy o shore-based
HF/DF, but for a long time they underrated, indeed
ignored, the danger of shipborne HF/DF. This was
reflected in their communications, which seemed to
be conducted on the principle that radio silence was
to be strictly kept until contact was made with the
convoy, but completely relaxed once contact was
made . In other words, they were afraid of revealing
their dispositions but saw no danger from the transmissions of individual U-boats once the battle was
joined. During the attacks on Convoy SC 11$ in
February 1943, for example, the U-boats concerned
made 108 transmissions during a period o 72 hours.
During this period several ships were saved by
AND, the torpedoes either being stopped by the nets
or exploding in them . There were six successful
Hedgehog attacks during this period and it appeared
that the numerous early difficulties with this weapon
had been overcome and it was beginning to show
some signs of its theoretical lethality.
It had become apparent in 1942 that some device
was needed to enable attacking ships to maintain
contact with deep U-boats to shorter distances. To
meet this need the Q attachment was developed. It
consisted of a small special sonar projector of high
41
frequency, attached to the main projector below it

and tilted down about 15 . Trials during this period
indicated that good echoes could be obtained from
targets within an angle of 45 from the horizontal .
The expendable radio sono-buoy was developed
during this period to enable aircraft to maintain
contact with a submerged U-boat . It could be
dropped from an aircraft and contained a hydrophone which would listen to U-boat noises and a
radio transmitter which would transmit the noises
received to the plane . The service life of a sono-buoy
was about four hours.
5.2 .4
Sinkings of U-boats
The number of U-boats sunk or probably sunk

during this critical period averaged about 19 a
month, hitting a peak of 44 in May 1943 . The total
number sunk during this period was 168, more than
twice the number sunk in an), previous period . Of
these, 128 were German, 18 Italian, 18 Japanese, and
four were Vichy French .
There were 112 LT-boats sunk in the Atlantic during this period, 43 of these in the Northwest Atlantic
Area and 25 in the Bay of Biscay . There were 37
U-boats sunk in the Mediterranean, 15 during November 1942, the month of the North African landings . The 18 Japanese U-boats were all sunk in the
Pacific.
This was the first period of the war in which aircraft were the leading killers of U-boats, sinking 76
U-boats (45 per cent of the total) alone and another
10 (6 per cent) in cooperation with surface craft. Ten
of these 86 successful aircraft attacks involved carrierbased aircraft . Ships accounted for 59 U-boats (35
per cent) and submarines for 17 (10 per cent).
The quality of surface craft attacks continued to
improve. About 60 attacks were made monthly on
U-boats in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and
about 25 per cent of these surface craft attacks resulted in at least some damage to the U-boats, while
10 per cent of these attacks resulted in the sinking of
the U-boat.
5.3
5.3.1
SURVEY OF RESULTS
This was the crucial period of the war for the

U-boats, the one in which they made their supreme
effort and were decisively defeated . The world-wide
shipping losses to U-boats were about 30 per cent
42
lower than during the preceding period, as about 67

ships of 394,000 gross tons were sunk monthly by
U-boats, with about 85 per cent of these losses occurring in the Atlantic . The number of U-boats sunk
throughout the world was about 19 a month, mare
than twice as many as during the previous period.
The world-wide exchange rate was, therefore, only
about 3i/2 ships of 21,000 gross tons sunk by the
average U-boat before it, itself, was sunk . This exchange rate was only one-third as large as it had
been during the previous period.
Activity in the Mediterranean was greatly increased as 44 ships were sunk by U-boats and 37
U-boats were sunk . U-boat operations in the Mediterranean were, in many cases, auxiliary to the military operations in North Africa. In the Indian Ocean,
German and Japanese U-boats sank 25 ships, half
the total in the previous period, without suffering
any losses . Japanese U-boats sank 19 ships in the
Pacific and suffered the loss of 18 U-boats, an extremely unprofitable return .
In the Atlantic, the scene of the main battle, the
average number of U-boats at sea during this period
was 104, higher than in any other period of the wax.
These U-boats sank about 57 ships of 344,000 gross
tons monthly, abort one-third of these sinkings occurring in the Northwest Atlantic Area . This meant
that the efficiency of U-boats reached a new low for
the war as the average U-boat sank only about onehalf ship of 3200 gross tons per month at sea, only
about one-third the results achieved in the previous
period. This indicated that the U-boats' campaign
of wolf-pack attacks against the North Atlantic convoys had failed to maintain the average U-boat effectiveness at its previous high level. The U-boats
were very rarely able to completely overwhelm the
escorts of the convoys and consequently the use of
large wolf packs of over 20 U-boats proved relatively
inefficient . In addition, when the U-boats had to
operate against convoys which were given air coverage, their wolf-pack operations broke down completely as they depended upon surfaced U-boats to
keep contact with the convoy and to home the other
U-boats.
In addition to the reduction in its efficiency, the
average U-boat in the Atlantic found life more hazardous during this period than in the preceding
period . This marked the first time in the war that the
trend of increasing safety for the U-boat was reversed.
About 12i/2 U-boats were sunk monthly of the 104
U-boats at sea in the Atlantic, so that the average life

of a U-boat at sea in the Atlantic during this period
was about 8%2 months, about one-third less than in
the previous period . The main factors causing this
shorter average life for U-boats were the increased
effectiveness of Allied aircraft and the fact that the
U-boats were exposing themselves to increased attacks by surface escorts by concentrating against convoyed shipping .
These figures indicate that the average U-boat in
the Atlantic during this period was sinking only
about 4/2 ships of 28,000 gross tons before it itself
was sunk . This exchange rate was the lowest of the
war to that date and only one-fourth as high as the
retard exchange rate achieved in the previous period .
This low exchange rate plus the fact that, in the
Atlantic, the number of U-boats sunk in May 1943
was almost as large as the number of ships sunk by
U-boats, must have convinced the Germans that they
could not continue the battle against the North Atlantic convoys and they disengaged . The average
number of U-boats at sea in the Northwest Atlantic
Area dropped from 60 in May to 20 in June 1943 .
The expansion of the German U-boat fleet was
definitely slowed down during this period . Bombing
of construction yards had kept new construction at
about the same level as in the previous period, with
about 20 new U-boats being commissioned monthly.
About 128 German U-boats are considered to have
been sunk during this period and a number of others
decommissioned . Consequently, the available number of German U-boats increased from about 350 at
the beginning of this period to about 400 at the end
of the period . This huge fleet still constituted a considerable potential threat, but many experienced
officers and crews had been lost during this period,
and the heavy losses suffered by the U-boats must
have had an adverse effect on enemy morale .
5.3 .2
Total shipping losses of the Allied and neutral

nations were about 491,040 gross tons a month during this period, about 30 per cent less than during the
preceding period . Construction of new merchant
shipping reached a new high of about 1,026,000 gross
tons a month, more than twice the total monthly
losses . Consequently, the net monthly gain of shipping was about 535,000 gross tons . This was the first
period of the war in which new construction of ship-
SURVEY OF RESULTS
ping exceeded the total losses. The total shipping

available increased by almost 5,00,000 gross tons
during this period to a level of about 36,500,000 gross
tons . It appeared that the shipping crisis in the war
had definitely passed, as it seemed extremely unlikely
that the shipping losses would ever exceed the million gross tons being constructed monthly. The main
problem facing the Allies at the end of this period
was to keep the shipping losses down to a minimum
so that supplies could be built up quickly in England
for the invasion of the continent.
about 436,000 gross tons were lost as a result of enemy
action . U-boats accounted for 394,000 gross tons a
month, about 90 per cent of the total lost by enemy
43
action . Losses to enemy aircraft, surface craft, and

mines were all considerably lower during this period
than in the preceding one.
The number of ships suitable for ocean escort,
available to the Allies, had increased from about 745
at the beginning of this period to about 950 at the
end of June 1943 . This included about 50 new destroyer escorts [DE] as well as about 25 new escort
carriers [CVE]. This increased number of escorts and
the new VLR aircraft that had become available
placed the Allies, at the end of this period, in the
position of having defeated the greatest efforts the
U-boats could make . The Allies now had the opportunity of taking the offensive against the U-boats to
prevent them from ever regaining the initiative .
Chapter 6
SIXTH PERIOD
AIRCRAFT DEFEAT U-BOATS' ATTEMPTED COME-BACK AND

FORGE ADOPTION OF MAXIMUM SUBMERGENCE
JULY 1943-MAY 1944
6.1
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
the heavy losses they experienced in

their battle against the .North Atlantic convoys
during the previous period the U-boats withdrew
from the North Atlantic and temporarily abandoned
their wolf-pack tactics. After a marked lull in U-boat
activity in June, the enemy made his first, and most
strenuous, effort to regain the initiative in July 1943 .
The 85 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic were widely
dispersed and simultaneous campaigns were conducted in regions that had been soft spots for the
U-boats in the past, such as the Caribbean, Brazilian,
and Freetown Areas. To withdraw from the strategically important North Atlantic was a confession
of defeat, but the enemy must have anticipated a
rich harvest from surprise attacks in comparatively
A RESULT Of
lightly protected areas.

If so, the enemy was probably sadly disappointed .
World-wide shipping losses as a result of U-boat action in July were only 44 ships of 244,000 gross tons,
considerably less than the monthly average during
the preceding period. The heaviest losses occurred
in the Indian Ocean, mostly in the MozambiqueMadagascar Area, where 15 ships of 82,000 gross tons
were sunk by U-boats while no U-boats were sunk.
This was the highest monthly total of the war for
shipping losses to U-boats in the Indian Ocean.
About six German U-boats of the 1200-ton U-Kreuzer
class were probably responsible for most of these
sinkings .
About 15 U-boats operated in the Caribbean Sea
and off the Brazilian coast as far south as Rio de
Janeiro. They sank 19 ships during July, but were
forced to pay a heavy price for these successes as nine
U-boats were sunk by shore-based aircraft in these
areas. This eliminated another soft spot from the list
of areas where U-boats felt they could operate safely .
July 1943 was marked by the successful invasion
of Sicily, which took place without the loss of any
44
shipping to U-boats. Only five ships were sunk by

U-boats in all of the Mediterranean at the cost of
seven U-boats sunk by the Allies .
Despite the meager results achieved, the U-boats
suffered the heaviest losses of the war in July 1943 as
the world-wide total of U-boats destroyed during the
month reached 46 . This vas the first month of the
war in which the number of U-boats sunk exceeded
the number of merchant vessels sunk by U-boats. Of
the 46 U-boats sunk during July, 37 were destroyed
in the Atlantic where aircraft experienced their
greatest successes of the war. Shore-based aircraft
destroyed 28 U-boats in the Atlantic while carrierbased aircraft accounted for another six. The aircraft
from the U. S. escort carriers operated in regions outside the range of shore-based aircraft and were able
to prevent the U-boats from achieving any successes
in their attacks against the mid-Atlantic convoys.
These attacks by carrier-based aircraft must have
finally convinced the U-boats that they were no
longer safe from air attack anywhere in the Atlantic .
Allied antisubmarine forces inflicted the greatest
damage on the enemy in the Bay of Biscay and its
approaches as 14 U-boats were sunk in the BiscayChannel Area and another six in the GibraltarMorocco Area . Although aircraft crews had to face
the increased antiaircraft fire of surfaced U-boats
proceeding in formation during the daytime, this
presented them with a large proportion of Class A
targets and over 25 per cent of the attacks resulted in
the sinking of the U-boat . The crowning success of
the month occurred on July 30 when a whole group
o three outward bound U-boats was sunk, two by
Coastal Command aircraft and the third by the Second Escort Group. Two o these three U-boats were
supply U-boats, and this plus the loss of two other
supply U-boats elsewhere severely curtailed later
U-boat operations . This incident was also marked by
one of the odd coincidences of the war when U-461
was sunk by the Sunderland aircraft U/461 .
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
Four additional U-boats were sunk in the Bay of

Biscay by Coastal Command aircraft during the first
two days of August, and the U-boats were forced to
change their tactics in making the transit of the Bay.
They reverted to surfacing at night for the minimum
time necessary for the charging of batteries and, in
addition, hugged the coast of Spain to get as far as
possible from Allied air bases .
The more cautious tactics adopted throughout the

Atlantic in August 1943 marked the failure of the
first attempted come-back by the U-boats. Only four
ships were sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic during
the month, all during the first week of August and
all south of the Equator. The world-wide shipping
losses to U-boats in August were only 15 ships of
81,000 gross tons'as the U-boats sank six ships in the
Indian Ocean and five in the Mediterranean.
The average number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic during August declined to about 60, and most of
them were homeward bound by the end of the
month. There was no doubt that, as a direct consequence of the loss of a number of supply U-boats
and also of the heavy losses suffered by U-boats in
the operating areas, the campaigns in the Caribbean
and Brazilian Areas were curtailed, and the U-boats
returned to base about two weeks earlier than they
would otherwise have done .
The number of U-boats sunk during August continued to be satisfactory, considering the smaller
number of targets available and the more cautious
tactics adopted by the U-boats. Aircraft attacks accounted for 18 of the 25 U-boats sunk throughout the
world. Aircraft from the USS Card turned in a particularly notable performance by sinking five U-boats
during the month. New evidence of the gradual disappearance of all soft spots was indicated by the
sinking of three U-boats in the Caribbean-Brazilian
Area and two U-boats in the Freetown Area . One
U-boat was also sunk in the Indian Ocean, the first
in 1943 .
As the lull in U-boat activity continued during
August and the first three weeks of September, the
Allies attempted to maintain the initiative by carrying the battle into the Biscay transit areas. Escort
groups were moved closer to the Spanish Coast in an
effort to sever the new U-boat routes . However, Germany reacted strongly to this new threat, bringing
out a new weapon, the radio-controlled, jet-propelled
glider bomb . These were released by German bombers against the escort groups in the Bay. HMS Egret
45
was sunk by this new weapon late in August and two

other ships were damaged. The escort groups were
withdrawn from the Bay offensive in September, as
a result of these attacks and renewed U-boat activity
in the North Atlantic.
This resumption of the battle against the vital
North Atlantic convoys marked the second attempt
o the U-boats to regain the initiative . It was on September 19, 1943, that it first became evident that Convoys ONS 18 and ON 202 were being shadowed by
U-boats. That night, attacks developed against both
convoys, but the escorts of ONS 18 were able to drive
the U-boats off without suffering any losses .
Convoy ON 202 was attacked later that night and
HMS Lagan was torpedoed . This was the first ship
torpedoed in the Atlantic in September . It was also
the first indication that the U-boats were using a new
weapon, the acoustic homing torpedo (Gnat or T-5) .
HMS Lagan had been detached to follow up an
HF/DF bearing and had obtained a radar contact
which faded when the range was about 3000 yards .
She was within about 1200 yards of the assumed diving position when she was hit by a torpedo which
blew off her stern . She was taken in tow and reached
harbor . In the morning two merchant ships of Convoy ON 202 were also torpedoed .
During the forenoon the two convoys were ordered

to join, forming one convoy of 63 ships and about 15
escorts. That evening two escorts were sunk, one
while hunting a U-boat, the other while following up
a radar contact. Despite these losses, the attempts
which the U-boats made on the convoy during the
night failed . Early on the 21st, the convoy was rerouted to the southward in order to get within range
of Newfoundland-based aircraft. However, heavy
fog prevented much air cover that day and also hampered the U-boats. The U-boats, estimated to be 15
or 20 in number, had the worst of it that night.
Thanks to HF/DF fixes by the escorts, the U-boats
were prevented from sinking any ships and in the
early hours of the 22nd, one of the pack was rammed
and sent to the bottom by HMS Keppel .
Liberators gave cover throughout the day but the
convoy was rather opened up by night and the
U-boats again attacked in strength . Just before midnight one escort was sunk, later three merchant vessels were torpedoed and one more ship was sunk early
that morning. The U-boats kept in contact with the
convoy during the 23rd, but the attacks made by
escorting Liberators from Newfoundland so deterred
46
AIRCRAFT DEFEAT U-BOATS' ATTEMPTED COME-BACK
Ficuxs 1 . Bombs explode close aboard in attack by aircraft from USS Card, August 7, 1943, off the Azores . Note antiaircraft guns .
them that their attacks that night were halfhearted

and they lost contact with the convoy next day.
In all, six merchant vessels and three escorts had
been sunk, and another escort damaged. Three
U-boats were sunk, two by covering aircraft and one
by an escort . Although heavy losses were inflicted on
the escorts by the acoustic torpedo, on only three
occasions did U-boats succeed in firing torpedoes at
the convoy. The U-boats were more reluctant then
ever to press home their attacks, and as soon as they
were detected, they made every effort to escape, either
at high speed on the surface or by going deep .
HFfDF was again of great value in determining the
direction of impending attacks.
The actual results of this battle would probably
have proved disappointing to the enemy but captured documents indicate that the U-boats greatly
overestimated the damage inflicted by the acoustic

torpedoes. In addition, they felt that the heavy fog
was largely responsible for saving the convoy from
much heavier losses . This probably accounts for the
greatly increased effort they made against the North
Atlantic convoys in October 1943 .
The world-wide shipping losses to U-boats in September were 20 ships of 119,000 gross tons, only
slightly higher than the August losses . In addition to
the six ships sunk in the North Atlantic, two were
sunk in the Brazilian Area, six in the Mediterranean
and six in the Indian Ocean . About five German
U-boats appeared to be responsible for the sinkings
in the Indian Ocean and there was evidence that
they were using Penang as a temporary base . The
more cautious tactics of maximum submergence
served to reduce the number of U-boats sunk during
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
47
TtcuRF 2. Crew of U-664 abandon ship after attack by aircraft from USS Card, August 9, 1943 ; U-boat is settling by
the stern, and life-rafts are visible at the right.
September to only 10 . By the end of September 1943,

however, the Italian Fleet had surrendered, and 29
Italian U-boats had come under Allied control .
Encouraged by their supposed successes in September, the U-boats increased their attack against the
North Atlantic convoys. The downward trend in the
number of U-boats at sea was reversed, and there
were about 75 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic in October as compared to only about 50 in September. Over
40 U-boats were concentrated in the Northwest and
Northeast Atlantic Areas and the days of wolf-pack
attacks on convoys seemed to have returned .
However, this time the U-boats suffered a much
more decisive defeat than the one they had experi-
enced in May 1943 . First of all, the U-boats had

trouble in locating Allied convoys because o evasive
routing, and they were able to inflict losses on only
three of the North Atlantic convoys during October.
Then again, the U-boats were not attacking with the
same aggressiveness they had shown in the past, and
they were able to sink only three merchant vessels
and one escort. Moreover, the U-boats had to pay the
prohibitive price of over seven U-boats sunk for each
merchant vessel sunk as 22 U-boats were sunk during
October in the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic
Areas. Aircraft played a major part in this decisive
setback of the U-boats destroying 17 of the 22 U-boats
sunk in these areas . Carrier-based aircraft accounted
48
for six of these 17 U-boats with four of the kills due to

aircraft from the USS Card . In two cruises, aircraft
from the USS Card had made 19 attacks, nine of
which resulted in A or B assessments. This second
cruise closed with the gallant action in which the
USS Borie, one of the escorts of the USS Card, was
lost .
On the night of October 31, after having severely

damaged one U-boat reported by a plane from the
USS Card, the USS Borie made radar contact with
another U-boat. Sonar contact was obtained and a
depth-charge attack brought the U-boat to the surface . The U-boat tried to escape on the surface, but
the Borie opened fire and then rammed the U-boat
at 25 knots, riding over the U-boat's forecastle and
pinning it under. The two ships remained in this
position for about 10 minutes with the U-boat exposed to fire from the Borie's 4-inch and 20-mm guns,
Tommy guns, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns . One of
the U-boat's crew was killed by a sheath knife thrown
from the Borie's deck while another was knocked

overboard by an empty 4-inch shell case . At length,
the U-boat got under way, with the Borie, now severely damaged, in full pursuit maintaining gunfire .
A torpedo was fired at the U-boat but missed . The
range was then closed again and, as the attempt to
ram failed, three depth charges were fired straddling
the U-boat. Another torpedo was then fired passing
within 10 feet of the U-boat's bow . A main battery
salvo struck the U-boat's diesel exhaust and the
U-boat immediately slowed, stopped, and surrendered . About 15 members of the crew abandoned
ship and the U-boat sank stern first . The entire action
from the initial contact until the U-boat sank lasted
one hour and four minutes . Unfortunately, the ramming resulted in serious damage to the Borie and
she had to be abandoned later in the day .
The world-wide shipping losses to U-boats in October were about the same as in September. Only 20
ships of 97,000 gross tons were sunk, but the number
of U-boats sunk increased to 27 reflecting the increased U-boat activity . The U-boats were forced to
disengage again in their battle against the North
Atlantic convoys and their second attempt at a comeback had failed . The first promising results of the
acoustic torpedo were not maintained, and during
October this new weapon had singularly little success . By way of countermeasures the Allies developed
a towed noise-making device (U . S. FXR-British
FOXER) and new step-aside tactics in attacking
U-boats. By the end of October the British had been

granted the use of the Azores by Portugal, and air
bases were immediately established greatly extending
Allied air coverage of the Atlantic .
A fundamental change in U-boat tactics was observed in November 1943 as the U-boats made their
third, and most feeble, attempt to regain the initiative . As a result o the heavy losses inflicted on the
U-boats by aircraft in October, and also influenced
by the Allied air bases on the Azores, the U-boats
were compelled to adopt a mode of existence which
favored their survival rather than the most effective
employment against shipping . In order to favor their
chances of survival, the U-boats remained completely
submerged during the daytime, thereby avoiding
Allied air patrols. They surfaced at night to charge
batteries and to follow-up and attack any convoys
within reach. Small groups of U-boats were disposed
along the probable course of the convoy, about one
day's run apart, so that each pack would be able to
attack the convoy for only one night. To compensate
for this loss of mobility of the U-boats, enemy longrange reconnaissance aircraft were used to locate our
convoys and to pass on information to the U-boats.
As most of the enemy's long-range aircraft were
based in France, these new U-boat tactics were tried
out on the convoy route between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. Four north-bound convoys were
attacked by the U-boats with very little success, as
only one ship was sunk while several U-boats were
destroyed. Fortunately, the attacks on these convoys
came after Allied aircraft had moved into the Azores
and strong support by both escort groups and shorebased aircraft brought the convoys safely through
the concentrations of U-boats. These attacks also provided Azores-based aircraft with their first kill as a
Flying Fortress sank a U-boat at daybreak on November 9.
After the failure of this third attempt at staging a
come-back the U-boats reconciled themselves to remaining on the defensive for the remainder of this
period . The world-wide shipping losses to U-boats
dropped to their lowest level since Pearl Harbor as
only 13 ships of 67,000 gross tons were sunk during
November 1943 . There was a spurt of activity in the
Panama Sea Frontier as three ships and one schooner
were sunk by U-boats. Not a single ship was sunk in
the North Atlantic Convoy Area during the month,
while four ships were sunk in the Indian Ocean and
three in the Mediterranean . German aircraft, mak-
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
ing extensive use of torpedoes and glider bombs, had

become a greater menace to the Mediterranean convoys than were the U-boats. Aircraft sank seven ships
of over 60,000 gross tons in the Mediterranean during November, six of them off the coast of North
Africa between Iran and Bizerte. Early in the month,
the enemy's attempt to reinforce the diminishing
number of U-boats in the Mediterranean was largely
frustrated as three of the five U-boats making the
attempted entry were sunk.
In all, 18 U-boats were sunk during November,
about half by aircraft and half by surface craft. These
U-boat kills were rather widely distributed . The
Second Escort Group sank two U-boats using a
creeping attack . This method of attack was developed to take care of deep U-boats and involved one
ship's keeping contact with the deep U-boat at a distance and directing the attacking ship onto the unsuspecting U-boat . The attacking ship proceeded
silently at slow speed in order to surprise the U-boat
before it could start any violent evasive maneuvers.
When the attacking ship was over the U-boat, it
would drop a large pattern of depth charges.
Two large U-boats, apparently headed for the
Indian Ocean, were sunk in the South Atlantic during November by U . S. aircraft based on Ascension
Island . These sinkings were particularly valuable as
the Indian Ocean was one of the few remaining areas
where the exchange rate was still favorable to the
U-boats. The sinking of a U-boat headed for the
Indian Ocean might be considered equivalent to the
saving of ten ships, which the average U-boat would
probably sink in the Indian Ocean before it itself
would be sunk .
Barrier patrols by aircraft in the South Atlantic
paid off during the last week of December 1943 and
the first week of January 1944 . Five enemy merchant
vessels attempted to return from Japan to Germany
and were in the South Atlantic heading north. One
of the five enemy blockade runners made port, badly
damaged, three were sunk by ships and aircraft of
the Fourth Fleet in the Brazilian Area, and another
was sunk by British-based aircraft in the approaches
to the Bay of Biscay . This was the last attempt the
enemy made to run the blockade with merchant
vessels, but U-boats continued to make occasional
trips between Germany and Japan.
World-wide shipping losses to U-boats stayed at
the same low level as only 13 ships of 87,000 gross
tons were sunk by U-boats in December 1943 . Al-
49
though over half of the 60 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic were concentrated in the North Atlantic Convoy Area, not a single ship vas sunk there . All the
sinkings were due to small numbers of U-boats operating in distant areas . Five ships were sunk in the
Indian Ocean, three in the Freetown Area, and one
in the Mediterranean . The other four ships were
sunk in American coastal waters extending from
Cape Hatteras to Aruba . However, the U-boats' policy of remaining submerged during the daytime resulted in only seven U-boats being sunk during December, the lowest monthly total in 1943 .
The shipping losses to U-boats in December were

overshadowed by the surprise air attack on Bari
Harbor, on the east coast of Italy, on December 2.
This attack, made by about 25 bombers, resulted in
the loss of 16 ships and damage to 10 others . The
heavy losses were due in part to the explosion of
several ammunition ships.
The U-boats sank only 13 ships of 92,000 gross
tons in January 1944 . Two of these ships were sunk
from North Atlantic convoys. Three ships were sunk
in the Barents Sea Area from a convoy headed for
Russia while eight ships were sunk in the Indian
Ocean. The main concentration of about 25 U-boats
in the North Atlantic moved gradually eastwards,
towards the west coast of Ireland, in an apparent
attempt to locate Allied convoys. This move did not
succeed as no ships were sunk in the Northeast Atlantic Area while seven U-boats were destroyed there.
However, only 11 U-boats were sunk in January as
the U-boats continued their cautious tactics of maximum submergence. Fear of the impending invasion
may have played its part in keeping the U-boats
within short range of the French coast.
February 1944 marked the fourth successive month
in which fewer than 20 ships and less than 100,000
gross tons of shipping were sunk by U-boats. Only
18 ships of 93,000 gross tons were sunk during the
month, ten of them in the Indian Ocean, six in the
Mediterranean, and only two in the Atlantic, one
near Iceland and one in the Freetown Area. About
half of the 60 U-boats at sea in the Atlantic were
concentrated in the North Atlantic, west of th^
United Kingdom. However, the North Atlantic convoys passed through this concentration of U-boats
without suffering any losses while severe losses were
inflicted on the U-boats. The world-wide total of
U-boats sunk mounted to 22 in February, as ten
were destroyed in the Northeast Atlantic Area .
50
TicuxE 3. Crew of t?-550 prepare to abandon ship after attack by USS Joyce, Ga.ndy, and Peterson, 200 miles off New
York, April 16, 1944 . SS Pan Pennsylvania burning in the background .
The outstanding achievement of the month was

the 27-day patrol of the Second Escort Group, in the
course of which six U-boats were sunk in a period of
20 days . Every U-boat contacted was hunted to destruction . Four hours and 106 depth charges were
required, on the average, to kill each o these six
U-boats . Combined creeping and follow-up attacks
were responsible for the destruction of four of them .
Against these successes must be recorded the loss of
HMS Woodpecker to an acoustic torpedo. In contrast to these attacks, HMS Spey, fitted with the latest
type of Asdic gear including the Q attachment and
the Type 147B depth predictor, destroyed two
U-boats in two days, each in a matter of minutes.
Single patterns of ten depth charges forced the
U-boat to the surface in each case .
Another outstanding feature of the month's operations was the first sinking of a U-boat as the result of
an initial MAD contact. U-boats had, during the previous months, approached on the surface at night and
passed through the Straits of Gibraltar in the daytime entirely submerged.They made only enough
speed to maintain trim, while the current carried
them through. Allied ships, operating in the Straits,
faced bad sound conditions, because of the variation
in the density of the water. Echo ranging was unre-
liable and listening was not of much value either, as

the U-boats proceeded at very slow speeds .
This situation presented an ideal set-up for the
use of MAD. An MAD barrier patrol was started
across the Straits in January 1944, in order to prevent
the submerged passage of U-boats into the Mediterranean . Two PBY's of VP63 were flying on this patrol
on February 24 when an MAD contact vas obtained .
Shortly afterward, two British destroyers and other
planes arrived on the scene. The U-boat was attacked
with retro-bombs from the MAD planes, depth
charges and gunfire from the destroyers, and depth
bombs from the other aircraft before it was destroyed. This MAD barrier patrol probably destroyed another U-boat attempting to make the passage in March.
During March 1944 there were some signs of the
breaking up o the concentrations of U-boats in favor
of a general dispersion across the North Atlantic
convoy lanes. There was an increase in the shipping
losses to U-boats as 23 ships of 143,000 gross tons
were sunk throughout the world. Losses were again
heaviest in the Indian Ocean where 11 ships were
sunk, but the German U-boats operating there were
seriously inconvenienced by the sinking in the South
Indian Ocean of two tankers which had been refuel-
LT-BOAT OFFENSIVE
51
..
.'
_.
_ ^
..
-.-
FrcvxE 4. U-550 sinks .
ing thesq. No ships were sunk in the Indian Ocean

during the remaining two months of this period.
Seven ships were sunk in widely scattered parts of
the Atlantic in March, four in the Mediterranean,
and one in the Barents Sea Area .
The number of U-boats sunk increased for the
third successive month as 23 U-boats were destroyed
in March, the same as the number of ships sunk by
U-boats. Two of the longest U-boat hunts of the war
occurred at about this time, one lasting 30 hours and
the other 38 hours before the U-boats were destroyed.
The Second Escort Group accounted for two more
U-boats in March, bringing its total up to 14 . One of
these was sunk with the cooperation of aircraft .from
the escort carrier, HMS Vindex .
The escort carrier groups contributed greatly to
the campaign in March, sinking nine U-boats in the
Atlantic . Aircraft from HMS Chaser, using rockets,
participated in the sinking of three U-boats. Aircraft
and escorts of the USS Bogue participated in the sinking o one U-boat while two other U-boats were sunk
by escorts of the USS Block Island. Toward the latter
part of the month, the USS Block Island task group,
operating in a probable refueling area near the Cape
Verde Islands, sank two more U-boats . Sono-buoys
were used in this operation.
In the Mediterranean, the enemy lost five U-boats

out of the comparatively small number remaining
there. Two of these were sunk in a raid by U. S. Army
Liberators on the U-boat base at Toulon . The lack
of sightings in the Bay of Biscay caused Coastal Command to send its aircraft closer to the French coast
and a U-boat vas probably sunk by hits from 6pounder gunfire from a Mosquito . A Catalina from
Capetown sank a U-boat about 400 miles south of
the Cape of Good Hope .
The average number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic dropped to 50 in April 1944 as the enemy continued to conserve his U-boats in anticipation of a
major effort against the threatened invasion. U-boat
patrol dispositions were rather sparse and wide-flung
and great importance seemed to be attached to the
gathering of meteorological information, in aid of
military and air planning. Only nine ships of 62,000
gross tons were sunk by U-boats during the month,
seven in the Atlantic and two in the Mediterranean.
For the first time in 14 months, not a single ship
was sunk by U-boats in the Indian Ocean. However,
the most disastrous event of the month occurred
there, when on April 14 an ammunition ship exploded in Bombay harbor, completely destroying 14
ships and damaging nine others . As partial com-
52
AIRCRAFT DEFEAT U-BOATS' ATTEMPTED COMEBACK
pensation for this disaster, the world-wide losses due

to enemy action reached a new low for the war as
only 13 ships of 82,000 gross tons were sunk in April.
Starting in April, the U. 5 . ocean escorts of the
UGS convoys continued past Gibraltar into the
Mediterranean as far as Bizerte before being relieved
by British escorts. Each of these three April convoys
was subjected to the familiar Nazi air attack near
Algiers as a result of which three ships were sunk and
five damaged.
On the night of April 20, the Germans made an

unsuccessful attack with human torpedoes at Anzio,
and both prisoners and craft were taken . These craft
consisted of two torpedoes, one mounted about 6
inches above the other. The "mother" (upper) torpedo bras modified to hold a human pilot who guided
the craft and released the normal lethal torpedo attached underneath when within firing range .
Considering the inactivity of the U-boats, it was

remarkable that 16 of them were sunk during April.
The escort carrier groups accounted for six of these.
The average number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic declined to only about 40 in May 1944 . However, a large number of U-boats, which normally
would have been operating in the Atlantic, was apparently being held in Biscay ports and in Baltic and
Norwegian ports for use against the forthcoming invasions . World-wide shipping losses to U-boats were
lower than they had ever been before as only four
ships of 24,000 gross tons were sunk by U-boats during May . Three of these ships were sunk in the Brazilian Area and one in the Mediterranean . Total
shipping losses from all causes also dropped to a new
low as only 12 ships of 40,000 gross tons were lost
during May .
The most notable achievement of the U-boats during May was the sinking of the escort carrier, USS
Block Island. Early in the month one of her planes
assisted while the USS Buckles>, one of her escorts,
finished off a German U-boat after a short (16 minutes) but thrilling surface engagement involving gunfire and ramming. On May 29, while the task group
teas searching for a U-boat suspected to be in the
vicinity, the Block Island was struck by three torpedoes in a short interval . One of the escorts had her
stern blown off. Shortly thereafter, the other escorts
made contact with the U-boat and probably sank her
after two Hedgehog attacks. The gallant career of the
Block Island came to an end later in the day when
she had to be abandoned.
Despite the enemy's attempt to conserve his

U-boats for the imminent invasion, the number of
U-boats sunk during May 1944 was 29, the highest
figure since the record total of 46 in July 1943 . The
leading area in the sinking of U-boats during May
was the Northern Transit Area, East, where ten
U-boats were destroyed during the month, nine of
them by aircraft . Three of these were sunk by aircraft from HMS Fencer which was escorting a convoy from Russia in the early days o the month. During the latter part of May, a considerable increase
was noted in the number of Baltic U-boats en route
to the Atlantic via the Iceland-Faroes passage. For
some time past the operations of Allied submarines
against enemy shipping in Norwegian waters had
prevented aircraft from making sweeps in this area .
The enemy may have thought that he could safely
relax his precautions in this area as many of these
U-boats were traveling on the surface. Coastal Command aircraft quickly exploited this soft spot, sinking six U-boats during the latter part of the month .
The small number of U-boats in the Mediterranean was further depleted as four U-boats were destroyed there in May while another was sunk while
attempting to pass through the Straits of Gibraltar .
This was the third successful attack on a U-boat as a
result of an initial MAD contact. The four successful
attacks in the Mediterranean demonstrated the importance of persistence and the value of close cooperation between air and surface units . Three of the
four hunts involved aircraft as well as surface craft
and the durations of the actions ranged from 22
hours to 76 hours . This record action, which began
on May 14, was culminated on the 17th with the
sinking of a U-boat after a continuous hunt of 76
hours involving eight ships and three planes . The
U-boats in the Mediterranean fought back strenuously, sinking one merchant vessel and two escorts
and damaging four other ships during the month.
The outstanding event of the month, and probably

the outstanding achievement of the U-boat war by a
single ship, was the performance of the destroyer
escort, USS England, in the Pacific from May 19, 1944
to May 31 . During this brief period, the USS England
destroyed five Japanese U-boats and was assigned the
major credit in the destruction of a sixth U-boat .
The Hedgehog was the primary weapon used in
achieving these results. This series of attacks resulted
from the suspicion that a force of about five Japanese
U-boats was patrolling the line of the Equator, to the
northeast of the Admiralty Islands. The USS England was accompanied by USS George and Raby
when they swept through this area . The outstanding
performance of the England is the more remarkable
in that it was her first contact with the enemy.
There was some credible evidence from aircraft
sightings and attacks in the final week of May 1944
that two or more U-boats were at sea in the Western
English Channel, off the French coast. This proved
to be a preview of the nature of U-boat operations in
the next period as, for the first time since the early
days o the war, the U-boats returned to the hazardous shallow coastal waters in the vicinity of England.
"This operation was possible only because the U-boats
could take advantage of the use of Schnorchel and
thereby reduce their exposure to aircraft attacks.
6.2
6.2.1
U-BOAT
Convoys
During this period, the U-boats tried several modifications of their previous wolf-pack tactics, in an
effort to lain the upper hand in their attacks on
Allied convoys.
The first modification in tactics was made in September 1943 in the attacks on the North Atlantic
convoys. It was based on the use of the acoustic torpedo and involved attacking the escorts first, with
the objective of reducing the convoy defenses to a
point where the merchant vessels would become easy
prey for the U-boats. Although some escort vessels
were sunk, the objective was never accomplished ;
because at this stage of the war the Allies were using
a larger number of escorts with the convoys and had
a sufficiently large number of antisubmarine ships
available that the loss of a few escorts would not
seriously handicap future convoys. These U-boat
tactics might have proved more effective in the early
days of the war when the number of antisubmarine
ships available to the Allies was extremely limited.
The second modification was made in November
1943 in the attacks on the convoys between Gibraltar
and the United Kingdom. This change in tactics was
forced on the U-boats by the heavy Allied air coverage of the North Atlantic which prevented the
U-boats from operating on the surface in the daytime and thereby prevented the concentration of a
large number of U-boats around a convoy . The tactics adopted by the enemy involved stationing small
53
packs o U-boats along the path of the convoy . Longrange aircraft from Bordeaux were used to shadow
Allied convoys during the day. Reports of the air
reconnaissance were passed on to the U-boat packs,
which then attempted to maneuver into a favorable
position for a night attack . This change in tactics
came a little late, too, since flying facilities had become available in the Azores in October 1943 . Several
convoys were intercepted by the U-boats, but strong
support by escort groups and land-based aircraft
brought the convoys safely through with only negligible damage .
The third modification in U-boat tactics, made
after the setback in November 1943, involved the
almost complete abandonment of the old, highly
organized wolf-pack attacks. Concentrations of
U-boats were still maintained in the North Atlantic
but attacks were generally made by individual
U-boats who happened to find themselves in a favorable position to attack a convoy . Although these
U-boat tactics were much less effective against Allied
shipping, they did enable the U-boats to remain submerged during the daytime. The scarcity of supply
U-boats may have also been a factor in this drastic
modification of wolf-pack tactics, which had been
predicated on high-speed surface operations of the
U-boats, requiring high fuel consumption.
These futile attempts by the U-boats had very
little success. Only about six ships a month were
sunk by U-boats from Allied convoys . The tonnage
sunk from convoys by the U-boats was only about 40
per cent of the total tonnage sunk by them . The degree of safety reached by convoyed shipping during
this period is well illustrated by the experiences of
the North Atlantic trade convoys (HX, SC, ON,
ONS) . Of the 900 ships that sailed monthly in these
convoys, only about I12 were sunk each month by
U-boats . This represented a loss rate of only about
one sinking per 600 transatlantic trips . This high
degree of safety from U-boats was typical of the other
convoy systems as well.
One of the primary reasons for the ineffectiveness

of the U-boats against Allied convoys was poor
U-boat morale, as evidenced by their failure to press
home attacks on convoys once they were detected . It
is not difficult to see the reasons for this lack of aggressiveness . In the early months of 1943, Allied
bombers had reduced the Biscay ports to heaps of
stones . Though they could not get at the U-boats in
their shelters, these raids deprived the U-boat crews
54
of all but the most primitive facilities after they had

come back, through continually mined waters, from
long, exhaustive, dangerous, and now unsuccessful
patrols. To reach the North Atlantic, the U-boats
had to proceed submerged through the Bay of Biscay
for the first five or six days of their patrol, surfacing
for only a few hours after midnight . To find the
convoy, the U-boats had to pass through the areas
remorselessly swept by covering aircraft, and when
the U-boats sighted the convoys, they found more
numerous and better equipped escorts manned by
more highly trained crews.
An analysis of attacks on shipping by U-boats, indicating some of the factors governing the safety of
ships against U-boat attacks, was made during this
period and had considerable influence on Allied
measures for the protection of shipping. This study
indicated that the safety of independent ships depended very much on the speed of the ship, with the
12-to-14 knot region being critical . A 12-knot ship
had about three times the probability of being sunk
as a 14-knot ship making the same trip . The explanation of this appears to be that the U-boat cannot, in
general, follow a ship of 14 knots or above for any
length of time and if it is not in a suitable position
to make a submerged attack immediately, the ship
will escape. The U-boat can follow slower ships on
the surface, at a suitable distance, working round to a
position from which it can attack on the surface ac
night .
Speed was a significant factor in the safety o convoyed shipping only when air escort was present.
This study showed that the 9-knot convoys were considerably safer than the 7-knot convoys when air
cover was available. When there was no air escort, the
U-boat could proceed towards the convoy at high
surface speeds and the extra 2 knots did little to prevent the U-boat from overhauling it . Another striking result which emerged from this analysis was that
the number of ships sunk was roughly independent
of the size of the convoy as long as the number of
escorts was the same . This meant that large convoys
would lose, on the average, a smaller percentage of
ships to U-boat attack and they would also be more
economical in the use of escorts .
The average size of the North Atlantic trade convoys increased gradually during this period, rising
from about 46 in March 1943 to' about 57 in March
1944. In April 1944 certain changes were made in the
North Atlantic convoy schedules in order to allow
several escort groups to be withdrawn from convoy

duty for use in the invasion . The HX and ON convoy speeds were changed from 10 knots to 8, 9, and 10
knots in rotation, with the suffix S, N, and F designating these respective speeds, while the slow SC
and ONS convoys were abolished. The average sailing interval between convoys stayed at 71/2 days so
that only four convoys sailed each way monthly,
instead of six. This produced a substantial increase
in the average size of these convoys. The average size
of these convoys was 98 in May 1944 and HXM 292,
consisting of 135 ships and six escorts, was the largest
convoy of the war to that date .
The danger from U-boat attack in the Western
Atlantic was so low during most of this period that
it was possible to allow some shipping from the U. S.
coastal convoys to sail independently whenever a lull
in U-boat activity occurred. The program was kept
flexible in order to maintain a balance between the
increased safety of convoyed shipping and the loss of
time due to ships waiting in ports for convoys and
sailing at slower convoy speeds . Fast merchant vessels
(generally 11 knots and over), with the exception of
those carrying high priority cargo, were able to sail
independently along the coast during much of this
period . Whenever the danger of a U-boat attack appeared imminent, independent shipping was ordered
into port to await the next convoy. In some cases,
where safety permitted, entire convoys were dispersed and the ships proceeded alone to their
destination.
6'2'2
Aircraf t
The battle between U-boats and aircraft reached

its climax at the beginning of this period, in July
1943 . The U-boats, equipped with improved antiaircraft armament in the form of the quadruple 20mm gun, were traveling on the surface during the
daytime and were fighting back against aircraft .
They also traveled through the Bay of Biscay in
groups for mutual protection .
As a result of their disastrous experience in July
1943 when 34 U-boats were sunk in the Atlantic by
aircraft, the U-boats were forced to abandon these
aggressive tactics . The enemy realized that the
U-boats were beaten and decided upon more cautious tactics that favored self-preservation of the
U-boat fleet until new technical equipment and
modified U-boats could turn the tide . These new
tactics involved complete submergence of the U-boats

during the daytime. The fact that aircraft had swept
the U-boats from the surface during the daylight
hours constituted a real triumph for the Allies, as
U-boats, robbed of their aggressiveness and mobility,
lost a great deal of their effectiveness .
The new tactics first became apparent in August
1943 in the critical Bay of Biscay transit area . The
U-boats reverted to surfacing at night for the minimum time necessary for charging batteries. In addition, they made the transit hugging the coast of
Spain, where it was rather difficult for the LeighLight Wellingtons to patrol because of their limited
range.
These changes had a profound effect on the Bay of
Biscay campaign, and the productivity of Allied
flying was greatly reduced. About 7000 hours were
flown monthly in the Bay during the 5-month period
from August 1943 through December 1943 . These
flying hours yielded only 12 sightings, six attacks, and
one kill a month. Thus, although the flying effort was
greater than during the preceding peak period (February 1943 - July 1943), the results achieved were
only one-fifth as great. Only part of this decrease can
be explained by the drop in the number of U-boat
transits from 100 a month in the previous period to
only about 45 a month during this period . The average dumber of sightings per 1000 hours on patrol
dropped to only two and only 25 per cent of the
U-boat transits were sighted . The efficiency index
(sightings per 1000 flying hours on patrol per 100
U-boat transits) dropped from nine in the previous
period to only four .
The U-boats' policy of maximum submergence
during the daytime put great pressure on the development of suitable equipment and tactics to enable
the, air offensive to be maintained during the night.
Considerable effort was devoted.to the development
of searchlights and flares that would improve the low
effectiveness of night attacks, and the first attack on a
U-boat by a U. S. searchlight-equipped plane was
made in December 1943 by a PBM from Trinidad. In
addition, squadrons were trained in night operations from escort carriers .
Coastal Command made a great effort to increase
the amount of effective night flying in the Bay of
Biscay by increasing the number of long-range
searchlight-equipped planes . Leigh lights were fitted
to Liberators as well as to additional squadrons of
Wellingtons. The effectiveness of this increased
55
amount of night flying was counteracted by the

U-boats' use of the Naxos GSR, which detected
Allied S-band (10-cm) radar. The enemy started fitting his U-boats with this equipment in October 1943 .
The net effect of these changes was a small increase
in the number of sightings in the Bay of Biscay.
About 20 sightings and 15 attacks were made
monthly in the Bay during the first five months of
1944 . However, the effectiveness of Allied flying in
the previous peak period was not even approached .
U. S. Navy planes participated in the Bay of Biscay
offensive during this period under the operational
control of Coastal Command. When the U-boat situation along the East Coast of the United States
started easing up in August 1943, the U. S. Army
Anti-Submarine Command was withdrawn from.
antisubmarine operations . The U. S. Army Air
Forces squadrons which had been operating in England were relieved by U. S. Navy Liberators . The
U. S. Navy planes in England constituted Fleet Air
Wing 7.
Carrier-based aircraft emerged as one of the most
dangerous enemies of the U-boat during this period .
The U. S. escort carriers took the offensive against
the U-boat in regions outside the range of shorebased aircraft, especially in possible refueling areas
for the U-boats. This offensive was remarkably successful and rendered most of the Atlantic unsafe for
surfaced U-boats.
The U. S. escort carrier [CVE] operating with a
screen of about four destroyers or destroyer escorts,
composed a task group, assigned to antisubmarine
warfare in the Atlantic . The primary mission of the
task group was to protect convoys while the secondary mission was to search out and destroy the U-boats.
These task groups operated with the convoys between the United States and Gibraltar. That the
primary mission was accomplished may be seen from
the fact that 2200 ships crossed the Atlantic in the
GU and UG convoys from May 1943 through December 1943 and only one ship was sunk by I7-boat
action .
A study of attacks made by U. S. CVE-based aircraft during this period provides some evidence that
their secondary mission was also fulfilled. About 28
days were spent in U-boat waters on the average
cruise and about 50 plane hours were flown per day.
While in U-boat waters, one sighting was made for
every 600 flying hours. Sixty of the 68 sightings
studied resulted in an attack and about 40 per cent
56
of the attacks resulted in the sinking of the U-boat .

The high quality of these attacks was due in a large
part to the ability of the fast GVE-based planes to
surprise the U-boat and attack it while it was still on
the surface. Another factor in the success of these
attacks was the cooperation between the F4F fighter
planes, who strafed the U-boat, and the TBF
bombers .
The British escort carriers, operating in the very
bad weather of the Arctic, played a major role in getting the Russian convoys through . The North Russian convoys were started again about November
1943 after having stopped running in March 1943 .
The sinking of the Sclaarnhorst was the most publicized part of this battle . The U-boats accomplished
much less against these convoys during this period
than in the past . During the period from December
1943 through May 1944, the U-boats sank only five
merchant vessels and two destroyers from these convoys while 11 U-boats were sunk. British escort carriers played a major role, contributing six of the 11
U-boat kills. In one round trip of 16 days, with only
eight days of operational flying, Swordfish planes
from HMS Chaser sighted 21 U-boats, attacked 15,
and with the aid of surface craft sank three of them .
Rocket projectiles were used very successfully by
the British carrier-based aircraft during this period .
The first rocket attacks by U . S. planes were made in
January 1944 by aircraft from the USS Block Island.
The U-boat was sunk ; however, it was difficult to
decide whether the sinking was due to the rockets
ox to depth charges which were also used in the
attack,
The lethality of aircraft attacks during this period
was more than twice as high as it had been in the
previous period . About 25 per cent of the aircraft
attacks made on the U-boats in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean resulted in the destruction of the
U-boat while about 40 per cent of the attacks re-
sulted in at least some damage to it . The effectiveness

of aircraft attacks in the first half of 1944 was lower
than the peak reached during the last half of 1943
when some U-boats were still staying on the surface
and fighting back . This falling off in effectiveness
also reflected the U-boats' tactics of maximum submergence during the daytime as a much larger proportion of aircraft attacks, during the first half of
1944, were made at night . The accuracy o night
attacks was always much lower than that of day
attacks .

The decisive defeat suffered by the U-boats during
the previous period seemed to have stimulated German scientific and technical progress and a number
of radical changes were made in U-boat weapons and
equipment during this period .
One of the changes in U-boat weapons involved
the replacement of the quadruple 20-mm antiaircraft
gun mount by a new rapid-firing 37-mm antiaircraft
gun. U-boat torpedoes were equipped with FAT gear
for use against convoys. This gear caused the torpedo
to describe a zigzag course and thereby increased the
probability of a hit. The major change in U-boat
weapons was the introduction of the T-5 torpedo, a
21-inch electrically driven acoustic homing torpedo.
The speed of the T-5 torpedo was about 25 knots and
its range about 6000 yards. This torpedo homed on
the noise of the target's propellers and its homing
radius on a 15-knot escort was usually over 500 yards.
The Allies immediately introduced countermeasures to the acoustic torpedo. The British twin
FOXER (towed parallel-bar noisemakers used to
decoy the acoustic torpedo from the ship) was born
three months before the first acoustic torpedo attack
took place. A complete escort group was fitted with
twin FOXERS 17 days after the first attack. U . S.
ships were fitted with FXR gear, which was similar to
the British equipment but involved only a single
noisemaker . Ships towing noisemakers or proceeding
at speeds greater than 24 knots or less than 7 knots
were considered to be relatively safe from acoustic
torpedo attacks. Other ships were instructed to use
the step-aside procedure when conducting attacks on
U-boats which might fire an acoustic torpedo. This
was a special tactical maneuver, involving a radical
change in course when the U-boat is approached, designed to remove the escort vessel from the most probable danger area from acoustic torpedoes.
The use of these towed noisemakers was unpopular on many ships due to the inconvenience involved
in streaming and recovering the gear, to the reduction in maneuverability, and also to the interference
with the sonar equipment. However, the noisemakers
were undoubtedly effective against the acoustic torpedo . About 32 escorts and 19 merchant vessels are
estimated to have been hit by acoustic torpedoes during the war. Very few of these casualties occurred
when either the recommended tactical procedure
was used, or the towed noisemakers were working
properly . Although the acoustic torpedo was more

likely to score a hit than a normal torpedo, there
were many cases of malfunctioning of the delicate
mechanisms involved and those torpedoes that did
hit were less likely to sink the ship due to the fact
that they usually hit in the stern.
The radar battle continued to play a prominent
part in the U-boat war during this period. In the
summer of 1943, Admiral Doenitz said, "The methods in radio location which the Allies have introduced have conquered the U-boat menace ." However, the German High Command did introduce
some effective countermeasures in the fields of radio
communication and radar detection during this
period, mainly because German Intelligence finally
became aware of the nature of Allied equipment.
The major German scientific effort was put into
the development of a search receiver that could detect Allied radar transmissions. At the beginning of
this period the enemy still had no idea as to what had
caused the huge increase in sightings and attacks on
U-boats. The German search receiver had been improved by the fitting of a drum-shaped aerial (wirebasket) which did not have to be removed when the
U-boat dived. A better receiver (Wanz G1) had been
perfected and was being fitted on U-boats. This
served to reduce the amount of radiation from the
set itself but did not help the U-boat situation at all
as it could only detect radiation of wavelengths
greater than 120 cm. The Germans then introduced
the Borkum receiver, a much less sensitive crystal detector covering the 75- to 300-em band, which produced no radiation at all.
Serious as were the immediate effects of these errors
of judgment for the Germans, they extended far beyond their original limits. They engendered in the
minds of U-boat captains a fear lest they should betray their presence, and with this fear a distrust of
Admiral Doenitz' technical advisers .
Finally, in September 1943, the U-boat command
recognized that 10-cm radar was being used against
them. The German Air Force had captured the blind
bombing aid, H2S, which operated on the 10-cm
band, in March 1943 and after a period of six months
this information finally filtered through to the German Navy . As the simplest countermeasure, and still
under the influence of their fear of radiating, the
Germans produced in October 1943 a crystal detector receiver, the Naxos, for the 8- to 12-cm band . The
first models were crude portable units mounted on
57
a stick. They were not pressure-tight and had to be

passed below before diving . The maximum theoretical ranges on Allied radar sets varied from about
5 to 10 miles, but there was a considerable loss of
efficiency under operational conditions.
The introduction of the Naxos search receiver did
reduce the number of sightings and attacks on
U-boats and the number of disappearing contacts on
Allied radar sets increased. However, many U-boats
continued to be surprised successfully, due to the low
efficiency of the gear, and it was evident to the Germans that they still did not have the final solution to
the radar problem. The U-boat command took the
step of sending to sea a U-boat fully equipped to investigate every type of Allied radar and carrying one
of their best technicians with operational experience .
He sailed from St . Nazaire in U-406 on February 5,
1944, and was captured when the U-boat was sunk
by HMS Spey on February 18 . A similarly equipped
U-boat suffered the same fate in April 1944 . These
losses probably set back the German radar countermeasures program considerably .
Since the Allies were well aware of the potential
effectiveness of an S-band search receiver, there were
frequent false alarms reporting the introduction of a
new GSR before any existed. The intelligence about
Naxos, the increase in disappearing radar contacts,
and the drop in U-boat sightings produced immediate Allied reactions . There were a few cases where
S-band radar sets were turned off. Steps were taken
to develop attenuators, which caused a slow and
steady decrease in transmitted power as the range
closed, in order to confuse GSR operators. An interim tactic of a "tilt-beam" approach to reduce signal intensity as the range closed was proposed but
this proved rather difficult to carry out in actual
practice . In addition, increased pressure was put on
the development and fitting of X-band radar (3-cm
wavelength).
The general conclusion was that S-band radars
should not be turned off, due to their much greater
search width as compared to visual search and also
to the fact that the Naxos sets were inefficient and
sightings and attacks continued to be made on
U-boats with GSR . In addition, the very fact that
aircraft were causing the U-boats to submerge, thereby blinding and partially immobilizing them, greatly
reduced the effectiveness of the U-boats in sinking
ships.
The Germans produced a number of other devel-
58
FIGURE 5. Attack by U. S. Navy Liberators (VPB-107) between the coast of Brazil and Ascension Island, November 5,
1943 . Note the radar antenna in its fairing on the left side of the conning tower, and just forward of it, an early form
of the Naxos search-receiver antenna. The guns are still pointing at the previous position of the aircraft, while the
gun crews seek cover from the 20-mm fire from the aircraft's turrets .
opments in the radar field. A radar decoy spar, designed to give false radar echoes was introduced, but
proved ineffective. Some work was done on radar
camouflage, with the object of developing rubber
coatings for the U-boats that would deflect or absorb
radar echoes . Earlier, there had been some attempt
to use these rubber coatings against sonar, too. However, the difficulties of producing rubber coatings
that would work under operational conditions at sea
were very great. The Germans also continued their
experiments with infrared searchlights and receivers
and took steps to prevent the detection o U-boats by
imagined Allied infrared equipment.
During this period, the U-boats finally began to
appreciate the danger from Allied shipborne HF/DF
as the result of a special Y party going to sea on a

specially equipped U-boat . The U-boat command
connected their diminishing success to some extent
with their communications and tightened them up
considerably . The lengths of messages were reduced
and the frequencies used were changed more often.
These shifts, while they made HF/DF both ashore
and afloat more difficult, did not seriously reduce its
use or effectiveness . They did make the task of
U-boats attacking convoys more difficult.
The most revolutionary technical development of
this period was the fitting of Schnorchel to U-boats.
The Schnorchel (or snout) is an extensible mast, consisting of an air induction trunk and a diesel exhaust
line which are enclosed in a metal fairing. The cross
59
FIGURE 6. Close-up of U-1229, a 740-ton U-boat under attack by aircraft from USS Bogue, which later sank it . Note
the extended Schnorchel just forward of the conning tower.
section of this fairing is streamlined with the maximum dimension about 20 inches . The mast is about
26 feet in length and when raised is a few inches
lower than the top of the extended periscope. The
Schnorchel enables a U-boat to travel on its diesel
engines at periscope depth at speeds of about 6 knots
and also to charge batteries without surfacing. In
essence, it was a defensive weapon, designed to reduce the amount o time the U-boat had to spend on
the surface and consequently to reduce the danger
from air attack .
The idea of an extensible air intake, which would
enable a U-boat to charge its batteries while submerged, had been current in the German Navy in
pre-war years but was first brought forcibly to its
attention by the capture, in 1940, of two Dutch submarines fitted with such equipment. No steps were
taken to follow up this idea while things were going
well for the U-boats, and it was not developed until
the end of 1943, after aircraft had gained the upper
hand over U-boats. The first U-boats were not fitted
with Schnorchel until February 1944, and it was not
until June 1944, the start of the next phase of the
U-boat war, that its effect on U-boat operations became significant.
The U. S. Navy introduced during this period a
number of new devices designed to improve the sonar
performance of its ships . The Bearing Deviation
Indicator [BDI] was one of the most helpful o these
sonar aids . BDI was used with standard echo-rang-
60
ing equipment to let the operator see, for every ping,

whether the target producing the echo was to the
right or left o the bearing of the projector The
operator could, therefore, determine the bearing of
the target with greater accuracy and rapidity than
with standard echo-ranging equipment alone.
Two new types of depth charges came into use on
U. S. ships during this period . The Mark 8 depth
charge was fitted with a magnetic proximity fuze
which was designed to detonate when within lethal
range of the U-boat . The Mark 9 depth charge was
steel-cased and shaped so as to have a fast sinking
rate, thereby reducing the blind time and consequently the effect of U-boat maneuvers. Both these
new depth charges were designed to increase the
lethality of surface craft attacks on U-boats.
The British also improved the antisubmarine
equipment on their ships during this period, but
along different lines than the U. S. Navy . The
Squid, which is designed to throw depth charges
ahead of the ship and is automatically controlled and
operated, came into service at the beginning of 1944,
It employs a 3-barreled mortar, electrically fired, designed to discharge bombs ahead of the attacking
ship . These bombs closely resemble depth charges in
weight and explosive effect but have the following
advantages over depth charges :
1 . They are projected with accuracy to a known
point, well ahead, while the attacking ship is still in
Asdic contact with the U-boat .
2. They have a reliable underwater course .
3 . They have a much higher sinking speed.
4. They incorporate a new type of fuze which is
set automatically to the required depth with a high
degree of accuracy.
The depth is set on the fuzes electrically from the
new Type 147B Asdic depth predictor. The mortars
are fired automatically from the Asdic range recorder . The three charges are thrown to the points
of an equilateral triangle. When two mortars are
fitted, as in frigates, the pattern is in two depth layers.
The Type 147B Asdic depth predictor was developed primarily for use with the Squid, so as to
obtain a measurement of the depth of the U-boat
just before the projectiles are fired. However, the
Type 174$ depth predictor, in conjunction with the
appropriate range and bearing recorders and Q attachment, can also be used in Hedgehog and depthcharge attacks. Type 1475 uses a fan-shaped beam of
high-frequency sound (50 kc) which may be de=
pressed down to 45 below the horizontal . The beam

of sound is broad in the horizontal plane (30 to 40
on either bow) and narrow in the vertical plane (2
to 3 off axis) . Trials have shown that the set is capable of setting the Squid fuzes to within about 20
feet of the depth of the U-boat, provided it is below
100 feet. At shallower depths it is not possible to get
accurate measurements . It is possible to make accurate attacks on U-boats at depths down to some 800
feet, provided that the Q attachment is fitted .
s~2~'
Sinkings of U-boats
The average number of U-boats sunk or probably

sunk monthly reached a peak of 21 a month during
this period . The record monthly score o the war was
reached in the first month, July 1943, when 46
U-boats were destroyed throughout the world. Of
the total of 234 U-boats destroyed during this I Z
month period, 199 were German, 28 were Japanese,
and 7 were Italian. The 180 U-boat sinkings in the
Atlantic were rather widely distributed with the
leading areas being the Northwest Atlantic Area
with 34 kills, the Northeast Atlantic Area with 29
kills, and the Biscay Channel Area with 28 kills.
Aircraft continued to be the leading U-boat killers
during this period accounting for 122 alone (52 per
cent of the world-wide total) and another 22 (9 per
cent of total) with the cooperation of surface craft.
Carrier-based aircraft accounted for 40 of the 144
kills in which aircraft participated. Ships accounted
for 79 U-boats (34 per cent of total), and Allied submarines accounted for the other 11 U-boats (5 per
cent of total) .
The quality of surface craft attacks continued to
improve steadily through this period as the crews
became more experienced and improved weapons
and equipment became available. About 30 per
cent of the surface craft attacks made on U-boats in
the Atlantic and Mediterranean during this period
resulted in at least some damage to the U-boat while
20 per cent of the attacks resulted in the sinking of
the U-boat . The lethality of these attacks was twice
as high as it had been during the previous period . A
study of British assessed attacks during this period
indicated that about three patterns were dropped in
the average attack on a U-boat. The probability of
sinking a U-boat was about 6 per cent for the average
depth-charge pattern and about 11 per cent for the
average Hedgehog pattern.
SURVEY OF RESULTS
6.3
SURVEY OF RESULTS
6.3.1
From the U-boats' Point of View
To interpret the results of the U-boat war during

this period correctly, it is important to realize that
the German High Command appreciated, at the beginning of this period, that the U-boats had been
decisively defeated in the crucial battle against the
North Atlantic convoys. The enemy also realized
that the old type of U-boat would have to be modified radically before it could again be a serious menace to the Allied supply lines across the Atlantic.
The solution reached by the German High Command was the development of an entirely new type
of U-boat, more immune from radio location, with
much greater submerged speed, and an entirely new
and quicker method of production . The first sketch
of what was to be the new prefabricated Type XXI
U-boat was made in July 1943 . By December 1943 all
designs were finished, including full-scale wooden
mockups. In February 1944 it was decided to stop
the construction of the old-type U-boats, except that
those that had already been laid down were to be
completed, and to concentrate on the production of
the new prefabricated U-boats.
The general strategy of the enemy was to keep the
U-boat fleet in being until the new U-boats would be
ready, when they could return to the offensive again.
In line with this policy, the Schnorchel was valuable
as an interim measure, to reduce the danger from air
attack and to enable the U-boats to operate in inshore waters in the event of invasion . The main aim
of the U-boats during this period was self-preservation, although they would attempt in the meantime
to sink as much Allied shipping as they could without suffering excessive losses . In addition, keeping
the U-boats at sea served to tie up large Allied forces
in the protection of shipping, thereby keeping them
from being used against Germany in other ways .
During the last half of 1943, the U-boats made
several attempts at conducting offensive operations
but each time they were beaten back with heavy
losses . Thereafter, the U-boats seemed to realize that,
if they were to accomplish their primary mission of

self-preservation, they could not undertake any largescale offensives against shipping . The number of
U-boats at sea in the Atlantic dropped steadily,
reaching a minimum of about 40 in May 1944 . The
main functions of these U-boats, during the first five
months of 1944, were probably reconnaissance,
GI
weather reporting, forcing the Allies to convoy shipping, and waiting for the invasion . They made no
attempt to sink a large amount of Allied shipping.
This is clearly reflected in the results achieved by
the U-boats during this period .
World-wide shipping losses to U-boats reached a
new low as only about 17 ships o 101,000 gross tons
were sunk monthly by U-boats. This was only about
one-fourth the amount sunk monthly by U-boats during the previous period . Only about 45 per cent of
these sinkings took place in the Atlantic, as about
40 per cent occurred in the Indian Ocean and another 15 per cent in the Mediterranean. The worldwide number of U-boats sunk monthly reached a
peak of about 21 a month during this period. The
world-wide exchange rate reached a new low of only
4/5 of a ship (4800 gross tons) sunk by the average
U-boat before it itself was sunk .
U-boat activity in the Mediterranean was slightly
lower than in the preceding period . Sicily was invaded in July 1943 and the Mediterranean was considered open for Allied shipping, although almost
all of it was forced to travel in convoy . Only 36 merchant vessels were sunk by U-boats during this period
at a price of 23 U-boats sunk .
Shipping losses to German and Japanese U-boats
in the Indian Ocean were at a slightly higher level
than previously as 71 ships were sunk during this 11
month period . However, this was the first period in
which there was soiree evidence of countermeasures
against the U-boats in the sinking of seven U-boats.
This was one of the few areas where the exchange
rate was still favorable for U-boat operations as 10
ships were sunk by U-boats for each U-boat sunk .
Japanese U-boats were strictly on the defensive in
the Pacific and spent most of their time in supplying
isolated outposts. Despite the fact that the bulk of
the shipping in the Pacific sailed independently, only
one merchant vessel was sunk by U-boats during this
11-month period, while Allied forces, mostly surface
craft and submarines, sank 24 Japanese U-boats in
the Pacific .a
The average number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic during this period was only 61, about 44 per
cent less than the average number at sea during the
previous period. These U-boats sank only eight ships
of 44,000 gross tons per month in widely scattered
areas of the Atlantic . The average U-boat in the Ata Four more Japanese U-Uoats were sunk in the Indian Ocean.
62
lantic reached a new low in offensive power as it was

able to sink only i8 of a ship (700 gross tons) per
month at sea .
Despite the meager results achieved by the average
U-boat and the smaller number of U-boats at sea, the
number of U-boats sunk in the Atlantic continued to
increase as 16 were sunk monthly during this period .
The average life of a U-boat at sea in the Atlantic
during this period was, therefore, only about 4
months, half the average life of a U-boat at sea in
the previous period . This meant that the average
U-boat at sea in the Atlantic was able to sink only 12
of a ship (2800 gross tons) before it itself was sunk .
The magnitude of the disaster which the U-boats
suffered during this period may be roughly measured
by the fact that' the exchange rate (ships sunk per
U-boat sunk) was about nine times as high in the
previous period, the battle against the North Atlantic convoys, and about 38 times as high in the peak
period, the first 9 months of 1942 .
These figures reflected the growing strength and
efficiency of Allied surface and air craft and the
widening gap between Allied weapons and equipment and that of the U-boats. They also confirmed
the German High Command's appreciation, at the
beginning of this period, that the old-type U-boat
could not compete any longer with Allied antisubmarine forces . The only consolation the enemy
could have, at the end of this period, was that the
U-boat losses would probably have been much larger
than they actually were if the U-boats had actually
continued their large-scale offensive against Allied
shipping . This is indicated by a comparison of the
16 U-boats sunk monthly in the Atlantic with the
37 U-boats sunk in July 1943 and the 25 U-boats
sunk in October 1943, the months in which the
U-boats attempted offensive operations .
By operating their U-boats as they did, the Germans were able to maintain their large U-boat fleet
for the invasion . About 250 new German U-boats
were constructed during this period while only about
200 German U-boats were sunk so that the Germans
had over 400 U-boats at the end of this period.
s~~~2
The Allied and neutral nations lost about 184,000

gross tons of shipping monthly from all causes during
this period, only about a third of the monthly shipping losses during the preceding period, while the
construction of new merchant shipping ran at about

1,160,000 gross tons monthly, slightly higher than
during the preceding period . Consequently, there
was a net gain of about 976,000 gross tons a month
in the amount of shipping available.
The shipping available to the Allies had increased
by almost 11,000,000 gross tons during this period to
a total of about 7500 ships of 47,500,000 gross tons .
About 10,500,000 gross tons of this total consisted of
tankers. October 1943 was the first month in which
the total shipping available was larger than the
40,000,000 gross tons of shipping available at the
start of the war, in September 1939 . It took over four
years to replace the heavy shipping losses caused
mostly by U-boat action in the early years of the war.
By the end of this period, the shipping crisis had
definitely passed and the Allies had sufficient shipping available to undertake the invasion . In fact,
construction of new merchant shipping had started
tapering off in 1944 after reaching a peak of 1,500,00b
gross tons in December 1943 . Part of this tapering off
was due to the conversion of shipyards to the construction of the faster Victory ships which took about
twice as long to build as the slower Liberty ships.
Of the 184,000 gross tons of shipping lost monthly
from all causes, 147,000 gross tons were lost as a result of enemy action . U-boats accounted for 101,000
gross tons a month, about 69 per cent of the total
lost as a result of enemy action . Monthly shipping
losses due to enemy aircraft were higher than in the
preceding period, amounting to 34,000 gross tons a
month, about 23 per cent of the total due to enemy
action . Shipping losses from enemy surface craft,
mines, and other enemy action were even lower than
in the preceding period, totaling only 22,000 gross
tons a month, or 8 per cent of the total .
The major task of the Allies during this period
had been accomplished . Sufficient supplies and men
had been landed in England during this period to
enable the Allies to undertake the invasion of Europe
in June 1944 . Although the U-boats were no longer
the serious menace they had been in the past, the
large U-boat fleet based on both flanks of the English
Channel constituted a potential threat to the success
of the invasion . The immediate problem facing the
Allies, at the end of this period, was to prevent the
U-boats from attacking the large concentration of
shipping that would be carrying troops and military
equipment across the Channel during the invasion .
From a long-term point of view, it was necessary to
SURVEY OF RESULTS
maintain the numerical and technical superiority of
Allied antisubmarine forces over the U-boats . Allied
antisubmarine forces faced the problem of prevent-
63
ing the U-boats from ever cutting the large and consinuous flow of supplies that would be required by
Allied fighting forces in Europe .
Chapter 7
SEVENTH PERIOD
SGHNORGHEL U-BOATS OPERATE IN BRITISH HOME WATERS
JUNE 1944--END OF WAR
7.1
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
N MANY respects this last period of the U-boat war

I resembled the first period . The U-boat war was
again subsidiary to, and largely influenced by, military operations in Europe . The U-boats were driven
from their bases on the Bay of Biscay, which they had
used for four years, and were forced to return to
bases in Norway and the Baltic. The waters around
the British Isles again became the main area of
U-boat activity, as Schnorchel-equipped U-boats
were able to operate in inshore waters with relative
safety from aircraft detection. The U-boats were
operating mostly submerged, not from choice as in
the first period, but because they had been forced
under by Allied aircraft . Surface craft again became
the main destroyers of U-boats.
The U-boats found that operations in inshore
waters were just as hazardous during this period as
they had been at the beginning of the war. The chief
difference was that during this period the average
U-boat was able to sink only one-twentieth the
amount of shipping that it sank in the first period .
Allied escorts were more numerous, more experienced, and better equipped, while the U-boats' offensive power was greatly reduced by their loss of mobility . U-boat morale was also much lower during
this period than it had been early in the war.
The lull in U-boat activity ended with the Allied
landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944 . The Allies
had appreciated that the U-boats were a very serious
potential threat to the success of the invasion . The
size of the U-boat fleet at that time was still such
that a mass attack in the Channel on D-day, from
both flanks, might have saturated the defenses and
inflicted grave losses on Allied convoys during the
critical early days of the operation.
The Allied countermeasures involved blocking off
the cross-Channel Area and guarding the convoy
routes leading to it, with the object of making the
approaches to both a difficult and exhausting operation for the U-boats. By June 6, ten escort groups,
64
consisting of 54 ships, were ready to block the western approaches to the Channel. They were supported by three escort carriers, which were there
chiefly to provide fighter support to escorts operating close to the enemy shores . The enemy air threat
proved, however, to be so slight that these carriers
were withdrawn by June 11 . Coastal Command aircraft put on an intensive flying effort in the Channel
and its western approaches and also in the Bay of
Biscay Area . These dispositions of anti-U-boat forces
were independent of, and in addition to, the escorts
and aircraft provided for close escort duties with the
convoys running to and from France .
The first reaction of the U-boats to the invasion
was a considerable exodus of U-boats from the
French ports on D-day, as soon as the enemy woke up
to the fact that the operation had really started. The
number of U-boats in the Biscay-Channel Area increased from one on June 5 to about 20 on June 8.
The majority o these U-boats made no attempt to
enter the Channel but, instead, set up defensive
patrols off the Biscay ports to counter possible invasion attempts in that area .
A curious feature of these operations was that they
began with a large number of sightings and attacks
on U-boats by aircraft and then, after a period of
several days, the number of contacts was sharply reduced. This reduction was due to the extensive use of
Schnorchel by the U-boats, which had begun at that
time. It seems that the U-boat captains had not taken
very kindly to the Schnorchel with all the discomforts that it was capable of causing in inexperienced
hands, and intended to use it only as a last resort, if
the weight of air power against them became intolerable . After six U-boats were sunk by aircraft attacks
in the Biscay Area between June 7 and 10, the Uboats began to appreciate the value of Schnorchei
and quickly learned how to use it efficiently .
It is also possible that the enemy intended to operate his U-boats in the Channel, accepting all risks
and proceeding on the surface in order to reach the
vital invasion area and disrupt the Allied landing
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
operations. It was the initial blows dealt him by

Coastal Command in the early days of the operation
that forced him to adopt the more cautious, and less
effective, tactics of remaining continuously submerged, which the advent of Schnorchel gave him
the means of doing. The Schnorchel was a very poor
radar target, even at short range, and was difficult to
sight, even in daylight. To attack it at night required
exceptionally good radar tracking and Leigh-light or
flare technique.
In addition to their successes in the Bay of Biscay,
Coastal Command aircraft contributed an outstanding performance in June against U-boats in Norwegian waters . Most of these U-boats were probably
en route for the English Channel to join in operations there . These U-boats continued to operate
mainly on the surface, and Coastal Command aircraft sank seven in Norwegian waters during June .
The first surface craft kill in the Biscay-Channel
Area did not come until June 18 . This was followed
by four other surface craft kills, two with the help
of aircraft, before the end o the month. There was
only one aircraft kill in the Biscay-Channel Area between June 11 and the end of the month.
The U-boats obtained their first successes against
merchant shipping in the invasion area more than
three weeks after D-day, and sank five ships in the
last few days of June . Two escort vessels were torpedoed by U-boats in the middle of June . When
these results are measured against the 12 U-boats
sunk in the same area in June by Allied forces, it is
clear that the U-boats failed completely in their attempt to disrupt the Allied invasion .
The other enemy weapons (aircraft, surface craft,
and mines) were equally ineffective against the thousands of Allied ships that moved across the Channel
to Normandy . Only 18 ships of 75,000 gross tons were
sunk in the Biscay-Channel Area in June 1944, as a
result of all forms of enemy action . The Allies scuttled over 50 merchant vessels of about 300,000 gross
tons in constructing the artificial ports that were
used so successfully during the invasion .
The enemy turned to other offensive weapons in
July, such as the human torpedo, explosive motor
boats, and the V-1 bomb, but they did very little
damage to Allied shipping. The experience in the
Biscay-Channel Area during July and August was
similar to that in June . The Allies continued to
keep up their pressure on the U-boats, while the
U-boats found the approaches to the shipping lanes
65
so difficult that those who reached them fumbled

the opportunities they found. U-boats operating in
this area sank only two merchant vessels in July and
six in August, while the Allies sank nine U-boats in
July and 12 in August .
Surface craft played the predominant role in sinking U-boats in this area during these two months,
killing 13 of them alone and destroying three others
with the assistance of aircraft, out of the total of 21
sunk. An outstanding feature of the surface craft
attacks in the invasion area was the difficulty experienced in the initial detection of U-boats which
adopted anti-Asdic tactics of resting on the bottom
when escort vessels were heard approaching. Numerous wrecks, together with the difficult water conditions and the high reverberation background in
shallow waters, gave the U-boat almost complete immunity from Asdic detection . However, once the
Asdic picked up the U-boat contact and identified it
as such, the chance of obtaining a kill rose to a peak
of about 50 per cent in the invasion operation .
The Second Escort Group continued its brilliant

career during a ten-day patrol in the Biscay-Channel
Area early in August. It achieved the first destruction of a U-boat by Squid and also took part in the
sinking of two other U-boats. The Squid kill was remarkably quick. One pattern of six Squid charges
was sufficient to bring the U-boat to the surface, and
the crew rapidly abandoned the sinking U-boat .
The breakthrough of Allied land forces across the
Cherbourg peninsula in the first week of August
threatened the enemy's Biscay ports and forced their
evacuation . The U-boats abandoned their efforts on
the Biscay-Channel Area toward the end of August
and headed for Norwegian ports. This marked the
end o the first phase of the U-boat campaign against
cross-Channel Allied shipping.
The enemy concentrated his main effort against
the Allied invasion during the first three months of
this period, and U-boat activity in other areas was
slight . The average number of U-boats at sea in the
Atlantic during June 1944 was about 48, and over
half of these were concentrated in the Biscay-Channel Area and the Northern Transit Area-East.
World-wide shipping losses to U-boats continued to
be low as only 11 ships of 58,000 gross tons were sunk
by U-boats in June . Besides the five ships sunk in the
Biscay-Channel Area, there were three ships sunk in
the rest of the Atlantic and three ships sunk in the
Indian Ocean.
66
SCHNORCFIEL U-BOATS OPERATE IN BRITISH HOME WATERS
Fccvax z . Boarding party from USS Guadalcanal labors to keep the captured U-505 afloat after its crew had abandoned it to sink .
The total number of U-boats sunk during June

was 28, about the same as the high level reached in
May. Besides the 21 U-boats sunk in the waters
around the British Isles, four others were disposed of
in widely distant parts of the Atlantic by U . S. escort
carrier groups . One of these four was U-505, which
was captured by USS Guadatcanal [CVE] and her
escorts on June 4, 1944.
This task group sailed from Norfolk in May 1944
with the avowed intention of capturing an enemy
submarine. It was felt that there was a good opportunity to capture a U-boat that surfaced, by concentrating anti-personnel weapons on it, holding back
on weapons that would sink it, and making an attempt to board it as soon as possible . After an unproductive hunt around the Cape Verde Islands, a wellconducted search plan was put in operation on May
31 for an estimated homebound U-boat . The USS
Chatelain [DE], one of the escorts, made sonar contact at about 1000 on June 4. A Hedgehog attack,
followed by a shallow depth-charge attack, brought
the U-boat to the surface at 1023 and fire was opened .

The U-boat crew scrambled on deck and dived overboard. At 1027, "Cease firing" was ordered.
The U-boat was then running in a tight circle at
about seven knots, fully surfaced, and it was known
that most of her crew had abandoned her. USS Pillsbury [DE], another escort, lowered a whaleboat with
a boarding party and then attempted to rope the
U-boat. Meanwhile, the boarding party got alongside and leaped from the whaleboat to the deck of
the circling U-boat . There was only one dead man
on deck and no one below, and the boarding parties
immediately set to work closing valves and disconnecting demolition charges. The Gzaadatcnnal took
the U-boat in tow, but many difficulties were encountered as the towlines broke and the U-boat
showed signs o settling. It was not until June 8 that
the U-boat was at fully surfaced trim . This was the
first time that a U-boat had been captured by the
U. S. forces .
U-505 was finally brought to Bermuda and the
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
67
FIGURE 2 . A torpedo plane approaches for a landing while USS Guadalcan.al tows U-505 astern .
Allies were able to extract a great deal o extremelyvaluable technical information from the manuals
and equipment aboard the U-boat . In addition to
more reliable data on the acoustic torpedo, German
search receivers, and other standard U-boat equipment, the Allies obtained important information
about German war orders, communications, and
codes. Much of this information proved to be of
value in conducting later operations against the
U-boats, as the Germans did not know that we had
captured a U-boat and obtained this information.
'World-wide shipping losses stayed low in July
1944 as only 12 ships of 63,000 gross tons were sunk
by U-boats. In addition to the two ships sunk in the
Biscay-Channel Area, five ships were sunk in the rest
of the Atlantic and five in the Indian Ocean. The
number of U-boats sunk throughout the world in
July was 22,. slightly less than in June . Escorts of
USS Card [CVE] eliminated a potential threat to

Allied shipping by sinking a 1600-ton minelaying
U-boat early in July. This U-boat carried 66 mines,
the moored acoustic type, which were intended to be
laid in the approaches to Halifax.
August 1944 was the best month of this last period
for the U-boats, as they sank 18 ships of 99,000 gross
tons throughout the world. This peak score, however, is only about the same as the average monthly
sinkage achieved by U-boats during the previous
period, which was a rather low average, at that . Besides the six ships sunk in the Biscay-Channel Area,
there were only two ships sunk in the remainder of
the Atlantic . U-boats sank one ship in the Black Sea
and nine ships in the Indian Ocean, mostly ofd East
Africa in the Mozambique Channel . The landings in
Southern France took place during August without
the loss of any ships in the entire invasion area.
68
SCHNORCHEL U-BOATS OPERATE IN BRITISH HOME WATERS
The downward trend in the number of U-boats

sunk monthly continued during August as only 17
were sunk. Aircraft found it more difficult to detect
and attack the Schnorchel U-boat . Apart from the 12
U-boats sunk in the Biscay-Channel Area, there were
only three U-boats sunk in the Atlantic, all by escort
carrier task groups. Aircraft from HMS Vindex,
which was escorting the North Russian convoys, sank
two U-boats, while aircraft from the USS Bogue sank
U-1229 south of Newfoundland, after a 20-day
search. This U-boat, traveling on Schnorchel, had
remained submerged for about 14 days, surfacing
only for a short daily interval of 10 to 15 minutes to
determine her position .
The most significant development in August, with
regard to future U-boat operations, was the advance
of Allied armies in Western France which forced the
U-boats to abandon their bases on the Bay of Biscay .
These bases contained the redoubtable Todt concrete shelters which had withstood heavy Allied attacks for years. The basic strategy of German naval
warfare in the Atlantic had depended upon the successful use and maintenance of the Biscay bases,
from which U-boats could proceed directly to their
operational areas with minimum fuel consumption
and less throttling opposition from Allied air and
surface patrols.
By the end of August it was evident that the
U-boats had begun their final exodus from the Biscay
ports and were heading for Norway, where they
would be much more vulnerable to Allied air attack .
The problems of repair and maintenance of a large
U-boat fleet at the small and inadequately equipped
Norwegian bases would also be much more difficult.
The main effect, however, of the loss of the Biscay
bases was the considerable increase in the length of
voyages to operating areas. The 500-ton U-boats,
which comprised the majority of the U-boat fleet,
were thereafter restricted to operations around the
British Isles, as it was extremely difficult to refuel at
sea. Even the 740-ton U-boats confined most of their
later operations to the nearby Atlantic, operating
near Canada and Gibraltar.
During September 1944 the enemy seemed to be
concerned primarily with shifting his U-boats from
the Bay of Biscay to Norwegian bases. About 25
U-boats were engaged solely in running the gauntlet
of Allied air and surface patrols between France and
Norway . These U-boats traveled submerged for almost the entire trip, using Schnorchel, and most of
them completed the journey safely. As a result of this

mass transit of U-boats, the average number at sea in
the Atlantic reached a peak for this last period during September when there were 57 U-boats at sea.
World-wide shipping losses were considerably reduced in September as only seven ships of 43,000
gross tons were sunk by U-boats. A noteworthy feature was the almost complete absence of U-boat activity in the Indian Ocean. One ship was sunk there
early in the month, but the U-boat responsible for
this sinking withdrew towards Penang where it was
torpedoed by a British submarine . Although the
other six ships sunk by U-boats during the month
were all lost in the Atlantic, not a single ship was
sunk in the formerly active Biscay-Channel Area .
Two ships were sunk in the Barents Sea Area and
one in the Canadian Coastal Zone . The other three
ships were sunk early in September, from North Atlantic convoys, by U-boats operating on Schnorchel
in inshore waters . These U-boats operated in the
Northwestern approaches to England, in an area of
high shipping density through which the North Atlantic convoys passed on their way in and out of the
North Channel. Fortunately, no further losses occurred in this area, as the. Allies started routing the
North Atlantic convoys around the south of Ireland
at about this time .
The total number of U-boats sunk in September
was 21 . This included, however, six 300-ton U-boats
that were scuttled in the Black Sea as a result of Russian advances in eastern Europe . In the Mediterranean, two of the three U-boats based at Salamis were
destroyed. The general clearance of U-boats and
enemy aircraft from the Mediterranean enabled the
number of ships employed in convoy escort to be reduced and a large number of independent sailings
was permitted. Only ten U-boats were sunk in the
Atlantic . This steady decrease reflected the inactivity
of the U-boats and the increased effectiveness of
Schnorchel. Two of these U-boats were sunk as a
result of the inshore activity in the Northwestern
Approaches to England, five were sunk in the Northern Transit Area-East, and three in the remainder
of the Atlantic.
By the end of September the last of the U-boats
appeared to have departed from the Biscay-Channel
Area. The average number of U-boats out at sea in
the Atlantic declined to about 30 in October, with
most of them still in transit. The results achieved by
German U-boats reflect this situation, as October
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
1944 was the first month of the war during which

they were not able to sink even a single ship in the
Atlantic . As a matter of fact, the U-boats sank only
one ship of 7000 gross tons during October. A perfect
record for the month was spoiled on October 30,
when a Japanese U-boat sank a U . S. cargo ship,
traveling independently in the Pacific, midway between San Francisco and Pearl Harbor . Ironically,
this was the first ship sunk in the Pacific by a U-boat
since November 1943 . The lull in U-boat activity
was reflected on the east coast of the United States,
as October was the first complete month of independent sailings for all ships engaged in coastal
trade (except for dry cargo vessels of 8 to 10 knots) .
Only nine U-boats were sunk during October, five
of them in the Pacific and only four in the Atlantic.
All four of the latter were sunk in the Northern
Transit Area-East, the area through which the
U-boats traveled to and from their Norwegian bases.
One of these four U-boats was sunk as the result of a
bombing raid on Bergen . One of the five U-boats
sunk in the Pacific was a German U-boat, sunk by
the Dutch submarine HNMS Zwaardvisch in the
Java Sea . This was by far the most easterly position
in which a German U-boat had ever been destroyed.
Although the average number of U-boats at sea
in the Atlantic during November was only 24, the
lowest monthly average of this period, the enemy had
completed his transfer of U-boats from the Biscay
bases, and the U-boats at sea were more active . Seven
ships of 30,000 gross tons were sunk by U-boats in
November 1944 ; two ships in the Indian Ocean, a
Swedish ship in the Baltic, and four ships in inshore
waters in the Atlantic . Three of these ships were sunk
on November 10 in the approaches to Rekjavik, Iceland . The other ship was sunk in the English Channel toward the end of the month after several months
without any U-boat activity in this area.
The number of U-boats sunk during November
was 10, but seven of these U-boat kills took place in
the Pacific and only three in the Atlantic . This was
the smallest monthly number of U-boats sunk in the
Atlantic since January 1942 . Two of these U-boats
were sunk in the Northern Transit Area-East and
one in the Biscay-Channel Area.
The main reasons for the meager results achieved
by the Allies in sinking U-boats during these three
months, September through November, was the extreme caution displayed by the U-boats as the average
U-boat sank less than 1/10 of a ship per month at
69
sea . Increased experience in the use of Schnorchel

enabled the U-boats to avoid Allied air patrols by
remaining submerged for prolonged periods and
lying in wait for Allied convoys in focal areas inshore. Then, the U-boats developed their bottoming
tactics in inshore waters, where wrecks and non-sub
contacts were abundant and where the high reverberation background tended to drown out weak
Asdic echoes . In addition, the necessity for the use
of anti-Gnat noisemakers by Allied ships made Asdic
detection more difficult.
The experience during these three months indicated to the enemy that U-boats could again operate
in inshore waters, with Schnorchel, without suffering undue losses . This, in effect, made unnecessary
the previous long voyages to distant areas which had
been made in order to avoid the heavy Allied air
coverage in the North Atlantic . The enemy, therefore, had by the use of Schnorchel overcome to some
extent the great strategic disadvantage resulting from
the loss of his Biscay bases. The use of Schnorchel
enabled U-boats to proceed to and from their bases
in Norway and the Baltic via the Faeroes-Shetland
passage instead of the more circuitous passage south
of Iceland. The U-boats could operate effectively in
all areas of the North Atlantic, particularly in the
waters around England, where the high density of
important shipping provided an attractive target
near the U-boat bases.
December 1944 witnessed the beginning of a steady
increase in the number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic . Coincident with the German land offensive
on the Western Front (Battle of the Bulge), about
five U-boats commenced operations in the central
English Channel in an attempt to impede the flow
of troops and supplies to the Allied armies in Europe .
Seven ships and one escort were sunk by U-boats in
the Biscay-Channel Area during December, with
most of the damage being done toward the end of the
month by two U-boats, both of whom escaped to tell
of their success. During the same period an abortive
offensive was launched by a flotilla of midget U-boats
(Biber) against convoys in the Scheldt Approaches,
off the Dutch coast. Only one ship was sunk while 15
midget U-boats were sunk or captured .
U-boat activity in other areas was slight during
December as the world-wide shipping losses to
U-boats totalled only nine ships of 59,000 gross tons .
An independent ship was sunk in the Gulf of Maine
on December 3 by the same U-boat that landed two
70
enemy agents on the coast of Maine on November 29 .

The other ship was sunk in the Pacific off the southeast coast of Australia by a German U-boat, the first
sinking in these waters since May 1943 .
Nine U-boats were sunk during December, one in
the Indian Ocean and eight in the Atlantic. Six of
the eight U-boats sunk in the Atlantic were lost :n
the waters around England, particularly in the Biscay-Channel Area and the Northern Transit AreaEast . One of the three U-boats in the Biscay-Channel
Area ran aground on Wolf Rock due to navigational
difficulties.
U-boat activity continued to increase during January 1945 as I 1 ships o 57,000 gross tons were sunk by
U-boats. All 11 of these ships were sunk in the Atlantic by U-boats operating in inshore waters . In United
Kingdom waters, there were no sinkings in the English Channel, although U-boats were still patrolling
there, and the center of activity shafted to the Irish
Sea, where six ships were sunk during the month by
U-boats which had penetrated into the region, although it had long been considered safe from enemy
attacks and had been used for training.
The other inshore areas of U-boat activity in January were off Halifax, where four ships were sunk
and another damaged, and the western approaches
to Gibraltar, where one ship and an escort vessel
were sunk and another ship damaged. Three of the
four ships sunk off Halifax were torpedoed on January 14, during daylight, out of a convoy nearing port .
The escorts were not successful in locating the
U-boat .
The number o U-boats sunk monthly reached a
low for this period as only six U-boats were sunk
during January, one in the Pacific and five in the
Atlantic . All of these kills were made by surface craft
during the latter half of the month. Not a single
U-boat was sunk by aircraft during January 1945 .
The first of these sinkings occurred on January 16,
when a U. S. destroyer escort task group sank a
weather-reporting U-boat in the Northwest Atlantic
Area . Using information based on the U-boat plot,
the group departed from the Azores for the general
area of the last fix. An HF/DF fix, at a range of 10
miles, further localized the probable area of the
U-boat and the hunt got underway. Some 2~/2 hours
later, sonar contact was gained, and one Hedgehog
attack and five Mk 8 depth-charge attacks resulted
in the sinking of the U-boat .
The other four U=boats sunk in the Atlantic dur-
ing January were all sunk in United Kingdom coastal

waters by British surface craft. Three of these kills re-
sulted from Asdic contacts made shortly after ships

were torpedoed . They were particularly encouraging in that they represented some evidence that ships
were finally learning how to attack U-boats operating
in inshore waters, after months of disappointing
patrols in generally difficult conditions .
In addition to these successes, indirect but effective anti-U-boat operations were carried out by the
Russian armies during January. By overrunning
East Prussia, they threatened the important workingup bases in the eastern Baltic, and by entering Silesia
they . paralyzed part of the elaborate organization for
the construction of the new type U-boats. It is estimated that the yards at Danzig alone produced almost a third of the new Type XXI prefabricated
U-boats. Not only were the Norwegian and western
Baltic ports severely taxed by assuming the additional burden of handling surface vessels and U-boats
previously based in the eastern ports, but the concentration of all U-boat facilities in the western
Baltic made them much more vulnerable to Allied
air attacks.
The U-boats were more aggressive in February
1945 and sank 15 ships of 65,000 gross tons . One ship
was sunk in the Indian Ocean, off the west coast of
Australia, and the other 14 ships were sunk in the
Atlantic, the peak monthly score fox this period .
With the land warfare in Europe approaching Germany, the enemy's objective seemed to be to sink
the maximum shipping in the short time remaining.
Consequently, the major U-boat effort was concentrated in British coastal waters, where nine ships
were sunk during the month, mainly in the southwest approaches to the English Channel and in the
North Sea off the east coast of England. The five
ships sunk in the remainder of the Atlantic included
two in the Barents Sea Area, one near Iceland, one
near Gibraltar, and one in the Southeast Atlantic by
a U-boat homeward bound from the Indian Ocean .
The number of U-boats sunk monthly increased
sharply as 19 U-boats were sunk in February, indicating that the kills near the end of January initiated
a new period of good hunting. Twelve of the 14
U-boat kills in the Atlantic took place in the waters
around England, but there was a shift of activity to
the northward. The Tenth Escort Group carried out
a particularly successful patrol in the area between
the Shetlands and the Faeroes against U-boats on
U-BOAT OFFENSIVE
passage to their operational areas, sinking three of

them . These three attacks all resulted from initial
Asdic contacts on submerged U-boats . Ten of the 14
kills in the Atlantic were made by surface craft as
Asdic was becoming much more effective against
U-boats in shallow inshore waters due to the increased experience of Allied ships under these conditions. The other two U-boat kills in the Atlantic
occurred in the Barents Sea Area and off Gibraltar.
Five Japanese U-boats were sunk during February
in the Pacific, where the U. S. submarine USS Batfcsh
turned in a record performance by sinking three
U-boats in four days . These were torpedoed north of
Luzon between February 9 and 12 . In each case, the
Batfish detected Japanese radar signals on her search
receiver [APR] and then homed on the U-boat .
The number of U-boats at sea in the Atlantic increased sharply in March 1945, averaging over 50 for
the month. Most of these were concentrated in the
waters around England, but there were some signs of
a shift of U-boat activity to deeper waters in the
Atlantic, possibly indicating that the enemy had appreciated that some escorts had been removed from
ocean convoys to operate in inshore waters . There
was also some evidence that Type XXIII U-boats
operated in the North Sea, off the east coast o
England .
Despite the increase in the number of U-boats at
sea, the world-wide shipping losses to U-boats stayed
at the same level in March 1945 as only 13 ships of
65,000 gross tons were sunk by U-boats, all in the
Atlantic. Nine of these ships were sunk in the waters
around England, seven of them in the Biscay-Channel Area . Two ships were sunk in the Barents Sea
Area and another two were sunk in the Brazilian
and Caribbean Areas by a U-boat homeward bound
from the Indian Ocean. Midgets probably sank
another three ships in the North Sea Area.
The number of U-boats sunk during March continued high as 19 were destroyed, 2 in the Pacific and
17 in the Atlantic. Four U-boats were destroyed by
our raids in German ports and one was sunk in the
Canadian Coastal Zone by a U. S. destroyer escort
killer group. The other 12 U-boats were sunk in the
waters around Great Britain; one by aircraft, two by
mines, and nine by surface craft. The Twenty-First
Escort Group turned in a notable performance by
sinking three U-boats in four days, north of Scotland .
In April 1945, shipping casualties were of the same
order of magnitude as in March, as 13 ships of 73,000
71
gross tons were sunk by U-boats. All of these ships

were sunk in the Atlantic : two off Cape Hatteras in
Eastern Sea Frontier, one in Kola Inlet in the Barents
Sea Area, and the other ten in coastal waters around
England, mainly in the Channel Area.
The tempo of U-boat operations in April gave no
indication that the end of the war was at hand. With
remarkable determination the enemy maintained
his U-boat offensive in inshore waters to the very
end of the war. No relaxation of effort or hesitation
to incur risk was apparent until the German surrender on May 8, 1945 . A U. S, cargo vessel was sunk
off Rhode Island on May 5, but a U. S. destroyer
escort task group gained sonar contact later that
night and destroyed the U-boat . On May 7, a U-boat
sank two merchant ships from a coastal convoy near
the Firth of Forth. These were the last merchant
ships sunk by U-boats in World War II, as Japanese
U-boats did not sink a single merchant ship between
V-E Day, May 8 and V-J Day, August 14, 1945, while
six Japanese U-boats were sunk in that interval .
The 36 U-boats sunk during April 1945 made the
highest monthly score of the last period . Five of these
U-boats were sunk in the Pacific and the other 31
were sunk in the Atlantic, with surface craft accounting for 19 kills, the highest monthly score of the war
for them . Twenty-two of these U-boats were sunk in
the waters around England, three in the Barents Sea
Area, two along the east coast of the United States,
and four in Northwest Atlantic Area . These four
U-boats were part of a group of six (Group Seawolf)
engaged in a joint westward sweep of North Atlantic
convoy lanes while en route to operations off the U. S.
coast. Escorts of U. S. escort carrier task groups that
conducted a barrier patrol which intercepted this
group of U-boats were responsible for these four kills.
On the last day of April, a U. S. Navy MAD-equipped
plane sank a U-boat in the Biscay-Channel Area with
retro-bombs.
During the first week of May, aircraft operated
with great effectiveness in Danish waters against
U-boats attempting to escape to Norway, sinking
about ten of them with rockets and gunfire. In addition to the kills enumerated above, it is estimated
that the heavy bombing raids on German ports in the
Baltic probably accounted for the destruction o
over 25 U-boats in port during the last month of the
war.
On May 4 a short signal was transmitted on all
U-boat frequencies. By this signal, Doenitz had
72
ordered his U-boats to cease hostilities . In an Order

of the Day issued at the same time, he explained that
a crushing superiority had compressed the U-boats
into a very narrow area and that the continuation
of the struggle was impossible from the bases which
remained . By May 31, 49 U-boats had surrendered
at sea leaving a small number unaccounted for. The
last of these to turn up was U-977 which surrendered
at Buenos Aires on August 17, 1945, after the surrender o Japan. In addition to the U-boats which
surrendered at sea, huge numbers were captured in
ports or scuttled .
The end of the war thus saw the U-boat fleet held
in check but still carrying out operations on a major
scale. It had never been driven off the seas and might
well have increased substantially in numbers and
power, had the war been extended for any appreciable period . New-type U-boats were just coming into
service at the end o the war. About six Type XXITI
U-boats had operated with fair success off the east
coast of the United Kingdom and at least that number of Type XXI U-boats had reached ports in Norway with the intention of sailing in the immediate
future for offensive operations . One is believed to
have actually started on patrol, but it was forced to
turn back due to some failure in equipment. The
U-boat was by no means eliminated as a weapon of
war when Germany surrendered, and the new types
which Germany was introducing would have raised
serious problems for the Allies had they ever reached
large-scale use.
7.2
U-BOAT
''2'1
Convoys
Shipping in convoy during this last period was

safer than in any previous one. Although the number
of convoyed ships at sea was at its peak, only six ships
were sunk monthly by U-boats. Of the 1100 ships that
sailed monthly in the North Atlantic convoys, only
about one was sunk monthly by U-boats, usually in
the vicinity of England. The loss rate was therefore
less than 1/I0 of 1 per cent .
The proportion of shipping sunk by U-boats, which
was in convoy when sunk in contrast to independent
sailings, increased to about 55 per cent during this
period . This increase was due to the fact that
U-boats, operating on Schnorchel in inshore waters,
found it desirable to operate in areas of high shipping density, that is, along the convoy lanes. The
experience during this period differed from the past
in that most of the shipping losses occurred at the
terminals of the convoy routes, instead of in the
middle .
The principle of defense in depth contributed
greatly to the safety of convoyed shipping, particularly in the case of the North Russian convoys. During this last period, there were often sufficient ships
available so that, in addition to the close escort,
pickets could be stationed in an outer screen . Pickets
could intercept surfaced U-boats, investigate surface
ships, divert neutral ships, and give the Escort Commander timely warning of impending dangers. Air
patrols operated in the zone beyond the pickets.
The largest convoy of the war, HXS 300, consisting of 167 ships and seven mid-ocean escorts, sailed
in July 1944 . With 19 columns, this convoy had a
front of some nine miles . The ships in the convoy
carried over a million tons of cargo to England. The
convoy arrived safely and the fact that it was not
attacked may well have been due to the vigorous
search by aircraft of the two MAC ships for the only
U-boat reported in the vicinity.
Early in September 1944, following the transfer of
the U-boats from the Biscay base to Norwegian ports,
the Allies rerouted the North Atlantic convoys
around the south of Ireland, through St . George's
Channel. Although not shortening the voyage between New York and Liverpool to any appreciable
extent, the southerly route did facilitate the joining
and splitting of sections from and to the south coast
of England and the Continent. It also got further
away from both the U-boats based in Norwegian and
German ports and the rough weather of the higher
latitudes. Convoy CU 37 was the first to sail to an
Atlantic port on the Continent, as one section arrived in Cherbourg on September 7. Antwerp was
opened to Allied convoys on November 28 .
The increased safety o convoys in the Atlantic
enabled the Allies to make another change that
would quicken the flow of shipping. Towards the
end of September 1944 the sailing interval for the
HX and ON convoys was reduced to 5 days and the
slow SC and ONS convoys were started again. This
meant that the convoys would not be as large as they
had been in the previous months, but there would
be more of them . The time spent in port by ships
waiting for convoys was cut materially by this change .
Similar steps were taken in the East Atlantic in

November 1944 . A single escort sailed with convoys
between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom, although additional protection was given at both ends .
This more or less restored the arrangement which
had been in force from the outbreak of the war until
the middle of 1941 . Shipping between Gibraltar and
Freetown was permitted to sail independently if
there were no U-boats along the route. In the Mediterranean convoying was abandoned except for
troopships and local convoys near Italy and Greece .
In the last month of the war, April 1945, the average number of ships at sea in the Atlantic reached a
maximum of 1400, about double the number in the
early months of 1943 . About two-thirds of these ships
were in convoy . Shipping in the Pacific also reached
a new high in April, as there were about 900 ships at
sea, with about one-third of them in convoy .
Aircraft
Most of the U-boat activity during this period was
concentrated in the waters around England and consequently aircraft under Coastal Command opera,
tional control played the major part in the offensive
against the U-boats. At the end of the war, Coastal
Command had more than 1100 planes under its control, more than six times the number available at the
start of the war. The invasion battle started in May
1944, when U-boats left from Norwegian ports to reinforce the Biscay ports for the attack on the huge
amount of Allied shipping which would have to be
used for the build-up of the Allied beachhead. Very
few U-boats got through, as aircraft sank 17 U-boats
and damaged 11 others in Norwegian waters between
mid-May and the end of July . Thus a depleted
U-boat fleet was left to execute the plan to attack the
invasion traffic.
As soon as the invasion had started, the U-boats
headed for sea, staying on the surface and fighting
back against aircraft with their automatic 37-mm
gun. Coastal Command was ready, and within five
days the enemy lost six U-boats while five were seriously damaged. The hectic few days after D-day produced one of the outstanding achievements of the
war, when a Liberator sank two U-boats at night
within half an hour. After the first week of the invasion, the enemy abandoned his ideas of staying on the
surface and the all-Schnorchel era had begun. But
the beachhead was already secure and the U-boat
73
fleet badly mauled . Between mid-May and the end

of July Coastal Command aircraft sank 23 U-boats,
shared two kills with surface craft, and damaged 25
U-boats. The price paid for the success was 31 aircraft lost as a result o enemy action and 17 lost as a
result of operational hazards.
Once the invasion beaches were secure, it became
Coastal's job to protect shipping until victory was
finally won. It was difficult to detect Schnorchel at all
and even after it was detected, the probability of attacking it successfully was lower than that for an attack on a surfaced U-boat . All available aircraft were
employed to hunt the Schnorchel and, although the
number of kills was somewhat disappointing, only a
few ships were sunk in inshore waters . Thus the
many hours of flying often without the consolation
of a sighting were not wasted .
With the reduced opportunities to kill U-boats,
Coastal Command began to look further afield . During 1945, there were a number of anti-U-boat sorties
in the Skagerrak, Kattegat, and the western Baltic .
Liberators at night and rocket-fitted Mosquitos ana
Beaufighters during the day carried the war right
into the U-boats' home waters . Numerous attacks
were made, some of them on the new type U-boats
which were proceeding to Norwegian ports prior to
setting out on operations . The outstanding effort was
a strike in the Kattegat by Mosquitos, which resulted in the sinking of three U-boats. In the final
days of the war, the last real action was seen when
U-boats began to evacuate north German ports and
run for Norway . Many attacks were made and about
ten U-boats are believed to have been sunk by aircraft in the first week of May 1945 .
During the entire period aircraft operating under
Coastal Command made about 3$ sightings and 24
attacks monthly, about the same as in the previous
period although the concentration of U-boats in
British waters was much higher in the last period .
The use of Schnorchel resulted in a reduction in the
lethality of aircraft attacks, as only IS per cent of
them resulted in the sinking of a U-boat (about 25
per cent in previous period) and about 35 per cent of
the attacks resulted in at least some damage to the
U-boat. About half of the aircraft kills made during
this 11-month period occurred in the first and last
months (June 1944 and April 1945), when a high proportion of the U-boats were found on the surface.
Op;xational results daring the last period indicated that Schnorchel was a most effective counter-
74
measure to Allied air power. Most of the U-boats

were equipped with Schnorchel, fitted with a drumshaped aerial (Runddipol) which was pressure-tight,
but gave warning only of meter radar. The primary
effect of Schnorchel was to cut visual and radar
ranges from Allied aircraft by a factor of about 2 or 3.
Toward the end of this period the Germans developed an effective anti-radar rubber-like covering for
the Schnorchel, which was supposed to cut Allied
microwave radar ranges on Schnorchel by another
factor of 3. The ranges at which mane radar contacts would first be made were such as to place them
within the sea-return zone of Allied radar sets, where
they were missed entirely . It has been estimated that
the number of potential Schnorchel contacts missed
at short ranges is larger than the total number of
SchnorcheI contacts made at all ranges.
These advantages of Schnorchel enabled U-boats
to operate over long periods of time in restricted
waters, with reasonable safety from aircraft, by remaining bottomed most of the time and coming to
Schnorchel depth only to recharge batteries . The
effectiveness of aircraft hunts was also reduced as the
Schnorchel increased the submerged speed of U-boats
for prolonged periods from about 2 or 3 knots to
about 6 knots.
Schnorchel, however, also had its disadvantages .
The offensive power of U-boats was greatly reduced
as they were forced to give up the great mobility of
surfaced operations for the relatively slow speeds o
Schnorchel operation. The efficiency of the periscope
watch was impaired when the U-boat was at Schnorchel depth, and the noise of the engines rendered the
hydrophones practically useless. In addition, prolonged use of Schnorchel undoubtedly increased personnel fatigue, as a result of varying air pressure,
occasional fumes, and the more careful attention required to maintain depth control.
Despite these disadvantages, the U-boats preferred
the feeling of security which the Schnorchel gave
them to the alternative of operating on the surface,
and depending on their new directional microwave
search radars for warning of aircraft . With the increased use of Schnorchel, the number of U-boat
contacts per 1000 flying hours steadily decreased and
the ratio of Schnorchel contacts to all contacts steadily increased, passing the 50 per cent mark in December 1944. Visual search became relatively more
productive than radar search as occasional sigt.tings
at relatively long ranges were made on the exhaust
smoke .or wake . that sometimes accompanied the

Schnorchel .
The Allies were not able to produce any really
effective countermeasures to the Schnorchel by the
end of the war. Increased stress was placed on the use
of binoculars in visual search and the most favorable
altitudes for the detection of Schnorchel were determined. Tactical doctrines were modified to take account of the decreased sweep widths of both radar
and visual search . Modifications, such as the fast
time constant [FTC] circuit, were made to Allied
radar sets to improve the efficiency of contact. The
FTC circuit acted as a discriminator against sea
return, thereby making it easier to distinguish the
Schnorchel blip . New high-power narrow-beam
short-pulse radar sets were designed to provide better
resolution in search for small targets. Tests indicated
that the new radar sets (AN/APS-3 and AN/APS-15),
which operated in the X-band (3-cm) and had share
beams, were better at detecting Schnorchel than the
earlier longer-wave-band radar sets .
Aircraft used sono-buoys more frequently towards
the end of the war in order to take advantage of the
high noise output of Schnorchelling U-boats. Sonobuoys had been used successfully in a number of attacks by aircraft and escorts o U . S. escort carrier task
groups and analyses indicated that in over 50 per
cent of the cases in which sono-buoys were dropped
following visual contacts on U-boats a sono-buoy contact was obtained.
The Allies continued to perfect their equipment

and tactics during this last period . More useful and
flexible retiring search plans were developed for surface craft. Operation Observant and similar search
plans, based on the most probable location of the
U-boat, provided ships with the means of regaining
contact with a U-boat once the general location was
known. An analysis of surface craft hunts indicated
that when the correct plan was used, contact was regained in 44 per cent of the cases, while the incorrect
plan led to success in only 28 per cent of the cases .
The U. S. Navy continued to improve its sonar
equipment as experimental work was done with
maintenance of deep contact feature [MDC] and
depth-determining gear . By the end of the war a new
fast sinking influence depth charge had been developed, the Mark 14, which was considered to have
higher probability of doing lethal damage to a submerged U-boat than ocher depth charges. This charge
was designed to fire at the nearest point of approach
to a U-boat by the change of frequency between the
reflected signal and the supersonic signal emitted by
the depth charge .
An analysis was made of the operational results
obtained during 1943 and 1944 by British ships using
depth charges, Hedgehog, and Squid. It indicated
that a single depth-charge pattern had about a 5 per
cent chance of sinking a U-boat and a Hedgehog pattern at least a 15 per cent chance, while the Squid attacks averaged about a 20 per cent chance of success .
The double Squid pattern showed promise of being
the most lethal weapon against U-boats, but this was
based on a small number of attacks.
The greatest technical effort of the Allies, however,
was spent on the effort to develop satisfactory means
for the detection of Schnorchel . As previously mentioned, two main lines were followed : (1) the improvement of radar performance by choosing a design effective against small targets, and (2) the improvement of sonar detection, in particular sonobuoys for detection from aircraft. The chief modification involved was increase in the operating life o
the buoys to reduce the number that had to be employed . In addition, directional sono-buoys were developed, which gave a more accurate submarine position, but these did not see operational use.
The U-boat command again was prolific in developing new technical equipment for the U-boats in an
effort to stave off the impending defeat. During 1944
the Germans introduced a new type of gear [LUT]
on their torpedoes which enabled the line of advance
of the torpedo, when zigzagging, to be pre-set at any
angle from its straight run. This gear also enabled
the mean speed of advance to be pre-set at will . At the
end of the war the Germans were developing a new
type of homing torpedo (Geier) which omitted supersonic signals and homed on the reflected echoes from
the target.
During this period, the Germans modified their
740- and 1200-ton U-boats to enable them to dive as
quickly as the 500-ton U-boats. The most distinctive
feature of these modified U-boats was the narrow
cut-away deck forward.
Toward the end of the war, there were some indications that the Germans had developed an ultrahigh-speed method of communication (Kurier) using
an attachment to the normal U-boat transmitter . It
75
appears that the message was recorded on a magnetic

tape which was then run through at high speed. This
method of communication would counter Allied use
of HF./DF .
Early in 1944 the U-boat command had come to a
clearer appreciation of the true situation with regard
to the Allied use of radar . They realized that they
needed an improved search receiver against S-band
(10-cm) radar which would not only give ample warn-
ing but would provide a margin of sensitivity against

inevitable losses of efficiency under operational conditions . The enemy had also learned of X-band
(3-cm) radar from a crashed H2X blind bombing
plane at the beginning of 1944 and the development
of X-band search receivers was started by the Germans before Allied use of X-band radar in U-boat
search had produced many results .
The German solution to these problems appeared
in the late spring of 1944 in the form o the "Tunis"
search receiver . Tunis consisted of two antennas, the

"Mucke" horn for X-band radar and the "Cuba Ia"
(Fliege) dipole and parabolic reflector for S-band
radar, fitted with an untuned crystal detector and
connected to a Naxos 2 amplifier . Bearings were
taken by rotating the DF loop on which the antennas
were mounted . The X-band Mucke horn had a beam

width of about 15 so that bearings on 3-cm radar
were quite accurate . The S-band Fliege antenna detected 10-cm radar transmissions through a sector of
about 90 .
The chief feature of this equipment was the directional antennas, which gave increased sensitivity and
range. In order to obtain the necessary sensitivity
with these aerials, the Germans had to sacrifice the
desirable property of all-around looking and the
aerials had to be continuously rotated by the bridge
watch. The units still had to be dismounted and
taken below on submergence, and so could not be
used on Schnorchel .
Allied tests on captured equipment indicated that
Tunis was simple to operate and dependable under
normal operational conditions . These tests indicated
that expected operational ranges on Allied radar sets
would vary from about 20 miles for planes at 500 feet
altitude to about 40 miles for planes flying at 2000
feet . These expected operational ranges of Tunis
were greater than the corresponding average radar
ranges, both for S-band and X-band, on surfaced
U-boats. It was concluded that the Tunis search receiver was apparently a simple, efficient, and suc-
76
SCFINORCHEL U-BOATS OPERATE IN BRITISH HOME WATERS
cessful countermeasure to both S-band and X-band

radar.
The Tunis search receiver was used very infrequently by U-boats during this period and it is quite
possible that the Germans were not aware of how
successful it could be against Allied radar. Tunis
was developed shortly after Schnorchel had been
fitted to the U-boats and never did receive a fair trial
in actual operations . The U-boats apparently did not
have much faith in their technical experts, who had
fumbled so badly in 1943, and preferred the security
offered by Schnorchel, despite its limitation for the
offensive, to the risk of operating on the surface and
depending on Tunis for early warning of Allied aircraft. Then again Tunis offered no protection
against possible new Allied radar sets on different
frequencies ox against Allied aircraft not using radar
at ail, while Schnorchel did. It seems quite likely that
the U-boats would have sunk considerably more shipping if they had operated on the surface with Tunis,
but the desire for safety was predominant and
Schnorchel offered the better prospects for that.
All the centimeter aerials produced by the Germans had the disadvantage that they could not withstand submergence. The production of a suitable
pressure-tight aerial, urgently needed for use on
Schnorchel, presented great technical difficulties
which were not completely solved at the end of the
war. The only search receiver aerial that was fitted
on Schnorchel was the old standard Runddipol type,
which could detect only meter radar. There were
some signs that the Germans were developing a pressure-tight aerial at the end of the war, suitable for
both S-band and X-band radar detection and incorporating an infrared receiver as well .
During this period the Germans introduced a
variety of midget U-boats (e .g. : Seehund, Molch,
Biber, Heclzt, and Marder), piloted by one or two
men from a pressure-tight control position and capable of complete submergence. The successful attack
by British midget submarines on the Tirpitz on September 22, 1943, stimulated German interest in these
craft. The flotillas operating these midget U-boats
were not branches of the U-boat arm o the German
Navy but form part of an organization known as the
Small Battle Units Command [KDK].
The Seelzund (Type XXVII) was probably the
most formidable of the midget U-boats. It was prefabricated, about 39 feet long, and displaced 16 tons .
It carried two torpedoes and a two-man crew . The
surface speed was about 6 knots and submerged speed

about 3 knots. The surface range was about 275
miles, the endurance of the crew about three days,
and the diving depth about 100 feet . It was fitted
with a periscope.
Midget U-boats were used primarily in the invasion area and were generally ineffective, inflicting
very little damage on Allied shipping while suffering heavy losses . This may have been due partly to
the fact that they were rushed into battle before they
were perfected and before their crews were properly
trained. Their small size made it more difficult to
detect them but they were extremely vulnerable to
depth-charge attack . They were relatively slow and
unhandy, with a limited operational range, and only
suitable for attacking merchant ships proceeding
slowly in calm waters . It is estimated that about 80
midget U-boats were sunk ox captured between December 23, 1944, when they started operations in the
Channel Area, and the end of April 1945 .
The heavy losses sustained by U-boats in the Battle
of the Atlantic forced the enemy to undertake the
gigantic task of building a complete new frontline
U-boat fleet. Though faced with imminent invasion
and with a great shortage of manpower, Germany
employed a very large number of their skilled workmen in the construction of prefabricated U-boats.
This is a measure of the importance that the enemy
attached to U-boat warfare and of the hopes which
he entertained for success in a new campaign .
The Type XXI U-boat was designed for high submerged speeds, primarily to get into a favorable attack position . Originally intended for turbine drive,
the high speed hull design for the Type XXI was
completed before the Walter propulsion unit was
ready and it was actually equipped with extra large
batteries to give the high maximum submerged
speed o 15 to 18 knots. Its submerged endurance at
a speed of 10 knots was about 11 hours. The type
XXI U-boat was about 250 feet long and its standard
displacement about 1600 tons . The large torpedo
room with 6 bow tubes was an answer to the demands
for increased armament . The U-boat carried a crew
of 57 men and 20 torpedoes. Stern torpedo tubes were
sacrificed to obtain greater speed. Silent-running
speeds o about 5 knots were obtained on electric
motors when submerged. An improved extensible
type of Schnorchel was fitted . The Type XXI U-boat
used .diesel propulsion on the surface and had a
maximum speed of 15 knots. It was a true ocean-
going U-boat and its surface endurance was estimated to be greater than that of a 740-ton U-boat.
The Type XXIII U-boat was developed on requirements from the Mediterranean U-boat command for inshore waters and short cruises . These
characteristics were also useful for operations in the
invasion area . The Type XXIII U-boat was about
114 feet long and its standard displacement was
about 230 tons . It had two bow tubes and carried
only two torpedoes. The total crew consisted of only
14 men. Its maximum surface speed was 10 knots and
its maximum submerged speed 12 knots. The submerged endurance at 10 knots was about 4%2 hours.
Both Type XXI and Type XXIII U-boats werebuilt by a system of prefabrication which fell into
four stages . Basic parts were manufactured at a number of widely dispersed factories situated along Germany's inland waterways. Sections of the hull were
assembled at a number of shipyards and sent from
them to certain key yards for welding into complete
U-boats, which were then fitted out under covered
shelters . The final assembly yards for the Type XXI
U-boats were Hamburg, Bremen, and Danzig .
Speer's dispersal of his organization did much to
defeat Allied bombing, but the indirect results of
Allied raids were serious. The German transport system was disrupted by Allied bombing of communications and this did much to set back the time schedule for the construction of these new U-boats. The
first prefabricated U-boat was completed in June
1944 and by the time the war ended, the enemy had
completed about 120 Type XXI U-boats and about
60 Type XXIII U-boats. Both the new types, however, were put into production prematurely and dPfec'ts discovered during trials and teething troubles
had prevented them from becoming operational.
The loss of the eastern Baltic ports and the heavy
bombing of the western Baltic ports, together with
mining of that area, further delayed the long awaited
offensive by the new-type U-boats. About six patrols
were made by Type XXIII U-boats in the North Sea
before the end of the war. The immense effort put
into developing Type XXI was a complete waste as it
did not operate at all before the German surrender.
The Allies were forced, however, to develop countermeasures to the high speed U-boats . HMS Seraph,
a British submarine, was converted so that she could
make 12 knots for a limited time and trials were
conducted to develop new tactics for use against
the high speed U-boats.
77
Three Type XVII-B U-boats with turbine drive

were completed before the end of the war. These
were built for experimental purposes to obtain information on tactics and improvements for the Type
XXVI U-boat, which was to be the perfect U-boat,
incorporating all the advantages of earlier experience and the extremely high speeds available with
the Walter propulsion units. The high speed obtained from turbines using hydrogen peroxide fuel
was of limited duration and was only to be used in
attacks or other emergencies. A diesel for cruising at
Schnorchel depth and a small battery and electric
motor for quiet running were to be used for all other
purposes . There was no expectation of ever operating these U-boats on the surface.
The Type XXVI U-boat was intended to be about
184 feet long and to carry a crew of 37 men. The
maximum submerged speed on turbines was to be 24
knots with an endurance of about 6 hours at that
speed. Ten torpedoes were to be carried in four bow
and six side torpedo tubes. Sound gear was to be used
to direct torpedo fire from a submerged position and
all ten torpedoes could be fired in one salvo.
It should be stressed at this point that no Type
XXVI U-boats were ever built and that no Type
XXI U-boats ever operated at sea before V-E Day.
The conclusions developed in this history of World
War II do not necessarily apply to these high submerged speed U-boats.
'~2~4
Sinkings of U-boats
The average number of U-boats sunk monthly during this period was 18, slightly less than during the
previous peak period . This decrease was due primarily to the considerable drop in the average number of U-boats at sea. The total number of U-boats
sunk during this 11-month period (June 1944
through April 1945) was 196, consisting of 161 German U-boats and 35 Japanese U-boats.
Over 80 per cent of the 148 U-boats sunk in the
Atlantic were destroyed in the waters surrounding
England, as 59 were sunk in the Biscay-Channel Area,
35 in the North Transit Area-East, 14 in the North
Sea, and 13 in the Northeast Atlantic Area. The
other 27 Atlantic U-boat kills were divided as follows : 7 in the Northwest Atlantic Area, 6 in the
Barents Sea Area, and 14 in widely scattered parts of
the remainder of the Atlantic, 9 of them in the west
Atlantic and five in the east Atlantic .
78
Surface craft displaced aircraft as the leading killer

of U-boats during this period, as most of the German
U-boats operated on Schnorchel . Allied ships sank
92 U-boats alone (47 per cent of total) and another
15 (8 per cent of total) with the help of aircraft . Aircraft sank 57 U-boats (29 per cent of total) . As most o
the U-boats operated in inshore waters, carrier-based
aircraft played a smaller part during this last period
accounting for only 14 of the 72 U-boat kills in which
aircraft participated . Allied submarines sank 1'7
U-boats (9 per cent of total), most of them in the
Pacific. The other 15 U-boats (7 per cent of total)
were lost as a result of mines, marine casualties, and
scuttling.
The quality of surface craft attacks reached its
highest level during this last period as over 30 per
cent of the attacks were lethal . This percentage
reached a high of about 50 per cent during the invasion period, when U-boats first started operating
on Schnorchel. It dropped to about 20 per cent as
U-boats perfected their inshore tactics during the
last quarter of 1944 and then increased again to
about 30 per cent during the first few months of 1945,
as British escort groups learned how to deal with the
bottomed U-boat .
7.3
7.3 .1
SURVEY OF RESULTS
From the U-boats' Point of View
Some idea of the attitude of U-boat crews and officers during this last period may be obtained from
statements made by prisoners o war. Toward the
end of 1943, many doubts and questions had arisen
concerning the outcome of the war and the supposed
superiority of German weapons. These doubts became stronger when, despite the many promises of
new weapons made by the U-boat Command, practically none were supplied and the U-boats' situation steadily deteriorated . The former enthusiasm
and confidence of the men in the power o their arms
and in the competence of their leaders turned into a
kind of lassitude, and resulted in a mechanical execution of commands . The phrase "orders are orders"
characterized the typical state of mind . The majority
of U-boat officer survivors expressed in no uncertain
terms the opinion that the U-boat was no longer
practicable as an offensive weapon in view of the
effectiveness of Allied antisubmarine measures at
that time . Despite their state of mind, the U-boats
fought to the very end of the war with discipline un-
impaired, and there were no signs o any collapse of

the German Navy, such as occurred in 1918 .
About 13 U-boats were sunk monthly in the Atlantic, slightly less than the previous figure of 16 . The
average number of U-boats at sea, however, had declined to 39 from the average of 61 in the previous
period . This meant that the average life of a U-boat
at sea in the Atlantic was only three months, even
lower than the average life of four months in the
previous period. Despite the use of Schnorchel and
maximum submergence tactics, the U-boats found
operation in inshore waters just as hazardous as they
had been at the beginning of the war when the Uboats had to give up close-in submerged operations .
The exchange rate in the Atlantic was about the
same as in the previous period as only 6110 of a ship
{3340 gross tons} was sunk by the average U-boat
before it itself was sunk . U-boats operating in inshore
waters where there was a heavy concentration o
shipping were able to sink a little more shipping
per month at sea during this period but this was
balanced by the higher loss rate suffered by them .
The tactics evolved by the Schnorchel U-boat
toward the end of the war involved practically no
surfaced operations. In transit, navigation was by
dead reckoning, radio-navigational fixes off the chain
of "Electrasonne" transmitters and beacons, and also
by echo sounder and periscope bearings of lights or
points of land . Schnorchelling was mostly at night,
for only about four hours in each 24 . When Schnorchelling, a U-boat kept all-around periscope watch
day and night, and constant meter-band GSR watch.
Diesels were stopped once every 15 to 30 minutes to
make an all-round hydrophone sweep. Once the
U-boat was in the patrol area, it was a recognized
tactic to lie on the bottom of a convoy route and to
come up only when hydrophone contact was established . For aiming the torpedoes, the periscope was
still virtually the only instrument available . Salvos of
curly torpedoes were fired among the merchant ships,
or else a single acoustic torpedo at either the convoy
or an escort . The usual methods of evading Allied
counterattacks were either lying on the bottom, or
else proceeding at silent speeds of about 3 knots or
less on electric motors.
The Schnorchel enabled U-boats to operate in the
above manner in inshore areas . These U-boats would
have met certain destruction, had it still been necessary for them to surface periodically, for a few hours,
to charge batteries. The problem presented by the
SURVEY OF RESULTS
Schnorchel U-boat has been the chief concern of surface craft, whose main difficulty has been that of distinguishing between a bottomed U-boat and a wreck.
An extensive survey of wrecks in British waters
helped considerably in solving this problem.
Schnorchel enabled U-boats to operate in inshore
waters, but it did not enable them to achieve any significant results . Operational results during the last
two years of the war indicated that the standard
U-boat, with or without Schnorchel, could not operate successfully against Allied antisubmarine measures . It is important to realize, however, that the
U-boat war was not decisively ended in May 1945 .
Germany had a fleet of about 120 Type XXI U-boats
read to start operations and was developing the Type
XXVI U-boat. It is difficult to say whether the high
submerged speed would have restored the advantage
to the U-boats and would have enabled them to inflict considerable damage on Allied shipping without
suffering excessive losses .
7'3'2
The Allied and neutral nations lost about 114,000

gross tons of merchant shipping each month, from
all causes, during this period. This was the lowest
average monthly loss of the war and about 25 per
cent less than in the previous period. The construction of new merchant shipping averaged about 850,000 gross tons a month, slightly less than in the
previous period . Consequently, there was a net gain
of about 736,000 gross tons of shipping each month,
or a total increase during this period o about 8,000,000 gross tons in the amount of shipping available .
Of the 114,000 gross tons of shipping lost monthly
from all causes, about 84,000 gross tons were lost as
a result of enemy action . U-boats accounted for
56,000 gross tons a month, or about 67 per cent of the
total lost as a result of enemy action . Monthly losses
to enemy mines rose to 15,000 gross tons (18 per cent
of enemy action total) as Allied shipping moved
close to the shores of Europe after the invasion.
Losses to enemy aircraft dropped to 8000 gross tons
(9 per cent of enemy action _ total) a month. The
other 5000 gross tons (6 per cent of enemy action
79
total) sunk monthly were lost as a result of surface

craft attack and other enemy action .
By the end of this period, Allied armies triad overrun Germany, and the surrender came on May 8,
1945 . The Allies had defeated the U-boats in 1943
and had succeeded in keeping them ineffective thereafter. It was both an offensive and defensive victory
as the average U-boat's lifetime at sea in the Atlantic
was only three months and it sank only about onehalf ship before it itself was sunk . The Allies were
not able, however, to destroy the enemy's U-boat
fleet without invasion, as the enemy's construction
program had been able to replace all losses .
The war seems to have demonstrated that the
standard U-boat could not operate on the surface
against strong Allied air power . It should be remembered, however, that the U-boats did not operate, to any large extent, with a reliable radar or
search receiver that could detect Allied planes at
long range. Denied the surface of the sea, the standard U-boat, with limited submerged speed and endurance, could not operate effectively against
strongly escorted Allied convoys.
The German solution to this problem was the development of the Type XXI and Type XXVI
U-boats, which had much higher submerged speed
and endurance and could operate underseas entirely . These U-boats would be relatively as safe from
air attack as were the standard Schnorchel U-boats
and would be much safer from surface craft attack,
due to their high submerged speeds . They would be

much more effective against convoyed shipping as
their high speed would enable them to approach
and keep up with Allied convoys without surfacing.

We cannot determine without extensive trials and
exercises with high submerged speed U-boats just
how much more effective than the standard types
they would be . We cannot now determine quantitatively whether they would be 50 per cent better, or
ten times as good . From the history of World War II,

however, we may conclude that these new U-boats
would have to be about eight times as effective in
sinking ships and about four times as safe at sea as
were the Schnorchel U-boats in the last period, in
order to achieve the same results as were achieved by
the U-boats during their peak period, January 1942
through September 1942 .
Chapter 8
SUMMARY OF ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE

WORLD WAR II
8.1
OVERALL RESULTS
liE OPENING hours of the war saw the U-boats

T already in position astride the approaches to the
United Kingdom . Their aim throughout the war

was to sever the flow of merchant shipping to and
from Great Britain, and in the attempt the battle
was carried halfway around the world. The U-boats
held the initiative from the beginning until their disastrous defeat in the summer of 1943 . Thereafter all
their efforts were futile, and U-boat warfare, old
style, was at an impasse when the war ended. What
the enemy might have accomplished with the new
U-boats having high submerged speed is conjectural,
but there can be no doubt that they would have been
a serious menace .
The actual achievements of the German, Italian,
and Japanese U-boats during the war resulted in the
Allies' loss of 2753 shipsa of 14,557,000 gross tons .
The enemy also suffered considerable losses at sea. It
is estimated that 733 German, 79 Italian, and 99
Japanese U-boats were sunk . A total o about 1500
U-boats were built by the enemy, however, to achieve
these results.
There were, therefore, about three Allied merchant vessels sunk by U-boats for each U-boat sunk,
about two merchant vessels sunk for each U-boat
built. In addition, the Allies were forced to maintain
a large and costly antisubmarine effort which diverted their attention from other phases of the war .
In these terms the U-boat war was a profitable one for
the enemy, even though the U-boats were ultimately
defeated . If German U-boat operations only were
considered, this conclusion would be greatly
strengthened. During the period prior to June 1943
A The figures given in this summary are based on CNO records as of November 19, 1945 . They do not agree exactly with
figures given in other chapters which were prepared earlier.
Assessments of attacks, in particular, have been changed somewhat on the basis of intelligence gained from German sources
after the German surrender . As is shown in Appendix I, however, the earlier assessments as they existed at the end of the tear
were in good general agreement with German records of submarine losses and therefore provide a fairly reliable basis for the
discussion given in the other chapters .
so
they were, of course, unquestionably successful,

whereas subsequent operations were an equally complete success for the Allies .
8.2
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS
The beginning of the war saw an immediate campaign of unrestricted U-boat warfare. The British
had anticipated such a development and put a previously planned convoy system in operation within
a few days . The scale of effort was small, however, as
there were only a small number of U-boats at sea, and
the antisubmarine craft available to the Allies could
give only very weak escort to the convoys.
The U-boats concentrated their forces in the vicinity of Britain, making their attacks in daylight from
periscope depth. Their tactics were highly aggressive, and each U-boat scored heavily against Allied
shipping . As a result they exposed themselves to
counterattack by British surface craft, whose Asdicdirected attacks proved to be much more effective
than the Germans were expecting. Surprised and
confused by the success of British escorts, the U-boats
devoted most of their attention to independent ships
and those in convoy were relatively safe, even though
weakly escorted .
In June of 1940 France fell to the German Army.
The resulting worsening of the British strategical
situation had a direct effect on the U-boat war . In the
first place the threat of a seaborne invasion of England confined large numbers of British air and surface craft to the east coast anti-invasion patrols and
diverted them from antisubmarine duties . In addition, the acquisition of bases on the Bay of Biscay cut
down on the transit time of the U-boats and allowed
them to extend their operations farther into the
Atlantic .
As a result of the effective counterattacks suffered
by submerged U-boats, the Germans introduced a
radical change of tactics. They began to attack on the
surface at night, a procedure that was characteristic
of them during most of the war. They capitalized on
the weakness of British escorts and made many of
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS
the attacks on convoys, usually trailing the convoy

until darkness, then coming in trimmed down on the
surface for the attack, and retiring on the surface at
high speed.
This method was highly successful, and bold individual attacks rolled up large tonnages to the Uboats' credit . The risks were proportionately high,
however . By such tactics the outstanding U-boat
aces, Prien, Kretschmer, and Schepke, each amassed
totals of over 200,000 gross tons, but all three were
eventually sunk in March 1941 .
One of the most significant countermeasures to

these surfaced attacks was the introduction of radar;
a makeshift aircraft set was first fitted to escorts in
November 1940 . Its effectiveness was not great, however, during this early period . Various improvements
in the convoy system were made by the British, including the formation of escort groups, Admiralty
control of routing, and a wide dispersion of convoy
routes . As a result, U-boats had greater difficulty in
attacking convoys.
Early in 1941 the results of Germany's U-boat construction program began to be felt . In 1939 the Germans had only a small U-boat fleet, since their hopes
were for a short war. When the possibility of a long
struggle with Britain became apparent, building of
U-boats was given high priority . They were commissioned at a rate o about 20 a month starting in 1941 .
There `vas a corresponding increase in U-boat personnel which, of course, resulted in a widespread
lowering in their general experience and capability .
This was accentuated by the loss of some of the best
trained crews.
In the summer of 1941, therefore, the bold tactics
of individual night surfaced attacks on convoys were
modified . The policy of wolf-pack attacks came into
use in an attempt to overwhelm the convoy escorts.
The procedure was for the U-boat first contacting a
convoy to withhold attack, trailing the convoy and
homing other U-boats to the scene so that a number
could join in the attack, thus capitalizing to the full
on the opportunity and reducing the danger to the
attacking U-boats. Complementary to this policy was
a general movement of U-boats to the west and south
in an effort to find independent ships. This movement also gave freedom from the growing air cover in
the vicinity of Britain.
As a result of these changes, the British were forced
to adopt complete end-to-end escort of transatlantic
convoys. They were aided in this effort both by the
81
German attack on Russia in June 1941 which ended

the threat of invasion of England and released craft
for antisubmarine operations, and by the entry of the
U. S. Navy in convoy operations in September . Despite the great increase in number of U-boats at sea,
Allied losses of merchant vessels did not increase .
Another change introduced by the British during
1941 was to have a profound effect on the antisubmarine war, in this case the contribution made by
aircraft. Air patrol had been effective in harassing
the U-boats from the beginning, but very few successful attacks were made for lack of suitable weapons. The need for a depth bomb exploding at shallow depths was finally realized, and a 25-foot depth
setting came into use. With this minor change aircraft eventually became the equal of surface craft as
killers of U-boats .
With the U . S . entry in the war at the end of 1941
the scope of U-boat operations expanded rapidly .
The Germans had a large and rapidly growing
U-boat fleet, so that they were able to launch a fullscale offensive against the weakly protected shipping
in U . S . coastal waters . They were at first able to
choose and sink their victims virtually unimpeded,

and Allied losses reached catastrophic size, 140 ships
of 698,000 gross tons in June 1942, for example . Defenses were organized, however, which forced an
eventual withdrawal of the U-boats . With the introduction of convoying in Eastern Sea Frontier in May,
losses in that area were reduced, while those in Gulf
Sea Frontier soared . U-boat successes there were
short-lived, though the Caribbean remained a soft
spot throughout the summer of 1942 . Nevertheless
the continued extension of convoying and air patrol
drove the U-boats out of the coastal areas by fall, and
they then returned to the North Atlantic.
During this period U-boat activity in the Eastern

Atlantic was at a standstill . Consequently British
forces were free to begin a counteroffensive against
U-boats in transit from their bases to the operating
areas in the Western Atlantic. Coastal Command aircraft patrolling the Bay of Biscay with radar and
searchlights inflicted considerable damage on the
U-boats during the summer, until countered by German search-receiver development.
As a direct effort to make up the heavy shipping
losses, the Allies started an intensive building program during 1942 . Despite all their efforts, however,
U-boats sank ships faster than they were built until
about the end of the year .
82
SUMMARY OF ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE, WORLD WAR II
In October it was evident that the U-boats were

returning to the North Atlantic in force. Attacks on
transatlantic convoys were their objective, and they
operated in the mid-ocean gap which could not be
reached by land-based air patrol . This gave them
freedom to operate on the surface and gather very
large wolf packs-often ten or more and occasionally
as many as 30 to 40 . A concerted attack of this sort
often led to breaks in the escort formation and disorganization of the defense.
Nevertheless the vast convoys for the North
African invasion made their way from Britain without serious losses because of the complete air coverage provided for them . Routine trade convoys were
less fortunate as the tonnage lost topped 700,000 in
November . Against a U-boat fleet which was able to
maintain about 100 U-boats at sea, even the more
efficient escorts which were fitted with S-band radar
were inadequate . Heavy losses continued during the
winter, mostly in the North Atlantic, but also in
other widespread areas where diversionary U-boats
were operating.
In the spring of 1943 the convoy defenses were
bolstered by a limited amount of aircraft patrol in
the mid-ocean gap, which proved to be extraordinarily effective. A small number of VLR aircraft became available in March, and the USS Bogue [CVEJ
also sailed in support of the convoys. Considerable
numbers of U-boats were sunk, but they continued
to attack in force until early May when they were
driven off from ONS 5 in the decisive convoy battle
of the war. After May 17 no ships were sunk in the
North Atlantic for some time .
While aircraft were thus distinguishing themselves
in the defense of convoys, the Coastal Command offensive against transit U-boats was also bearing fruit.
S-band radar was introduced early in 1943, and the
number of sightings and attacks soared . During May,
37 U-boats were sunk in the Atlantic, l I of them in
the Bay of Biscay . The success of these operations
continued until the end of the summer.
By July the U-boats had dispersed to try to find a
soft spot in Allied defenses . They failed completely,
and found themselves attacked even in inid-ocean by
GVE-based aircraft. In Atlantic waters a total o 34
U-boats were sunk, mostly by aircraft . The result of
such disastrous losses was a complete defeat of the
U-boats, in which they gave up aggressive surfaced
operations and submerged during daylight hours to
avoid aircraft . Ultra-conservative tactics were em-
ployed in crossing the Bay of Biscay .

Having thus lost their mobility, the U-boats accomplished nothing until September and October
when they attempted to make a come-back against the
North Atlantic convoys by employing acoustic homing torpedoes against the escorts. They were beaten
off with heavy losses-22 U-boats sunk during October in operations against convoys in order to sink
three merchant vessels and one escort . An attempt to
attack the convoys between the United Kingdom and
Gibraltar was then made, but it was also frustrated
and the U-boats forced into a completely defensive
position .
For the rest of the winter they adopted a policy of
maximum submergence, designed to give them safety
from Allied attack . Virtually no ships were sunk .
The number of U-boats at sea declined markedly,
and every effort was made to develop an effective
search receiver for S-band radar to give them immunity from detection by the Allies .
It was not until the invasion of Normandy in June
1944 that the U-boats showed any signs of aggressive
action . Their effort to attack shipping in the English
Channel was short-lived, however, as heavy air and
surface patrols prevented theirs from achieving any
success . They soon abandoned the surface in favor of
Schnorchel operation which gave them virtual immunity from detection by aircraft . By lying on the
bottom the were able to utilize the poor sound conditions and frequent wrecks to gain considerable safety
from Asdic. Operating in this way limited successes
against shipping in British coastal waters were
achieved during the summer, while sinkings of
U-boats became less and less frequent .
In August and September the U-boats withdrew
from the Biscay bases to Norway, and then settled
down to a small-scale offensive around Britain. They
met with some success at first, but by the spring of
1945 Allied surface craft had learned to deal with
them under those conditions, and the Allied victories
on land deprived them of bases and shore facilities .
Their only chance for regaining the upper hand was
the new high submerged speed U-boat, Type XXI,
but due to production difficulties and the general
German collapse none of them made an operational
patrol against the Allies.
With the German surrender in May 1945, U-boat
warfare was to all intents and purposes ended. Japanese U-boats caused the Allies no serious concern
during the remainder of World War II .
TABLES AND CHARTS
83
TABLE 1 . Average Monthly Shipping Losses and Construction of Allied and Neutral Nations.
(By period and cause of loss and in thousands of gross tons.)
Period I
Sept 39June 40
Cause
Period II
July 40Mar 41
Period III
Apr 41Dec 41
Period IV
Jan 42Sept 42
Period V
Oct 42June 43
Period VI
,July 43May 44
Period VII
June 44Apr 45
World
War II
Sept 39Apr 45
106
29
14
58
224
61
87
27
175
76
17
20
508
70
40
11
394
21
7
9
105
35
4
5
57
8
2
15
214
41
23
20
16
34
26
12
223
404
322
655
436
131
85
310
58
52
40
49
55
32
39
46
Total losses-all causes

New construction
281
57
456
114
362
175
704
515
491
1026
183
1160
124
850
356
580
Net monthly loss

or gain
Shipping available
in million gross
tons
224
......
342
. .....
187
. . . ...
189
......
......
535
......
977
.. . . . .
726
224
40 .0
37 .8
34.7
83 .0
3I .3
36 .1
46 .9
55 .0
Sunk by
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
U-boats
aircraft
ships
mines
other enemy
action
Total sunk by enemy

action
Sunk by marine
casualty
TABLE 2 . Average number of U-boats sunk monthly-World-wide by periods and cause of sinking .
Period I
Sept 39Dime 40
Period II
July 40Mar 41
Period III
Apr 41Dec 41
Period IV
Jan 42Sept 42
Period V
Oct 42June 43
Period VI
July 43May 44
Period VII
June 44Apr 45
World
War II
Sept 39Apr 45
Sunk by surface craft

"
" S/C & A/C
"
" aircraft
" -stYhmarine
" other or unknown
2.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
1 .7
0 .3
0.2
0.3
3.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
3 .6
0.9
2.2
1 .3
7.2
1 .2
9.3
1 .4
7.5
2.1
11 .3
1 .3
8.8
1 .4
10 .0
1.5
5.0
0.9
5.1
1 .0
0.5
0 .6
0.7
0 .4
0.8
0 .3
2 .G
1 .0
Total sunk
3 .2
3 .1
4.7
8 .4
19 .9
23 .0
24.4
13 .0
Cause
causes
TABLE 3. Approximate German U-boat position .

(Ocean-going U-boats only-500 tons or more.)
Period
I Sept 39-June 40
II July 40-Mar 41
III Apr 41-Dec 41
IV Jan 42-Sept 42
V Oct 42June 43
VI July 43-May 44
VII June 44-Apr 45
At start
Conof period strutted
80
22
54
200
350
385
400
15
45
174
200
178
250
180
Sunk
At end
of period
28
I3
28
50
142
215
234
22
54
200
350
385
404
350
84
too
AVERAGE
'NUMBER OF
U-BOATS
AT SEA
..
0
100
H/Yls SUNK.
6Q
BY U-BOATS
'PER MONTH
II-BOATS BUNK
PER MONTH
M/VIs SUNK q
.PER U-BOAT
MONTH AT
SEA
p
--
r
'---
IS'
AVERAGE LIFEOF U-BOAT AT

SEA(inmos )
/1
F+
--- . .
, ._ .
20
Jr
~~
F---=--~---.,
~c
~.'----
...
M/V's SUNK
PER .
.U-BOAT SUNK
o
57
34
. .
' ': -
/p
- -
5.2
(~
-~
,-
--
0.5
0.5
TOTAL
PERIOD I .
PERIOD V .
PERIOD VI . I PERIOD VII WORD WAR II
PERIOD : WORLD WAR I .
PERIOD II
PERIOD III . PERIOD IV .
Aug 1417Sep 1939Jul 1940Jul 1943Apr 1941IJan 1942Oct 1942!Jun 1944Sep 1939Jul 1918
Jun 1940
Mar 1941
Dec 1941
Sep 1942
Jun 1943
May 19Q41
Apr 1945
Apr 1945
(M/Y~s sunk U/B activity
by U/3's are in waters
reduced in
near England
above table
t8 reflect
Daylight atsmaller ton- tacks at
nage of
periscope
M/V1s in
depth .
World War I)
Allies use
Allies used
lightly esconvoys dur- corted coning this
voys .
period .
U/BI s con-
Allies used
kydrophones
and depth
charges .
I,
A/C genetally ineffecCive
against U/B .
centrate on
independent
shipping .
U/B's use
electric
-torpedo,. (no
wake) :
Allied S/C
use asdic
successfully
U/Bls get
Dispersion
French bases of Allied
convoy
Operate in
routes .
Western Approaches to
U/B's start
England.
wolf pack
attacks on
Night surconvoys .
face attacks on
U/Bls move
convoys,
westward and
southward.
Allies introduce me- Allies adopt
ter radar .
3 leading
U/B -aces"
lost in
March 1941 .
U/Bis shift
to E, coast
of U .S . do
attack M/Vls
U/B's attack
N. Atlantic
'convoys in
-GAP" .
Losses reach
peak in June
1942 ; 140
ships sunk
by U/B's .
Large wolf
packs overWhelm ascorts,
Extensive
convoying
along east
coast in
July 1942 "

complete
trans-Atlantic escort .
25-foot
depth setU .S . escorts ting on A/C
sail_xith'
depth chargconvoys in
es .
September
'
1941 .
U/Hts driven. away from

Drop in ef- east coast
ectiveness of U.S .
of U/$'s due
to rapid expansion of
U/B personnel.
U .S . enters
war in December 1941 .
VL$ A/C and

escort carriers close
-GAP" .
U/Bls disperse, attack supposed weak

spots in S.
Atlantic .
U/B's stay
on surface
and fight
back against
A/C .
U/Bls operate mainly

in ^Invasion
Area'! near
England.
U/Bts use
A/C inflict bottoming
"heavy" los- tactics in
S-band radar ses on 0/B's

used on A/C
in Spring of U/Bls forced
to adopt
1943 "
maximum ~subA/C attacks mergence .
much more
effective .
U/Bts lose
U/B's badly
beat4n in
attacks on
convoy "0N$5n in March
1943 .
U/Bls use
Schnorchel
to protect
themselves
against A/C.
offensive
power as a
result of
loss of mobility .
U/Bls use
acoustic
U/B's with- torpedo and
draw from N. CSR for SAtlantic .
band radar .
shallow
water .
U/Hls lose
Frenchtbases
move to Norway .
U/B's still
ineffective,
due to lack
of mobility .
Mlied'S/C
(using Squid
and Hedgehog
in addition
to depth
charges) intlict heavy
losses on
Schnorchel
U/B's .
Ficuxe I . U-boat and antisubmarine operations for the seven periods of World War 11 .
TABLES AND CHARTS
8.3
85
3. Figure 2-summarizes the information of Table 1

in graphical form .
4. Table 2-presents the average number of U-boats
sunk monthly by cause for each period .
5 . Figure 3-summarizes the information of Table 2
in graphical form .
6. Table 3-presents German U-boat losses and
gains through construction for each period .
7. Table 4-presents total shipping losses and Uboat sinkings for each period .
8. Table 5-gives the effectiveness of Allied attacks
by aircraft and surface craft on U-boats in the Atlantic and Mediterranean for each period .
TABLES AND CHARTS
The outstanding statistical facts of the antisubmarine war are summarized in the following tables and
charts :
1 . Figure 1-presents figures measuring the magnitude and effectiveness o U-boat and antisubmarine operations for the seven periods of World
War II . The "remarks" attached explain the outstanding characteristics of each period .
2. Table 1-presents Allied shipping losses due to
various causes and gains through construction for
each period .
Gross tons
55,000,0001
50,000,000
Shipping available
45,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
1,200,000
1,000,000.
800,000
600,000
Average monthly
construction of
new shipping
400,000
200,000
0
~
200,000
.. . .
600,000
nninnmmnunnume All causes
800,000
1,000,000
BY ti $OQtS
PER I .
SEP 39JUN 40
PER a
JUL 40MAR 41
PER III
APR 41DEC 41
PER IV
JAN 42SEP 42
PER V
OCT 42JUN 43
PER VI
JUL 43MAY 44
PER VII
JUN 44APR 45
Ftcum. 2 . Status of Allied merchant fleet during World War iI .
Average monthly
shipping losses
86
2s
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
PER I
SEP 39-
JUN 40
PER II
JUL 40-
MAR 41
PER III
APR 41-
DEC 41
PER IV
JAN 42-
SEP 42
PER V
OCT 42-
JUN 43
PER VI
JUL 43-
MAY 44
PER VII
JUN 44
WORLD WAR If
SEP 39-
APR 4S
APR 45
PicuxL 3 . Monthly U-boat sinkings by period and cause of sinking .
"1nntL 4. Shipping sunk by U-boat acid U-boats suck, by period (world-wide) .

Ship sunk by U-boat
U-boats sunk
Period
Number
1000 gross tons
German
Italian
Japanese
Total
I Sept 39-June 40
II July 44-Mar 41
III Apr 41-Dec 41
IV Jan 42-Sept 42
V Oct 42-June 43
VI July 4.3-Mar 44
VII June 44-Apr 45
VIII May 45-Aug 45
Total-World War II
256
379
325
878
603
192
117
3
2,753
1,058
2,020
1,580
4,575
3,546
1,150
618
10
14,557
23
13
28
50
142
215
234
28
733
9
15
14
15
16
10
......
......
79
......
......
......
11
18
27
35
8
99
32
23
42
76
180`"
252
269
36
915'
* Includes 4 Vichy French U-boats.
TABLES AND CHARTS
87
TABLE 5 . Quality of Allied attacks on U-boats.

(By period-in Atlantic and Mediterranean .)
Period
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Sept 39-June 40
July 40-Mar 41
Apr 41-Dec 41
Jan 42-Sept 42
Oct 42-June 43
July 43-May 44
June 44-Apr 45
Aircraft
Surface Craft
Percent resulting in at least
Percent resulting in at least
Some damage
10
1d
25
20
25
40
35
Sinking of U/B
1
2~/2
21/2
3
10
25
18
Some damage
Sinking of ti/B
Satisfactory data are

not available for this
early period .
15
5
25
10
30
20
35
30
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PART II
ANTISUBMARINE MEASURES AND THEIR EFFECTIYENESS

ROM
THE
HISTORICAL
summary of operations
F against submarines during World War II presented in Part I, many conclusions concerning the
proper strategy and tactics of antisubmarine warfare
[ASW] can be drawn . The most important of these
will be discussed in the following chapters and substantiated by quantitative data from Operations Research Group studies.
Most conclusions have to do with specific problems
of tactics, for example, weapons for attacks, proper
tactics for search, or methods of protecting convoys.
These are all part of a general picture which involves
the overall purpose of antisubmarine warfare and the
various methods available for accomplishing that
purpose.
It is already evident from Part I that the aim of
ASW is not simply the destruction of unfriendly submarines. If it were possible to sink all enemy submarines, the mission of ASW would, of course, be
accomplished, but the forces available have never
been sufficient to do this, for a number of reasons.
The submarine is a small and elusive object in a large
ocean and consequently very hard to find. When
found, it is a tough and inaccessible object to attack .
As long as the enemy is able to build and launch submarines, he can keep some of them at sea, and even
the highly effective Allied antisubmarine effort in
World War II did not greatly diminish the size of the
German U-boat fleet but merely checked its growth .
Antisubmarine warfare must be thought of as a
part of a complex overall military strategy whose final
aim is to eliminate the enemy's ability to wage war.
This must ultimately be done by seizing or destroying
the military or economic war machine-administration, transportation, men, equipment, or production
facilities-by striking at the heart of the enemy, not
merely nibbling piecemeal at his periphery, or by
convincing him of an ability to do so . When possible
it is most efficient to ignore the periphery and proceed
directly to the ultimate objective. This is the philosophy underlying the blitzkrieg and war of encirclement .
The aim of ASW is to ensure the use of the oceans
necessary for military operations intended to bring
about the defeat of the enemy. It is an auxiliary oper-
ation, necessary, but not sufficient, for overall success .

In this sense, then, the actual aim of ASW is negative,
to prevent enemy submarines from accomplishing
their aim .
The first step in this analysis of the subject is to

outline the value of submarine operations to the
enemy. The objective of ASW is to reduce this value
to a minimum, and its general strategy is planned
accordingly.
SUBMARINE OPERATIONS
The peculiar value of the submarine among naval
craft is its ability to operate in enemy-held waters .
Even when surfaced, a submarine is a small target for
visual or radar detection. When submerged, it is completely concealed except for detection by underwater
sound, whose ranges are short and unreliable .a As a
result, the submarine can operate in regions forbidden to surface craft because of enemy patrol . In these
regions aircraft operations are often impossible because the regions are beyond the range of aircraft .
Thus the submarine is the primary, and often the
only, craft for carrying out operations at a long distance from base in the areas of the enemy's main
strength .
Numerous types of operation may be involved .
The aim of some may be co gather information that
can be gained only by an excursion into enemy territory. In this class are routine scouting and weatherreporting missions and also those involving the landing of agents . Some are transport missions to supply
isolated units which cannot be reached by other
means. The main mission of the submarine, however,
is offensive-to attack the enemy's ships, both combatant and merchant . Past experience has shown that
the most valuable submarine activity has been that of
attacking merchant shipping, and antisubmarine
warfare is of urgent concern on this account .
Man being a terrestrial animal, the oceans are valuable to him only as a means of transportation from
one piece of land to another or as a barrier between
a Visual detection of a submerged submarine is possible only
in very rare cases. Magnetic detection is effective only at very
short ranges, much shorter than those of underwater sound.
89
90
ANTISUBMARINE PRINCIPLES
them . Control of the ocean secures this use to the controller and denies it to his enemy. While an antishipping offensive by submarine does not give control of
the ocean, it serves to deny free use to the enemy, and
in this negative sense the submarine force may accomplish quite complete control. To the extent that this
is done and the enemy prevented or hindered from
transporting necessary cargoes, the submarine offensive makes a major contribution to the progress of the
war.
In the submarine's antishipping offensive three
things must be accomplished: achieving contacts on
ships, approach to within torpedo range, and final
attack . The first of these is essentially a search problem of the kind discussed in Volume 2B, Search and
Screening, with submarine as searching craft. Detection may be made by visual, radar, or sonar means.
Visual detection has had the largest range and sonar
the shortest, as a rule, though the ranges depend on
conditions . Visual detection, for instance, will be
ineffective on a dark night, and sonar ineffective in
poor sound conditions .
Since the submarine's speed is low, it is not a very
efficient searching craft and must operate in regions
of high shipping density to make a large number of
contacts . To select the high-density areas a knowledge
of the expected positions of enemy ships is required,
which may be based on intelligence information or
gained locally by coordination between submarines .
The "wolf-pack" tactics of German U-boats accomplished this by homing many submarines to each contact . Once a single U-boat made contact, the information was used to permit others to achieve contact as
well .
When contact has been made, the submarine must
approach to within torpedo range before an attack
can be launched . If the submarine's speed is greater
than that of the target, the approach is not very difficult, and practically all ships contacted may be attacked. However, if the submarine is forced to operate submerged (or if the target is very fast), approach
is only possible from positions ahead of the target,
and slight errors in the approach may result in failure
to achieve the proper position.
Once firing position is reached, torpedoes are fired.
Their chance o success depends on the accuracy of
the torpedo fire and on the physical characteristics
of the torpedo used .
The primary aim of ASW is to reduce the effectiveness with which the submarines carry out these steps,
and the success of an antisubmarine effort is to be

assessed in these terms . Antisubmarine warfare is not
an end in itself, but merely a means of ensuring that
the ability to use the ocean fox transportation is maintained at the best level possible .
ANTISUBMARINE MEASURES
Some antisubmarine measures are specifically intended to hinder the submarine in carrying out a particular phase of its antishipping operations . Evasive
routing of convoys to avoid known submarine positions is useful solely in reducing the submarine's
chance of contacting the convoys. If all the ships
could always dodge the submarines, the latters' effectiveness would be much reduced. Such a procedure
would slow the ships down appreciably, however, so
that the submarine effort would not be entirely
wasted . On the other hand, most measures designed
to combat submarines serve a multiple purpose.
Maintaining aircraft patrol in the vicinity of a convoy not only may lead to sightings o submarines,
thus permitting evasion by the convoy, but these aircraft also force submarines to dive, thus hindering
them in their efforts to track a convoy and approach
it. Finally, an occasional aircraft may be fortunate
enough to attack a submarine and sink it. The overall value of any measure must be based on all the
ways in which it serves to frustrate the submarine.
Most obvious among the measures designed to reduce the submarine's rate of contacting ships is evasive routing. If the submarine positions are fairly
well known, they can be avoided and the density of
shipping in their vicinity greatly reduced. Convoying
is another measure which, in effect, reduces the submarine contact rate . I there are n. ships in each convoy, on the average, the submarine contacts only
about I/ n as many convoys as it would ships . Since it
may be made as large as 50 to 100, the resulting gain
is considerable . Patrol by aircraft also serves to reduce
the contact rate, as indicated earlier, by forcing the
submarine to spend a large fraction o its time submerged . This reduces its detection range and interferes with the formation of wolf packs. In a less direct
way, both surface and aircraft patrols and hunterkiller operations have the same effect . A concentration of offensive operations in areas of high density of
shipping serves to force the submarines out of these
areas and to make them operate where their chances
of contacting ships are not so good . The apparent aim
ANTISUBMARINE MEASURES
of such an offensive is to sink U-boats, but its chief

effect may be to force them to adopt less profitable
tactics, and this effect continues to be valuable even
if sinkings of U-boats be reduced to a negligible level.
The methods of hindering submarine approach
consist of various forms of escort, both for convoys
and single ships. Aerial escort tends to force the submarines to submerge and thus restricts their mobility,
making it impossible for them to trail the convoy or
to overtake it from the flanks or rear and reach a position ahead from which attack can be made . Even if
the submarine is ahead o the convoy when she contacts it, a submerged approach is more difficult than
one carried out partially on the surface and is more
likely to result in errors.
If the submarine boldly elects to stay on the surface
for approach to the convoy, it is very likely that it will
be defected and attacked in the process, which experience is almost certain to eliminate any possibility
of successful offensive action on its part. Correspondingly, surface craft escorts interfere with the later
stages of the approach . Having to try to avoid them
complicates the submarine's problem, but, if it fails
to do so, it is likely to be detected and counterattacked
before reaching torpedo-firing position . The submarine's problem can be made still more difficult by
use of the highest possible speed of ship and by zigzag,
when possible .
Attempts to interfere with the submarine's final
attack, after it has reached firing position, have not
been very successful in the past . To some extent the
mere presence of surface escorts may constitute such
interference . Zigzagging reduces the accuracy of torpedo fire somewhat . A maneuverable ship may turn
to avoid the torpedo if the ship has sufficient warning,
and special torpedo detectors may be devised to aid
in doing so . Antitorpedo nets and other devices can
be streamed to intercept the torpedo. All these are
examples of devices and tactics designed to reduce the
effectiveness of the submarine torpedo fire .
Supplementing these essentially defensive methods
of interfering with the submarine's accomplishment
o its objective is the offensive phase o ASW. The
most certain way of preventing a submarine from
sinking ships is to sink it first. In this sense, sinking a
91
submarine is equivalent to saving as many ships as it

would normally sink during the remainder of its
operational lifetime . If, for example, the average
submarine makes a total of ten operational patrols
and sinks two ships in each, sinking the submarine
saves an average of ten ships, because the submarine
is likely to be about half through its normal life when
sunk .b In addition to this direct diminution of the
submarine fleet, the sinkings tend to reduce the state
of training and experience of the submarine crews.
If, for example, the rate of sinking can be kept high
enough to give the submarine (or crew member) an
expected life at sea of only four patrols, there will be
very few men available with the experience of, say,
ten patrols. The resulting dearth of experienced personnel is a handicap very difficult to assess, but unquestionably of considerable practical importance .
Only a fraction of the value of offensive operations
can be represented by the numerical decrement
achieved in the enemy's submarine fleet.
There is normally an appreciable effect upon
morale as well . The effectiveness of submarine operations cannot be divorced from the skill and determination of the submarine force's personnel. By
selectively eliminating experienced men, the high
rate of loss reduces not only their overall skill but also
their determination . The submarine's chance of being sunk if it endeavors to attack a certain convoy, for
example, cannot but bear a greater importance to its
crew than to the theoretical strategist . The submarine
crews will accordingly avoid operations which involve high losses to themselves, even though theoretically profitable, unless their psychology includes a
definite suicidal tendency .
From this brief outline is is evident that ASW involves a great many different aspects. The following
chapters will discuss a number of specific problems in
order to illustrate the general principles involved.
The subjects for discussion have been chosen on a
dual basis : first, fox their importance in antisubmarine strategy and tactics, and, second, for their
interest as examples of the methods of Operations
Research .
b This type of comparison can be made most clearly on the
basis of sinking rates, as in Chapter 13 .
Chapter 9
SAFETY OF INDEPENDENT SHIPPING

s was pointed out in Part I (page 2), the subA marine's problem is one of first contacting a ship,
then approaching to a good torpedo-firing position,
and finally securing a torpedo hit. It is appropriate to
break down an analysis of measures designed to increase the safety of shipping into the same general
categories .
9.1
REDUCTION IN SUBMARINE'S
In the first place, anything which can be done to

reduce the number of ships contacted by each submarine will increase the safety of the ships. Consider,
for example, a ship making a trip between two points
through an ocean infested with submarines .
There are D submarines per sq mile in the ocean,
each of which has a sweep rate of Q sq miles per
hour a The length of the ship's track is l miles and its
speed v. Then the expected number of times that submarines will contact the ship is
(1}
To make Na small, D, Q, or l / v must be decreased.

These factors will be considered in turn .
9.1.1
AVERAGE M/V DISTRIBUTION

8
\
~a
Reduction in Submarine Density
One method of reducing the submarine density to

which the ship is exposed is to avoid regions in which
submarines are concentrated . If it is possible to
choose between a route along which there are many
submarines and one where there are few, the latter
is certainly the better . When a fairly reliable estimate
of submarine positions is available, much can be
done by evasive routing to reduce contacts, but such
information is by no means always available. If this
information is not available, a wide dispersion of
shipping routes can be employed, forcing the enemy
to deploy his forces in the same way, instead' of pera The sweep rate Q is defined in Volume 2B, Search and
Screening . Q gives the effective area which the searcher is able
to inspect completely in a unit of time .
2o
=o
~ C>
NO
2CC
av
ABILITY TO CONTACT SHIPS
No = DQ~.
~o
\
4
200
I
ORIGINAL U/8
DISTRIBUTION
(NOV-OEC 42)
U/B DISTRIBUTION
AFTER BEGINNING
OF A/C PATROL
(JAN' FEB 43)
400
600
MILES FROM SHORE BASE
800
1000
FIGURE 1 . Effect of aircraft flying on the distribution of

U-boats iii Gibraltar-Morocco area .
mitting him to concentrate them against a well-defined shipping lane .

In an indirect way, offensive antisubmarine operations serve to reduce D, first, by sinking submarines
and thus reducing their number at sea, and, second,
by preventing them from concentrating in the most
profitable areas. Aircraft patrols frequently can be
used to force U-boats out of the regions of the highest
concentration of ships. As an example of this process,
a graph of U-boat density in the Gibraltar-Morocco
region is shown in Figure 1.
Immediately after the Allied landings in North
Africa, the U-boats were concentrated close to shore
in the region of highest density of merchant ships.
Almost immediately, however, aircraft patrol forced
them to give up the inshore concentration, which
had, no doubt, resulted from a special effort to break
up the invasion . The effect of this change in U-boat
distribution on their expected number of contacts
on ships can be estimated very simply . In any particular region, the expected number of contacts is
N = DU/, X A X Q X Dmlv,
(2)
where A - area of region, DUMB ` density of U-boats,

and Dml = density of merchant vessels. This expected number must be calculated separately for
93
94
curves gives s the sweep width, the values being as

given in Table 1 .
z
z
0
TABLE I . Submarine sweep width in searching for merchant ships.
U
W
w
0
0
r
F
J F-
Surfaced (miles)
Submerged (miles)
mz
m V
O a:
W
CL s
LATERAL RANGE IN MILES

FIGURE 2. Lateral range curves, submarine detection of
merchant ships.
each region and summed . If this is done and a value

for Q of 100 sq miles per hour is taken as typical of a
submarine search rate for merchant ships, then we
would expect about 60 contacts per month by Uboats on merchant ships before flying had forced
them nut, and 30 contacts per month afterwards . It
would be reasonable to conclude that the flying invoivedr had cut the danger to ships approximately in
half .
9~'~2 Reduction in Submarine Sweep Rate

To some extent, aircraft patrol may fail to drive
U-boats out of an area as described above and merely
force them to spend most of their time submerged.
This also serves to make slips safer because it reduces tale submarine's sweep rate . The primary reason for the reduction is the decrease in the range of
detection, though the drop in submarine speed also
has some effect . The submerged submarine is relatively blind compared with a surfaced one, since
visual detection must be through periscope and also
since radar cannot be used very conveniently .
Operational data on the magnitude of these effects
can be derived from the first contact ranges reported
by U. S. submarines . From these data the lateral
range curves of Figure 2 are plotted. The assumption
has been made that there is a definite range at which
contact will be made for each time that a submarine
meets a ship, though these ranges vary widely from
one occasion to the next . The area under these
b Total flying hours were : November, 933; December, 1833 ;
January, 2167 ; February, 2120 .
c See Chapter 2 of Volume 2B, Search and Screening, for a
complete exposition of contact phenomena.
Day
Night
Average
14 .5
9 .8
9.4
4 .2
12
7
The overall effect of forcing the submarine to submerge appears to be a reduction of 40 per cent or so
in the sweep width. We can, then, consider half the
sweep width to be the effective range of contact,
which would be 6 miles surfaced and 3.5 miles submerged . If submarines remained fixed in the ocean,
there would be a proportional reduction in the number of ships contacted by the submarine, but since
the surfaced submarine is able to add something to
its search capabilities by patrolling at about 10 knots,
the speed effect must also be taken into account,
though it proves to be rather small.
This speed effect is treated in Chapter 1 of Volume
2B, Search and Screening. The result is expressed in
equation (5) of that chapter, which allows us to write
the search rate Q of equation (1) explicitly as
N,
4R
Q = N =-(u
(z~ + v)
f"/2
J0
1 - sin- S sin' ~ day ;
sin S - 2-\/uv
2c+ v'
where
Q = sweep rate,
No = expected number of contacts per unit time,
1V = number of ships per square mile,
R = effective range of contact,
u = submarine speed,
v = merchant vessel speed.
From equation (3) we can calculate Q, using tables
to determine values of the elliptic integral involved .
With the assumption that the merchant ships involved make 10 knots, the surfaced submarine 14
knots, and the submerged submarine 3 knots, the results are as presented in Table 2 .
The net conclusion is, therefore, that a submerged
submarine has been able to contact only about half
as many ships as a surfaced submarine and that antisubmarine patrol which forces submarines to sub-
REDUCTION IN SUBMARINE'S ABILITY TO APPROACH SHIPS

Taicti; 2. Sweep rate of submarine in contacting merchant
ships.
Surfaced
Submerged
Submarine
speed
(u)
Range of
Contact
(R)
Sweep rate
(Q)
10 kt
3 kt
G miles
3 .5 miles
150 sq mi/hr
70 sq mi ;hr
merge most of the time has an appreciable effect in

reducing contacts .
Another line along which effort might reasonably
be expended to reduce the submarine's contact rate
is camouflage. Since, however, it is by no means easy
to devise a camouflage which is effective in this sense
under all the varied conditions met with in practice,
relatively little has been done, and operational data
on the subject are not available .
Reduction in Ship's Time at Sea
9 .1 .3
The factor l/v in equation (1) is simply the time

the ship spends in the dangerous region . To keep this
time small, the track length Z should be made as short
as possible and-high ship speed used . The advantages
of high ship speed in this connection are offset, however, by an increase in Q with ship speed. The most
important consideration is length of ship's track in
dangerous waters .
9.2
REDUCTION IN SUBMARINE'S
ABILITY TO APPROACH SHIPS

When the submarine has made a contact, it must
still make an approach to torpedo-firing position
before launching an attack, and it is by no means
certain that it will be able to do so . In a typical
period only 41 per cent of the independent merchant
vessels contacted by United States submarines were
a
N
0
W
m
z
SHIP SPEED !N KNOTS
FIGURE 8. Ships sunk per million miles of track in a

U-boat density of 1 per million square miles, as a function of ship speed.
95
attacked . Some of the remaining 59 per cent were not

worth attacking, but many were not attacked because
the submarine was unable to close to the desired
position for launching a torpedo. The quantitative
importance of the approach problem is made more
evident by an analysis of the effect of merchant
vessel speed on the safety of independent ships, based
on Allied losses to German U-boats.
The Effect of Ship Speed on

Submarine Approach
In order to study the effect of speed, it is necessary
to assign the ships to speed classes and then determine the number of ships sunk in each class and the
overall exposure of each class to submarines . This
overall exposure must take into account both the
total distance traveled by ships of each class and the
density of U-boats along the ships' courses, as indicated by equation (1).
In order to do this a study was made in which the
Atlantic was separated into areas . In each area the
mileage traveled by independents of different speed
classes and the average density of U-boats were taken
month by month. A ship which sails 2000 miles in
waters with one U-boat per million sq miles is exposed to about the same risk as one traveling 1000
miles in waters with two U-boats per million sq miles.
Hence, the exposure for each speed class is given by
the product of the mileage and the U-boat density.
This was done for seven speed classes, covering a
period of 4 months and four areas .
The number of casualties per unit of exposure is
a measure of the safety of the speed class in question,
and this is plotted in Figure 3 as a function of speed.
The sharp decrease in sinkings at speeds between 10
and 15 knots is very obvious. In order to explain this
result the following analysis of submarine approach
methods is required .
If a ship is sighted in a favorable position, the
U-boat may approach either surfaced or submerged
and attack directly. If the U-boat is not in a favorable
position, it has to estimate course and speed and follow the ship until it can close the range or get into
position ahead for a submerged approach . The direct
attack may be called Method A, the attack following
a chase, Method B. Since Method B provides a good
opportunity for tracking and obtaining torpedo-firing data, it is frequently used, a typical procedure
being to track until dark and then attack.
96
Method B requires that the U-boat be able to overtake the ship, namely, that the ship speed be not
greater than about 15 knots (I4 knots appears to be
the critical speed in Figure 3) . Method A, on the
other hand, may be used against ships of any speed,
though the number of times the U-boat is in favorable position will decrease as the speed of the ship
increases. This decrease certainly does not account
for the sharp rise in the curve of Figure 3, which is
due to the advent of attacks made by Method B. A
diagram is helpful in making clear the significance
of these two methods.
In Figure 4, the submerged approach zone and
effective contact range are plotted . The shaded area
drawn to 2000 yd on either side of the ship is taken
as a rough approximation to the zone in which a
submarine has a good chance of scoring a torpedo hit.
Suppose that a submarine which makes contact while
ahead of the ship in the submerged approach zone
can make an attack by Method A with average
chance of success k. Then the crosshatched line gives
the sweep width for Method A attacks. For a very fast
ship, the sweep width is approximately 2 miles, and
increases to about 12 miles for very slow ships as
the limiting approach angle increases. Then the expected number of Method A attacks per million
miles of track in a U-boat density of one per million square miles is given by the length of this line
and the expected number of sinkings is k times as
great.
Assuming that submarine speed (under water) _
5 knots and that k = 020, the dotted line in Figure
5 is a rough graph of expected sinkings by Method A.
For ships of speeds of 15 knots or greater, all observed
sinkings are accounted for, but many additional
ships of speeds less than 15 knots were sunk, presumably by Method B. Either the submarine is enabled
FIGURE 4. Submarine approach zone .
15
0
w 5
z
SHIP'S SPEED IN KNOTS

FIGURE 5. Ships sunk per million miles of track in a
U-boat density of 1 per million sq miles.
to track the ship and wait for a very favorable opportunity to attack or is able to try again after a failure,
in order to attain a high eventual level of success.
For purposes of comparison, calculate the number
of ships that would be sunk if every ship contacted by
U-boats were sunk, using equation (1). If we take the
example previously discussed, a r0-knot ship and
assume that the U-boats are surfaced, then conditions
corresponding to Figure 5 are
D = 1/1,000,000,
l = 1,000,000,
v = 10,
Q = 150.
We have
N - 1/1,000,000 x 150 x 1,000,Q00/10
= 15 ships contacted per million miles of track .
Thus we would expect 15 ships to be contacted,
whereas Figure 5 shows 10 sunk under these conditions. This seems like a rather high percentage, but
it should be remembered that the conditions are on
the whole rather favorable to the U-boat - a slow
ship, unescorted, with little or no air patrol. A faster
ship would be very considerably safer, though the
number of times it is contacted per mile of track
would not be greatly different.
To summarize, then, there are three important
speed classes.
1. High-speed ships - sufficiently fast that the submarine cannot track or overtake them . The sinkings
are low and not greatly dependent upon speed,
though the additional speed of the ship clearly makes
the submarine's problem increasingly difficult .
2. Low-speed ships - so slow that the submarine
can track and overtake without difficulty. Sink-
97
REDUCTION IN SUBMARINE'S ABILITY TO APPROACH SHIPS

Tnat .r~: 3. independent merchant vessel losses, Caribbean Sea Frontier
(July 1942-Feb 1948) .
Month
July 1942
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 1943
Feb
Average
No . of
ti-boats
Average
No . of
independent
M/V
Independent
M/V stork
5.1
6.4
9.0
8.6
5.1
4.0
3.0
1.8
11 .7
12 .6
11 .7
1 1.4
13 .6
11 .1
11 .1
10 .0
16
6
20
9
9
5
0
0
ings are approximately ten times as great as in the

high speed case and are not critically dependent on
speed .
3. Intermediate-speed ships - for which there is
an abrupt transition from the conditions of class 2
to class 1 and whose losses depend strongly on speed.
The critical speed is one approximately equal to
the surfaced speed of the submarine . A change in submarine speed would result in a corresponding change
in the curves of Figures 4 and 5 . With the U-boat
capabilities of World War II, the critical importance
of speed in the 10- to 14-knot range is obvious . Any
measure, such as frequent dry-docking to clean the
bottom, which might give an extra knot or two of
speed in this range would be well worth while for a
ship destined to sail independently through submarine waters .
9'2'2
The Effect of Aircraft Patrol

on Submarine Approach
The important role played by surfaced pursuit and

tracking on the part of the submarine makes it evident that any measure which keeps the submarine
submerged a considerable part of the time will
greatly reduce its chance of converting a contact into
a sinking. Consequently, aircraft patrol, which tends
to force the submarine down, might be expected to
eliminate Method B attacks and greatly increase the
safety of independent ships. The reduction in sinking rate indicated for 10-knot ships by Figure 5 is 83
per cent ; that is, about one-sixth as many ships would
be lost as when surfaced tracking was possible .
Operational data showing a clear comparison between surfaced and submerged operation are difficult to obtain without great differences in time and
U-boat
sinking
rate
Flying
hr from
"Trinidad
210 1
140
60 J
140
8p ~ 115
........
2,400
5,000
5,000
4,700
4,400
5,100
5,000
105 t
90 J100
0 (
0 J
place. In addition, the advent of aircraft flying is

normally accompanied by the start of convoying, and
the effects of each are difficult to distinguish . For
example, the start of convoying would normally increase the average speed of independent ships since
the slow ships would be put in convoy . As a result,
independent ships would appear to become safer.
The type of result which may be obtained is shown in
Table 3, which presents data from the Caribbean
Sea Frontier during the fall of 1942 . The area considered includes the first 120 miles from shore in the
Caribbean Sea Frontier-West and involves primarily
action in the vicinity of Trinidad . As a rough measure of the aircraft flying involved, data on flying in
the Trinidad sector are used . The U-boat sinking
rate (in sq miles per hour) is given by the following
equation .
Sinking rate =
(MTV sunk) (Area involved)
(MTV's in area) X (U/B's in area) X (hr/mo)
(4)
In this case the area involved is about fi00>000 sq
miles.
From a consideration of the first and last 2-month
periods, it is apparent that an increase in flying has
taken place, accompanied by a decrease in the sinking rate . But it is not evident whether the former was
indeed the cause of the latter, and, if so, whether the
Method A and Method B considerations involved
had anything to do with it . When the sinking rate
and flying are plotted graphically as in Figure 6, it
appears that there was a lag of several months between the rise in the flying curve and the decrease in
sinking rate . At the time the increase in flying was
98
6000
4000
o
2000
0
)UL
150
-~
100
TRINIDAD FLYING
HOURS PER MONTH
U/B'S SINKING RATE
IN SQUARE MILES
AUG SEP OCT
1942
NOV DEC
50 a
0
JAN FEB MAR
19x3
FicvxR 6. Sinking rate and flying, by months (Caribbean

Sea Frontier, West).
made, the U-boat sinking rate dropped only slightly .

This suggests that the flying did not cause the drop
in sinking rate directly, but that the increased antisubmarine effort eventually (about January 1943)
caused the U-boats to abandon their offensive in that
area and adopt more conservative tactics. As is evident from Table 3, they actually started to withdraw
from the area in November and were practically all
gone by February . The drop in sinking rate probably
means that the few remaining made much less of an
effort to attack ships than they had done some
months before, rather than that aircraft flying directly prevented them from attacking by keeping
them submerged .
The flying was not, in fact, sufficient to do so, as
can be seen from an elementary calculation in which
we estimate the amount of flying that would be required to prevent surfaced tracking by submarines .
If for example, it is assumed that to deny a submarine surfaced operation it must see a plane and be
forced to dive at least twice a day, the number of flying hours required to produce this effect can be calculated. A sort of sweep rate can be assigned to the
aircraft by supposing that all submarines within 5
miles of the track are forced to dive, and no others
(probably a rather generous figure) . Then the aircraft must cover the area involved 60 times during
the month, a total of 60 x 600,000 = 36,000,000 sq
miles covered. But the aircraft's sweep rate is 2 x 5 x
125 sq miles per hour, assuming an aircraft speed of
125 knots. Hence, the total number of flying hours
required is
X 600,000 - 29 ,000 per month.

Flying hours - sQ
2x5x125
The actual flying recorded is not, strictly, the total
amount in the area under consideration, but the
total from Trinidad . Some of it was outside the area,
and some other flying was done in the area . Never-
theless, the total flying in the area considered was

certainly a good deal less than 29,000 hours per
month and could not be expected to eliminate surfaced operation of U-boats.
Sufficient flying to eliminate surfaced operation
can ordinarily be accomplished only in a very limited
area . In the vicinity of the British Isles, however,
such a situation existed during the last months of
World War II . U-boats operated totally submerged,
using Schnorchel in the most heavily patrolled inshore waters . In view of the densities of U-boats and
ships involved, however, they did not make very
many sinkings. Many factors besides aircraft patrol
were important, and a detailed analysis of the situation would be extremely complicated. It is mentioned merely as evidence that submarines may at
times go to the extreme of totally submerged
operation.
Effect of Zigzag on Submarine

Approach
With respect to the submarine's approach problem the importance of high ship speed and of aircraft patrol to enforce submerged operation have
been discussed. Both of these are effective antisubmarine measures in that they make it difficult for the
submarine to carry out an approach to the ship .
Another measure with the same aim is worth considering: the zigzag . By making fairly radical turns at
irregular intervals, the ships can make it more difficult for the submarine to approach to a good firing
position and to secure good torpedo-firing data . The
net result is that the submarine will tend to be forced
to fire from a poorer position with poorer accuracy
and will therefore have less chance of securing a hit .
At present, however, quantitative data on the effect
of zigzagging are not available.
9.3
REDUCTION IN EFFECTIVENESS
OF TORPEDO FIRE
Once the submarine has reached position and

fired its torpedoes, there are still certain defensive
measures which can be taken to reduce sinkings . Torpedo detectors have been dvised to warn of the torpedo's approach, thus permitting a turn to avoid it,
but they have not been effective on merchant ships.
Ships should be built so as to be as likely as possible
to stay afloat when hit. Special protective devices
SUMMARY
such as antitorpedo nets may be employed. Because

of their extensive use, operational data on their effectiveness are of considerable interest .
To January 1, 1944, 25 ships fitted with Admiralty
Net Defense [AND] nets were reported to have been
torpedoed, with the results given in Table 4.
TABLE 4. Results of torpedoes fired at ships fitted with
antitorpedo nets .
Sunk
Damaged
Undamaged
Nets not in use when

attacked
Nets in use
Use of nets unknown
Of the ships not using nets, 75 per cent of those

fired at were sunk, but with nets streamed only 40
per cent fired at were lost . The chance of being sunk
is still about half what it would be without nets, because some torpedoes either go through the nets or
hit at unprotected ends of the ship . Table 4 above
also indicates that about half the torpedoings occurred when nets were not streamed, so that the ultimate effect is that ships fitted with nets suffer about
three-quarters the losses that they would sustain
without the nets .
These are the overall results, of course, and depend
on the manner in which the nets are used . In the
99
period considered, many of the ships were in convoy

and streamed nets only when attack was considered
likely . Bad weather is also a cause for nonstreaming
of nets . This factor enters into the overall usefulness
of nets.
A serious drawback o net defense is the attendant
reduction in speed when nets are streamed. This
amounts to about 17 per cent . For a 14-knot ship, the
reduction in speed to 111/2 knots increases the danger
to the ship by a factor of about 3%2, if the ship is sailing independently, according to Figure 3. This increase more than overbalances the 50 per cent reduction afforded by the nets ; consequently, their use
would not be desirable in this case. If, however, the
original speed were only 10 knots, reduction to 8
knots would not seriously increase the danger, and
nets would be most desirable for use in submarine
waters.
9.4
SUMMARY
To summarize, then, there area number of defensive measures which may be taken to reduce sinkings of independent ships . Most of them are effective
because they make it more difficult for the submarine
to carry out its approach and attack. The overall effectiveness of these measures is limited, however, and
the most successful defensive measure has been the
use of escorted convoys, which will now be discussed .
Chapter 10
CONVOYING AND ESCORT OF SHIPPING

HE PRIMARY advantage of a convoy system is the
Tconcentration of defense that it allows . Since it is
impossible to provide an escort for every individual
ship at sea, ships must sail in groups so that each
group may be adequately escorted . A secondary advantage is the reduction in number of units at sea for
the submarine to contact, since the convoy becomes
the unit instead of the individual ship . It is convenient to analyze the gain achieved from convoying
in the same three steps as were discussed in the last
chapter: contacts made by the enemy, his ability to
make an approach, and his chance of sinking ships
once firing position is attained .
10.1
THE GAIN IN SAFETY

BY CONVOYING
xo.'.1
Reduction in Number o Contacts

Made by Submarines
The institution of the convoy system results in a

considerable reduction in the number of contacts
made by submarines . The number of sightings made
depends on the number of units present to be sighted.
Clearly, 100 independent ships sailing in a given area
represent 100 opportunities for sighting, while the
same number of ships in two convoys of 50 ships each

offer only two opportunities for sighting. Each sighting, however, gives 50 targets and is accordingly of increased value, as will appear from subsequent sections. This effect tends to neutralize the benefit
derived from grouping, but only to a small extent .
In addition, an increased range of detection tends to
increase the number of convoys that are contacted.
Although the range of detection on a 50-ship convoy
is by no means 50 times that on a single ship, it is
appreciably greater, and some consideration of the
increase is necessary.
Visual sightings, if made on masts or superstructure, will be made at about the same range on convoys as on independent vessels. A large convoy covers
a sufficiently large area to increase the sweep rate
about 50 per cent, as shown in Figure 1, but this is
not a serious increase . Submarines often sight ships
by smoke, however, which may be seen at distances
up to 40 miles. A single ship may make smoke only
a small fraction of the time, but usually there is at
least one ship in a convoy which is smoking, and
smoke becomes very much more important. If b is
the fraction of time that each ship smokes, R1 the
range on a ship itself, RZ the range on the smoke, and
n the number of ships in convoy, then
Fraction of time convoy smokes = z - (1 - U)n
Average range an convoy
`(1 _v),iRl-t-[1-(1-b)n]R,
- RZ - (1 - b)n (R2 - RI) .
For convoys of as many as 50 ships, (1 - b)n is so small
that the sighting range is approximately R2, the
range of detecting smoke. For a plausible set of values
(RI = 4 miles; R2 = 24 miles ; b = 0.10), equation
(1) gives the following average ranges .
Single ship
8-ship convoy
64-ship convoy
FIGURE I . Submarine sweep width on convoy .
100
6 miles
11 miles
23 miles
The submarine's radar will generally detect a convoy at a longer range than a single ship, because the
convoy presents a larger reflecting target . Since, how-
THE GAIN IN SAFETY BY CONVOYING
ever, the intensity of the radar echo decreases very

rapidly with increasing range to the target (normally
as 1/r4 or faster), the increase in range is not very
great. Operational data giving ranges of submarine
radar on large convoys are not available. U. S. submarines have obtained ranges about 35 per cent
longer on convoys of about 3 to 4 ships than on single
ships . Aircraft radar ranges on large Atlantic convoys
have been only 10 to 25 per cent greater than on
single ships . It would not be expected, therefore,
that grouping of ships in convoy would cause a serious increase in the range of radar detection.
The range of sonar detection will be appreciably
increased. The intensity of sound produced by a convoy of n ships is about n times that of a single ship .
On this basis it has been estimated that the range on
a 50-ship convoy under favorable listening conditions
would be about three times that on a single ship .
Under less favorable conditions the ratio would be
smaller .
In order to estimate the overall change in range of
detection, it is necessary to determine the relative importance of the different methods. In general, visual
detection ranks first, because of long range and ease
of identification, radar second, and sonar third. During a period near the end of World War II, for instance, United States submarines made about 800
contacts by visual detection, 300 by radar, and 50 by
sonar. German U-boats have not had as effective
search radar as United States submarines, so that the
importance of radar in U-boat operations has been
much less . These figures would depend a great deal
on submarine tactics : a submarine which spent most
of the rime submerged would make relatively more
sonar contacts . It is thus evident that the contact
range increases with an increased number of ships
but is by no means proportional to it . A fairly reasonable approximation would be to consider the
range as proportional to nli3 . Then the expected
number of contacts made will depend on two factors:
this increased range and the decrease in the number
of units at sea to be detected.
1
N, - N. X n1/3 X
n
N;,
n2/3
(2)
where
N, - expected number of contacts on convoys;
Ni = expected number of contacts on same ships

sailing independently .
101
A change from n = 1 to n = 64 will reduce the number of contacts made on a given number of ships at
sea by a factor o 16, according to equation (2).
This gain by convoying is somewhat enhanced by
the greater ease of evasive routing of convoys . With
a convoy system in operation, there are few units at
sea and it is relatively easy to direct them so as to
avoid known submarines or concentrations of submarines. This would not be so practical for independent vessels. Their number would he too great,
their positions too poorly known, and their communications inadequate . Hence available intelligence
concerning submarine dispositions can be utilized
most effectively with a convoy system .
The decrease in contacts resulting from a convoy
system usually causes the submarines to employ
"wolf-pack" tactics, in which any submarine making
contact endeavors to inform others in the vicinity
and home them to the convoy. For the second and
subsequent submarines, the search is no longer at
random, and the number of contacts made is increased by their additional knowledge . If half a
dozen submarines can be homed to each original
contact, the number of contacts made by each is approximately six times as great as without homing .
United States submarines operating in groups of
about three have made about 1 .7 times as many contacts as those hunting independently.
German U-boats have formed wolf packs as large
as 10 to 20 for some attacks, though their average size
was, no doubt, much smaller . The general procedure
was for the first U-boat making contact to report the
convoy to U-boat control (and to other U-boats) and
then to trail the convoy without attacking, supplying more information concerning the convoy as available, and, when possible, supplying homing signals
to aid other U-boats in closing the convoy . On receipt of the contact report, control would direct other
U-boats in the vicinity to intercept the convoy and
attack it . Thus a group of U-boats would collect in
the immediate vicinity of the convoy, each acting
more or less independently . When a U-boat was in
favorable position, an attack would be launched,
and, after a brief retirement, the U-boat would endeavor to get into position again for reattack . This
procedure would often be kept up for several days
and nights . In this way only a fraction of the total
number o U-boats in the wolf pack would be in
contact with the convoy at any one time, and only a
fraction of them would-be -actively attacking. Never-
102
CONVOYING AND ESCORT OE SHIPPING
theless, the ability to form a large attacking group

when a convoy is sighted is of great importance in
convoy battles, and much antisubmarine effort is devoted to preventing tracking and wolf-pack formation .
10.1.2
Submarine Approach to Convoy
When the submarine has made contact with a

convoy, an approach to within torpedo-firing position must be made . There are two aspects to the submarine's problem: the natural difficulty of making
such an approach, particularly serious when submerged, and the additional difficulty of avoiding detection and counterattack by the convoy's escorts.
The typical convoy being large, slow, and unmaneuverable, the latter aspect is usually the more important . Only in the case of a fast convoy which the
submarine cannot track or overtake on the surface
is there any great difficulty in the approach process
when the submarine is unopposed by escorts.
As was seen to be the case for independent ships,
speed has an important effect on the safety of convoys . A speed sufficient to prevent tracking and overtaking makes it impossible for the submarine to get
into position ahead by an end run, reduces the tracking data which the submarine can obtain, and limits
it to one quick approach and attack . In addition,
high convoy speed makes it difficult to gather a wolf
pack for the attack . The effect of speed cannot readily
be broken down for analytical study, and presentation of operational data on the overall effect of speed
is deferred until a later section. The detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of escorts, both surface and
aircraft, in detecting and preventing the approach of
a submarine to a convoy, is discussed in Volume 211,
Search and Screening, since the screening problem is
simply that of searching for a target known to be trying to approach a certain region . In Volume 2B,
Chapters 8 and 9, methods are described for deciding
on the optimum screening disposition or plan . Consequently, the problem of making such decisions will
not be discussed here . The general method of analysis, however, is as follows.
The convoy is surrounded by a torpedo danger
zone which includes all points from which the submarine has a fair chance of hitting one or more ships
in the convoy (a chance of 25 per cent or greater, for
example) . Ahead of this zone is another called the
submerged approach zone, bounded by the limiting
approach lines on the sides and the submarine's detection radius of the convoy on the front. Any submarine in this zone is considered to be aware of the
presence of the convoy and can approach it submerged. To the flanks and rear is the surfaced approach and tracking zone, in which submarines are
in contact with the convoy but must remain on the
surface to have sufficient speed to approach or track
it. (For a fast convoy this zone also has a limiting
after-bearing behind which the submarine cannot
approach, even on the surface .) These zones are
shown in Figure 2.
The primary aims of aircraft escort are two.
I . To force down submarines in the surfaced approach and tracking zone and cause them to lose contact with the convoy ; and
2. To detect submarines which would enter the
submerged approach zone and prevent them from
doing so . The submarines are to be forced down and
immobilized so that the convoy may be turned away
from the contact and thus avoid the submarine.
A good aircraft escort plan should reduce by at
least 50 per cent the number of submarines gaining
access to the submerged approach or torpedo danger
zones. In addition, tracking and wolf-pack formation
are made very much more difficult.
The chief aim of the surface craft screen is to detect submarines in the submerged approach zone and
take them under counterattack before they can fire
SUB'S DETECTION
//
I
1
SUBMERZONe PROACH
COW
\\
S''N~~
'
l`
TORPEDO DANGER ZONE

SURFACED APPROACH ANC TRACKING ZONE
/
/
--'~/
FIGURE 2 . Submarine approach zones around a convoy .
THE GAIN IN SAFETY BY CONVOYING
torpedoes. In addition, surface craft may take offensive action against submarines first contacted by aircraft and must be prepared to intercept surfaced
approach and prevent tracking when air cover is not
available. Their effectiveness in the latter role is
difficult to estimate . With a normal size convoy, sonar
screens may reasonably be expected to intercept 50 to
75 per cent of the approaching submarines, assuming
good sonar conditions and a normal number of
screening ships.
To compare the safety of a convoy with that of an
independent ship on a theoretical basis, all these
factors should be taken into account quantitatively .
This can be done only in the most approximate sort
of way. The aircraft screen should intercept at least
50 per cent of the submarines approaching, and the
surface craft at least 50 per cent of those not detected by aircraft. Other things being equal, the submarine would be able to carry through less than onequarter as many approaches to escorted convoys as to
independent ships per hundred initial contacts . The
danger of attacking an escorted convoy is great
enough to have an important psychological effect, as
well . A strong escort may deter the submarine commander from even trying to attack. Actually, the
large size and low maneuverability of a convoy certainly simplify the submarine's approach problem
somewhat, and it seems probable that the ratio between the fraction of successful approaches on convoys and the fraction on independents would be
nearer one-half than one-quarter.
10.1.3
Torpedo Hits Slightly Easier

to Achieve on Convoys
Having achieved a firing position, the submarine

still has the problem of securing one or more torpedo
hits. It is evident that this will be easier with a convoy than with an independent ship, since a large
number of targets is presented. In general, the submarine will fire at a particular ship, but may fail to
hit it and hit some other ship instead. A detailed discussion of the calculation of the probability of such
hits is discussed in connection with the mathematical
formulation of the screening problem in Volume 2B,
Chapter 8, A typical example will suffice to illustrate
the principles involved. Consider the case of a submarine firing into a large convoy from abeam as
shown in Figure 3.
A torpedo fired froze 2000 yd abeam can pass
103
FIGURE 3 . Typical convoy disposition .
through several columns. If it is fired at random, its

probability of encountering a ship while passing
through the first column would be 1/800 where l is
the length of a ship in yards. For l = 140 yd, the
chance of a hit in passing through three columns
(5000-yd range torpedo) would be
Probability of hit = 1 - ~i g00}3
= 44Jo,
(3)
If a total of four torpedoes is fired, the expected number of hits is 4 X 0.44 - 1 .76. Since not all hits will
cause ships to sink, it is reasonable to estimate that
1 to 1 i2 ships would be sunk as a result of the attack .a
This is to be compared with a maximum of one ship
in an attack on an independent ship ; an average result would probably lie in the range from i2 to 1 ship
sunk per attack on an independent. On this basis we
would expect the ratio between sinkings per salvo
fired at a convoy and sinkings per salvo fired at an
independent to be not greater than three to one, and,
more likely, about two to one.
It is evident from Figure 3 that the number of ships
sunk per salvo will not depend at all critically on the
size o convoy . If the submarine uses a torpedo of
5000-yd range, it can penetrate only about three or
four columns, so that increase in convoy size to more
than four columns causes no further increase in ships
sunk per salvo. Only with very long-range torpedoes
does this quantity continue to increase after a convoy
size of 10 to 20 ships has been reached .b
a This figure depends on a number of factors, such as type of
ship, distance from land, roughness of sea, etc. The experience
of United States submarines has been that about 40 per cent of
the ships hit by one torpedo sink. This would lead to 1 .76 X 0.40
= 0.71 ships sunk per salvo. Thus the estimate of 1 to 1 V2 ships
sunk is probably too high, if anything, though it may be about
correct for rough weather in mid-Atlantic.
b As a corollary it may be concluded that for attack on very

large convoys, a long-range torpedo would be very effective be .
cause it would have good chances of success when fired into the
convoy at random as a brawning shot.
104

TnaLt 1. Convoy losses in North Atlantic, August 1942-January 1943 .
Convoys
HX (eastbound 9V2 kt)
SC (eastbound 7 kt)
ON (westbound 91/2 kt)
ONS (westbound 7 kt)
'0.'.4
23
24
24
23
Ships
923
991
897
836
Overall Value of Convoying
From these figures a very rough estimate of the

overall gain of safety by convoying can be made . A
typical average size of convoy during the Battle of the
Atlantic was about 30 ships . Transatlantic convoys
were often larger, coastal convoys normally smaller.
For the comparison three factors must be taken into
account.
1. The ratio of contacts made on convoys to those
on independent ships for the same number of ships
at sea, which according to equation (2) is given by
(30)-2i3, or about one-tenth.
2. The relative difficulty of making the approach
to firing position . It was estimated that the submarine
would be successful about half as often with convoys.
3. The fact that sin.kings per chance to fire a salvo
are probably about twice as great with large convoys.
The net effect of these factors is :
Relative loss in convoy = ip X 2 X 2
1
10 .
Convoys
sighted
by U-boat Ships sunk
(4)
This is a considerable gain in safety and is in reasonable agreement with the observed difference in
loss rate given in Part I. The loss per month in convoy was 4 per cent during early 1942 in the United
States Strategic Area, while that for independent
ships was 20 per cent, a ratio of one to five . This ratio
is somewhat less than that estimated in equation (4),
which is surprising because equation (4) should give
a fairly conservative estimate of the gain involved in
convoying. One possible explanation of the discrepancy is the emphasis placed by the Germans on wolf
packs, by which the advantages of convoying can be
largely neutralized . If a pack of ten submarines were
collected on each contact and all were effective, the
loss in convoy, based on equation (4) would be the
same as for independent ships, rather than one-tenth
as great. Thus the operational ratio of one-fifth
8
14
11
11
12
45
29
31
Per cent
convoys
sighted
Per cent
ships
sunk
35
58
46
48
1.3
4.6
3 .2
3 .7
might be interpreted as implying that the Germans

were able to home an extra U-boat to each contact,
on the average . In many cases, wolf packs of more
than two U-boats were formed, but in many other
cases only one U-boat was in contact. The average
number of U-boats attacking each contact would be
two, which can be compared with the number 1 .7
which United States submarines have achieved while
operating in groups (of about three)
It may be concluded that there is no irreconcilable
difference between our theoretical estimate of the
situation and operational data for the period quoted,
which data are typical of operational results. This
overall agreement confirms the belief that convoying
is probably the most effective method of reducing
sinkings but does not prove that the foregoing picture of the mechanism by which sinkings are reduced
is correct . In order to throw further light on the
details of the process, it is necessary to analyze the
operational data more carefully and determine the
effect of factors such as size and speed of convoy and
strength of escort, on the losses of ships from convoy .
A number of such studies are discussed in the following section and are correlated with the rough theory
given above.
10 .2
OPERATIONAL STUDIES OF THE

EFFECT OF VARIOUS FACTORS
ON THE SAFETY OF SHIPS
10.2.1
IN CONVOY
The Effect of Convoy Speed
Speed has a very considerable effect on the safety

of independent ships and might therefore be presumed to have a similar effect for convoys. There
c A figure analogous to the five to one ratio found for independent versus convoyed ships can be obtained by comparing
sinkings before and after convoying in certain regions. The
Capetown and Trinidad areas (both regions of high U-boat activity) give ratios of about six to one and ten to one.
EFFECT OF VARIOUS FACTORS ON SAFETY OF CONVOYS
have been, however, relatively few convoys o speeds

from 10 to 20 knots, in which speed range the outstanding effects are observed with independents .
In order to have for study a large number of convoys with serious exposure to submarines, it is necessary to deal with North Atlantic convoys, whose
maximum speed was about 9%2 knots. Data on these
convoys for the 6-month period from August 1942
through January 1943 are presented in Table 1 . During this period 80 to 110 U-boats were operating in
the North Atlantic and convoy losses were high .
From Table 1 it can be concluded that (1) the effect
of speed in the success of the attacks is quite clear in
eastbound and unclear in westbound convoys, and
(2) that an effect of speed on sightings may be present
but is not strongly indicated. The discrepancy between eastbound and westbound convoys is very
striking and makes interpretation of the data
difficult.
In an attempt to explain this difference, the routes
of a fair sample of convoys (omitting those for ON
convoys which traveled very much to the south because of containing a portion bound for Africa) were
reconstructed . The mean eastbound and westbound
tracks are given in Figure 4. The westbound convoys
evidently have traversed a route some 200 to 400
miles south of the mean eastbound route between
20W and 50 W.
A plausible explanation of the different effects of
speed on eastbound and westbound convoys follows :
Eastbound convoys being farther north received better air cover since aircraft flew from Iceland. Consequently U-boats operating against them had to spend
a larger fraction of their time submerged. The mean
seed of U-boats is therefore less when attacking
105
eastbound than westbound convoys. Consequently

the increase of speed from 7 to 9i/2 knots may be a
critical range and give large loss reduction for eastbound convoys, though not for westbound. This line
of reasoning is confirmed by the fact that aircraft
made 44 attacks on U-boats in connection with eastbound convoys and only 5 with westbound.
What is really needed to make the effect of speed
quite clear is a set of transatlantic convoys all of
which have received approximately the same air
cover. Those convoys which travel a southerly route
in general are not covered, and, as was shown in
Figure 4, this has applied more to westbound than
to eastbound convoys. If we eliminate all convoys
which make the mid-ocean part of the voyage south
of the Great Circle route, the remaining ones should
be fairly homogeneous with respect to air cover and
should give an indication o the value of speed under
those conditions . For this purpose the routes o all
transatlantic convoys from October 1942 to early
May 1943 were plotted out and those which spent
more than half their time (between 15 W and
45 W) south of the Great Circle route eliminated .d
The remainder is shown in Table 2. Stragglers are
included in the figures.
TABLE 2. Losses for convoys on northerly routes .
Number
SC and ONS (7 kt)

HX and ONF (9%2 kt)
of
convoys
Per cent
sighted
Per cent
attacked
36
44
68
68
43
41
Ships
sunk per
convoy
sailing
1 .9
1.3
a For comparison, the data on convoys which spent more than

half their time south of the Great Circle are shown.
Losses for convoys on southerly routes.
SC and ONS (7 kt)

HX and ONF (91/2 kt)
FICURL 4. Average convoy routes in the North Atlantic,

August 1942 through January 1943 .
Number
of
convoys
Percent
sighted
Per cent
attacked
Ships
sunk per
convoy
sailing
8
7
88
86
88
86
2 .9
3 .7
The numbers here are small and actually the fast convoys
suffered more heavily than the slow . It is of great interest that
they were attacked twice as often as those on northerly routes,
particularly since the number of U-boats on patrol in the southerly zone vas less than a third of the number further north.
10&

TABLE 3. Losses for various sizes o convoys, 1941-1942
(North Atlantic Allied convoys-wolf-pack attacks) .
Size of
convoy
0-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55 and over
Average
Average
Average
number of
Ships stank
7
4.8
5.6
6.1
4 .9
9.0
1.8
4.7
1.1
1.1
0.9
1 .2
Number of
pack attacks
number of
ships
number of
escorts
size of
U-boat pack
1
8
1l
13
7
2
11
20 .4
29 .7
38.5
48.3
62 .5
4
6.5
6.8
6.1
6.5
8.0
4
6.5
5.1
5.8
5.2
7.5
The number of convoys is large enough that the

data may be considered significant . There is no difference in the frequency of sightings or attacks, but the
number of ships sunk per fast convoy is two-thirds of
that per slow convoy .
The overall conclusion is that some curve similar
to that o Figure 3 in Chapter 9 obtains for convoys,
but it is probably displaced in the direction of lower
speeds . Air cover tends to cause the critical region of
the curve to occur at slower speeds, and the shape of
the curve depends on the extent of aircraft escort .
The data available are very far from adequate to establish the detailed nature of this curve and its dependence on the air escort provided .
10.2 .2
Average
The Effect of Convoy Size
It might very reasonably be claimed that the effect

of convoy size is the most important phenomenon
associated with convoying; it is, in fact, the essence of
convoying, since an independent vessel can be considered to be a convoy of one ship . On the other hand,
the presence of escorts might be considered the most
important feature of the convoy system, and this
feature will be discussed immediately after consideration of the effect of convoy size.
Several studies have been made of the losses suffered by North Atlantic convoys as a function of size
and, although the losses were fortunately too small to
provide data of unquestionable statistical significance, they lead to some very interesting conclusions.
In the first place, data are presented in Table 3 pertaining to convoys which were attacked during 19411942 and in which the approximate number of attacking U-boats was known.
The striking feature of Table 3 is the constancy of
the figures in the last column . There is certainly no
ships sunk
per attack
per U-boat
attacking
clear tendency for the number of ships sunk to increase with size of convoy . It might be expected that
there would be a natural tendency in that direction
which would be counterbalanced by an increased
strength of escort with the large convoys, but the
figures given do not bear out such a contention . For
convoys of from 15 to 55 ships the strength of escort
was virtually constant, but no appreciable change of
sinkings with size of convoy is observed . Hence the
earlier theoretical conclusion that increase in convoy
size to more than four columns causes no further increase in ships sunk per salvo is borne out by the
operational data . A convoy of 15 or more ships is
apparently large enough that the number of ships
sunk per U-boat attack does not depend on convoy
size . Such would not be the case for smaller convoys,
where we would expect increased size to be associated
with an increase in number (though not in fraction)
of ships sunk . Data on small convoys are available
from attacks by United States submarines on Japanese convoys. For the period from July 1, 1942, to
to March 1, 1943, the results are given in Table 4.
TABLE 4. Sinkings from Japanese convoys as a function of size .
(By U. S. submarines .)
Size of convoy
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11-12
13-14
15-2
Total number
of convoys
No . of M/V
sunk
M/V sunk
per convoy
1222
400
243
174
98
74
33
27
14
15
23
12
7
276
142
103
79
90
47
28
16
13
16
16
19
8
0.23
0.36
0 .42
0.45
0.71
0.64
0 .87
0.60
0.98
1 .07
0.70
1 .6
1.1
107
EFFECT OF VARIOUS FACTORS ON SAFETY OF CONVOYS
1942, to March 31, 1943 . A total of 160 ships was

sunk . The pertinent data are summarized in Table 5.
1 .5
x
U
Q 1 .0
kx
0'e
Z= 0.5U)
J%/%
TABLE 5. Frequency of attacks and sinkings as a function

of convoy size .
(1942-1943, Western North Atlantic.)
GERMAN U/B ATTACKING

ALLIED CONVOYS
Average
Number of number of
merchant attack-days
vessels
per convoy
U.S. SUBS ATTACKING

JAP CONVOYS
20
40
60
NUMBER OF SHIPS IN CONVOY
8.0
FicuRE 5 . Effect of convoy size on ships sunk per submarine attack .
With smaller convoys, there is a definite increase

in the number o merchant vessels sunk as the size
of convoy increases, which is in accordance with expectations . A comparison of the two sets of data is
presented in Figure 5 . The two are not directly comparable, since the sizes of convoys involved do not
overlap and since the effectiveness o escort in the
two cases is undoubtedly different. Nevertheless, the
overall picture of a considerable increase for small
convoys followed by an inappreciable increase for
sizes above 20 ships is quite clear.
So far attention has been devoted to the ships sunk
per submarine attack, omitting the frequency with
which the attacks occurred . From the data presented
it appears that large convoys are much the safest for
the individual ships, since the fraction of convoyed
ships sunk decreases markedly with increasing convoy size . If, however, it were much easier for a submarine to make an attack on a large convoy than on
a small one, by virtue of the greater ease of contact
and approach, there would not necessarily be any
overall gain in the adoption of large convoys. In
order to determine whether the preceding results
give a true picture of the net effect of changes in convoy size, the problem must be studied in more general
terms .
This was done by selecting a fixed region (the
United States Strategic Area east of 50 W) in which
the U-boat activity was high and by determining the
losses suffered by transatlantic convoys in crossing
this area as a function of convoy size. A total of 114
convoys were studied; they spent an average of about
7 days in the area . The period covered is from July 1,
10-29
30-49
509
0.5
0,4
0.5
Average
number of
sinkingsjper
attack-day
Average
number of
sinkings
per convoy
Average
number of
escorts
per convoy
1 .9
2.7
2.3
0.9
1 .0
1 .0
6 .5
6 .4
6.8
An attack-day is defined as a day on which a sinking occurred .

t Sinkings in convoy only ; stragglers are excluded.
Again the losses suffered by the convoys do not depend on size of convoy . On the average, approximately one ship was sunk from each convoy crossing
the region, regardless of its size . Since the convoys in
the 50 to 69 group were about three times as large as
those in the 10 to 29 group, each ship in the large convoys was exposed to only about one-third the danger
to which each was exposed in the smaller ones .
10.2.3
The Value of Surface Escorts
An outstanding feature of the convoy system is the

provision of protective forces, both surface craft and
aircraft . Surface craft will be discussed first. These
antisubmarine ships have a number of functions: (1)
detection of submerged submarines at the front of
the convoy and of surfaced submarines approaching
from any bearing, (2) offensive sweeps to harass,
locate, and put down submarines in the vicinity
which are trying to trail the convoy or get into position ahead of it, and (3) attacks on submarines when
opportunity presents . Escort of convoy is more than
a matter of defensive screening, and the most successful escort group has been the one which prevents
the enemy from ever obtaining the initiative and
launching a determined attack on the convoy . The
conflict between the group of escorts and an attacking wolf pack is one which cannot be simply described but involves the skillful use of radar, sonar,
visual detection, radio direction finding, available
intelligence, and weather conditions, and an avoidance of routine and stereotyped tactics. An endeavor
to estimate the value of escorts on a theoretical basis
108
CONVOYING AND ESCORT OE SHIPPING
would be a hopeless task, but an interesting indication of their importance can be obtained from operational data .
Numbers corresponding to those of Table 3 are
given in Table 6 for 1941-1942 in the North Atlantic .
TABLE G. Merchant ship losses as a function of escort
strength . (I94I-I942 in North Atlantic).
Escort
strength
Number of
pack attacks
Mean escort
strength
Ships sunk per

U-boat in pack
1-4
5-9
10-15
22
51
75
3.4
6 .7
11 .1
0.88
0.75
0.34
The final column gives the average number of ships

sunk in an attack per U-boat present in the attacking
wolf pack . This figure is a measure o U-boat success
in penetrating the screen and sinking ships. The
chief effect of surface escorts might be expected to be
in preventing the U-boat from reaching firing position . In very simple terms we can interpret the figures
(plotted in Figure 6) in the following way.
1 . Assume that in the absence of any escorts the
U-boat can make a virtually unopposed approach
and sink 1 .2 ships. (Earlier it was estimated that a
salvo would sink 1 to 1 .5 ships.) When escorts are
present, their effect is considered to be one of reducing the fraction of cases in which the submarine
reaches firing position undetected, but the number of
ships sunk if it does so is not changed.
2 . The effect of each additional escort is to reduce
the ships sunk by about 0.075 ship, that is, to reduce
the U-boat's chance of penetrating the screen by
about 6 per cent . Apparently, 16 escorts would give
1,5
~az0 1.0
YY
Na
aW
Na
0 .5
0
N0, OF ESCORTS
Ficvxr 6. Effect of number of escorts on convoy losses.
ABOUT 9 MI
CONVOY
RIMETER TO DEFEND ABOUT

30 MILES
FicueE 7 . Zone to be defended by escorts .
complete protection . During the period under study

most attacks were made at night and the sort o perimeter which the escorts had to defend is shown in
Figure 7. If 16 escorts are distributed around this
perimeter, it can be seen that each one effectively
screened about 2 miles of it or, in other words, had
an effective detection range of about z mile on the
U-boats under those conditions (surfaced night attacks predominating; most ships fitted with radar,
but not all centimeter type ; North Atlantic wolf
pack operations) .
It is rather surprising that there is no evidence of
an upward concavity in the curve of Figure 6. It does
not seem likely that even 16 or more escorts could
completely prevent submarines from sinking any
ships, but it does seem likely that the number of
ships sunk would be made very small, perhaps 0.1 or
0.2, for large numbers o escorts . On the other hand,
it may be that the presence of a large number of escorts is sufficient to discourage U-boats from aggressively pressing home attacks. Perhaps they would
consider it too dangerous to attack a convoy with 15
or more escorts ever to try to do so, even though they
might actually have some chance of success. The data
available are sufficient only to suggest this question,
not to answer it . They do, however, show conclusively that strength of escort played a very important
role in determining ship losses .e
The figures of Table 6 are given on a per attack
e This contrasts strongly with the experience of United States
submarines in attacking Japanese convoys, for their ability to
sink ships has not been affected by the number of convoy escorts
present; the only possible conclusion is that Japanese detection
equipment and procedure have been highly ineffective .
109
THE IMPORTANCE OF LARGE CONVOYS
basis, however, and do not take into account the

frequency of attacks. Since surface escorts are often
used for offensive sweeps designed to shake off trailing U-boats and prevent attack, such figures may not
be a complete measure of the escort's value. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine from operational data the ability of the escorts to prevent attack .
One complicating feature is the tendency to provide
more escorts when and where the danger is greatest,
which increases the relative number of attacks made
on convoys when many escorts were present. Actually
the data of Figure 6 may be considered a conservative
indication of the value of surface escorts.
10 .2.4
14
9
SPEED OF CONVOY
FIGURE 8. Effect of aircraft flying and convoy speed.
The Value of Aircraft Escorts
Similar information on the value of aircraft can be

obtained by comparing the losses suffered by aircraftescorted convoys with those sustained by convoys
without such escort. Data are presented in Table 7
for North Atlantic convoys from August to December
1942 . Only the days (and nights following) on which
U-boats were known to be in contact are included, so
that all figures pertain to threatened convoys.
TABLE 7. Ship losses as a function of air escort.
(August to December 1942, North Atlantic).
Ships
Number torpeof days doed
With air cover

Without air cover
38
43
23
75
Average
number
of
sorties
Average
size of
U-boat
pack in
contact
Ships
torpedoed
per day
4
0
4.9
5 .5
0.60
1 .75
Since the days with and without air escort pertain

to the same convoys and are in the same period, with
approximately the same size of wolf pack in contact,
we can feel quite confident that the difference between 0.60 and 1 .75 ships torpedoed per day is actually due to the aircraft escort. The number of ships
torpedoed is reduced to about 30 per cent of the
value that it would otherwise have by the presence of
such escort (an average of four sorties per day staying
about 2 hours with the convoy). This figure, of
course, applies to convoys encountering wolf packs
of surfaced U-boats and must be used with caution.
In addition, there is an interrelation between convoy
speed and the effect of aircraft escort which was previously noticed in connection with analysis of speed
effects. Figure 8 is an effort to present the probable

form of the relationships.
The curves are drawn for various amounts of aircraft escort flying. The general belief is that the primary effect of aircraft flying is to reduce the speed of
convoy for which the submarine can carry out
Method B tracking and approach, because it is forced
to submerge at least part of the time . If we assume

that 24 hours per day aircraft flying will eliminate
tracking even for the slowest of convoys, then the
curves drawn may be taken as representing 0, 6, 12,
18, and 24 hr of aircraft flying per day . The plotted
X corresponds to the data of Table 7 (average speed
of convoy about one-half surfaced U-boat speed, loss
rate reduced to 30 per cent) . Since the point is for 8
hr per day of flying and lies suitably enough between

the 6-hr and 12-hr curves, the operational data can be
considered in agreement with the curves which were
sketched in on the basis of very qualitative arguments . It may be concluded that the curves of Figure
8 give a good indication of the effect of aircraft escort
and convoy speed on . the losses of ships from convoys,
but data available are not sufficient to demonstrate
their exact nature, and they can be based only on
indirect and devious reasoning .
10 .3
THE IMPORTANCE OF LARGE

CONVOYS
It is evident from the preceding discussion that

ships are safest when sailing in large, well-protected
convoys. Although this fact may seem trivially obvious, a quantitative estimation of the overall importance o large convoy size is of interest .
110
For purposes of comparison, consider a situation

in which a total of ten ships and one escort are ready
to sail each day and calculate the losses for three
cases: 30-ship convoys, 60-ship convoys, and 90-ship
convoys. A convoy spends 6 days in the dangerous
region, and a total of 12 hours per day of flying can be
done actually escorting convoys. Convoy speeds are
assumed to be one-half the submarine's surfaced
speed. The tactical situation is presented in Table 8.
TABLE 8 . Comparison of convoy sizes.
No. of ships in convoy

No . of escorts with convoy
Days between convoys
Convoys in danger area
Flying hours per convoy day
Case
II
30
3
3
2
6
60
6
6
1
12
III
90
9
9
18
Correspondingly, a table can be made of the contributions to relative loss rate of each of the factors
involved : convoy size, number o escorts, and extent
of aircraft flying. This is done in Table 9.
TABLE 9. Relative loss rates.
Effect of convoy size [Fig. 5 and eq . (2) ]

Effect of number of escorts (Fig. 6)
E(fect of aircraft flying (Fig . S)
Overall
Case
II
III
1 .00
1.00
1.00
0 .69
0.75
0.50
0.56
0.55
0.30
1 .00
0 .26
0 .09
Thus it may be concluded that ships in large convoys are very much safer than those in small or
medium-sized ones under the conditions o this example . A ship's chance of being sunk in a 90-ship
convoy is about one-tenth that in a 30-ship convoy . In
order to achieve full effectiveness from convoying as
a means of protecting ships, it is of utmost importance to make the convoys large and well-defended.
There are certain practical limitations to the size of
convoy that can be sailed, but these results show that
for maximum safety of ships convoys should be made
as large as possible, larger, in fact, than they normally
have been, even in the Atlantic .
The chief difficulties involved in very large con-
voys are :
I. Increased difficulty of communications within

the convoy . Signals from the commodore's ship must
be passed from one ship to another along rows and
columns, and the passing of visual signals by merchant ships in a large convoy leaves much to be desired. Ships in convoy maintain radio silence, and a
secure system of intraconvoy signaling has never
been available. It is possible that the maintenance o
radio silence may not be justified when the losses
through faulty communication are balanced against
the gains due to evasion of U-boats.
2. Decreased maneuverability of convoy . With
large convoys turns are difficult in any case and the
ease of maneuvering is not a critical function of size .
3. Increased number of stragglers . It may be
argued that a greater fraction of ships will straggle
from large convoys, primarily because of (1) and (2)
above, and, since danger to stragglers is high, this
may seriously increase the losses suffered by large
convoys. Operational data, however, indicate that
this effect is not large, probable because the chief
reasons for straggling are engine breakdown or similax failures which are in no way related to convoy
size .
4. Increased port congestion . To some extent any
convoy system crowds harbor facilities, but the difficulty is increased the larger the convoys are. To the
extent that ships spend unnecessary days in port, they
are not available for carrying cargo and their value is
reduced. The turn-around time iii port is made up
of :
a. Waiting for berths to load and discharge.
(This applies mainly to ships handling dry
cargo, not to tankers.)
b. Discharging and loading.
c. Waiting in the channel fox a convoy to sail .
Period (a) will usually be kept fairly small after the
convoy system has operated for a time but may be
extended if the size of the convoy is increased above
what has been a working average. Period (b) depends
on the nature o the cargo and varies between 2 and
20 days, as a rule . Period (c) averages half the time
between convoys ("convoy cycle"). Hence, an increase
in convoy size will somewhat increase the turn-around
time .
The ultimate limitation on convoy size is thus the
effect of increased size on the time spent in port and
consequent slowing down of the actual transport of
goods. If, fox example, the average ship spends 10
LIMITATIONS ON CONVOYING
days at sea and 15 days in port for an average convoy

size of 30 ships, but 20 days in port for a convoy size
of 90 ships, the increase in convoy size reduces the
rate of cargo transport by 20 per cent . This is equivalent, as far as cargo carrying capacity goes, to an
immediate sinking of 20 per cent of the ships involved and cannot be tolerated except in cases where
the expected number of ships saved by the increase
in convoy size is comparably great.
10.4
z -0
It has been shown that a convoy system greatly increases the safety of ships at sea, especially if convoys
are large and well protected. The gain is accompanied, however, by a loss in cargo carrying capacity
of the ships available, and convoying is by no means
universally desirable. There are two main ways in
which convoying slows down cargo transport: the
increased time spent in port and a decreased speed
of ship which results in increased time spent at sea.
An analysis of United States coastal trade convoys
was made, using the ships at sea during June 1943 as
a sample . It `vas found that on the average a convoyed ship spends 43 per cent of its time in port and
57 per cent at sea. Of the time in port, 46 per cent is
spent in waiting for convoys to form . Of the time at
sea, 19 per cent could be saved by allowing the vessels
to proceed independently at their rated loaded
speeds . Consequently, if all these ships were routed
independently, the same amount of goods could be
transported within the shipping system in 69 per
cent of the time required with convoys (which were
rather small and had a cycle of about 5 days) . Hence,
the cargo carried by the convoyed ships was only 69
per cent of what could have been carried by them if
they had been sailing independently.
Suppose, however, that the ships are routed independently in order to speed transport. The number
of ships sunk per month is increased, and fewer ships
are available. By the time that 31 per cent of the
ships have been sunk, the situation would no longer
appear favorable. The cargo carried per month by
convoyed ships and independent ships would be as
shown in Figure 9. (Loss rates assumed are 4 per
cent per month at sea for convoys, 20 per cent for
independents ; convoyed ships at sea 57 per cent of
the time, independents, 67 per cent .) After about 3
months, convoying begins to pay dividends in terms
of greater cargo carrying capacity .
75
z
o Cr w
~aa:
>. CL
W-z
_QQa
JV
W
a
LIMITATIONS ON CONVOYING
111
SHIPS IN CONVOY
50
INDEPENDENT SHIPS
25
5
10
15
TIME IN MONTHS FROM START OF M/V LOSSES
FicuxE 9. Cargo carrying capacity of ships during submarine offensive .
In deciding on the desirability of convoying, however, the total cargo carried is the chief item of interest . After 3 months the independent ships would
still have carried more cargo because they had a considerable initial advantage. It would not be until
after about 6 or 7 months that the convoyed ships
would have the larger total. This total is plotted in
Figure 10.
Thus the overall value of convoying in any particular situation depends on how much longer the
war is going to last, among all other things . For the
conditions represented by Figure 10, independent
ships would produce the best result as long as the
war was not likely to last more than 7 months,
4
N
z
w
g
w
0
5
10
15
TIME IN MONTHS FROM START OF M/V LOSSES
FccuxE 10 . Total cargo carried,
112
whereas convoying would be desirable in a longer

war. In addition, the bad effects of failing to convoy
in the latter case appear somewhat more serious than
the bad effects of convoying when one should not do
so, which may be reason for advocating a generally
conservative procedure. The overall conclusion is,
then, that convoying is a powerful method for protecting ships, but that it should not be applied unless
the seriousness of the enemy's submarine offensive
and the probable duration o the war justify it. If
the danger from submarines is fairly great, then large
convoys should be formed .
Chapter I I
ATTACKS BY SURFACE CRAFT

HEN AN ANTISUBMARINE ship or aircraft makes
W contact with a submarine, an attack is nor-
mally made in order to sink or damage it . During

escort operations, "embarrassing," or "urgent," attacks may also be made whose chief purpose is to
frighten the submarine crew and prevent it from
pressing home its attack on the convoy . This type of
attack will not be considered in the following discussion, since its value is largely psychological and cannot readily be evaluated in quantitative terms. The
so-called deliberate attack, on the other hand, aims to
destroy the submarine, and this aim can be expressed
mathematically . In designing attack weapons and
tactics the objective is to make the probability of
destruction a maximum. The problems which arise
in doing so will now be analyzed .
11 .1
GENERAL STATEMENT OF
PROBLEM
As is true in the other aspects of antisubmarine

warfare [ASW] discussed in the previous chapters,
the basic principles of attack are simple to describe .
It is only when these principles are examined in more
detail that complicated problems arise. So before
passing to the details of the attack consider the overall picture of a surface craft attack against a submarine, first in terms of an a priori analysis and then in
terms of an a posteriori analysis of operational results. These two points of view will also be employed
in the later detailed discussion .
1'.' .i
FIGURE I. Stern-dropped attack .
is to "localize" the submarine, i.e ., to determine its

range and bearing from the attacking ship . On the
basis of continuing range and bearing data, the submarine must then be "tracked" in order to determine
its course and speed. Sometimes this is done explicitly
by plotting positions, but more often it is done implicitly .a Finally, the attacking ship must maneuver
into a position such that when it launches its explosives they will reach a point beneath the surface at
the same time as the submarine reaches that point.
Figure 1 illustrates a typical attack in which the barrage is laid off the stern and to the quarters of the
attacking ship, and Figure 2 illustrates an attack in
Theoretical Analysis
From the theoretical point of view we are interested primarily in attacks against submerged sub-,
marines, though an antisubmarine action often involves gunfire or ramming when the submarine is
surfaced. The submarine may have been detected on
the surface initially, or it may have been forced to
the surface by previous attacks. In either case the
ensuing action on the surface is little different from
any other surface action and needs no consideration
here .
When the presence of a submerged submarine has
been detected by sonar, the initial step in the attack
FIGURE 2. Ahead-thrown attack.

a Standard doctrine presented in FTP 223A for the use of
cut-on technique and range recorder is an example of an implicit tracking procedure. Range rates, recorder traces, and
changes in bearing are used to give rules for carrying out the
attack . The antisubmarine attack plotter, on the other hand, is
a device for explicit tracking, since it presents a geographic plot
of submarine motion .
113
114
which the explosives are thrown ahead of the attacking ship . These explosives may be activated by contact fuzes as in the case of Mousetrap or Hedgehog
projectiles; by proximity fuzes, as in the case o Mk 8
and Mk 14 depth charges; or by depth fuzes, as in the
case of conventional depth charges or "Squid ." If the
attacks illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 are to be successful, the charges must explode sufficiently close to the
submarine either to rupture its pressure hull and
cause immediate sinking or to damage the hull sufficiently to force it to the surface where it can be sunk
by gunfire or ramming.
"~~~2
Operational Studies
Theoretical investigations usually involve a detailed analysis of the attack problem, but this is not
possible in the case of studies based on operational
data because of the nature of the information available . The primary source of data for operational
analysis is the action report prepared by each vessel
which has made an attack . All attacks made on the
same submarine during a more or less continuous
engagement are grouped as one incident, whose results are assessed by the appropriate committee. The
assessments are graded A to J as follows.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
T.
Known sunk .
Probably sunk.
Probably damaged, possibly sunk .
Probably damaged.
Probably slightly damaged.
Insufficient evidence of damage.
No damage .
Presence of submarine uncertain.
Target attacked not a submarine.
Insufficient evidence to assess .
Assessments of this type have a number of limitations as a measure of the success of the attack. In the
first place, there is often some uncertainty as to
whether the target attacked really was a submarine .
If the submarine is not seen at any time, it is difficult
to resolve this uncertainty on the basis of sonar data,
and many attacks must consequently be assessed H.
The usual solution is to eliminate from any analysis
all attacks assessed H, I, or J . This is by no means a
perfect solution, however, for a submarine is probably present in a considerable number of H attacks.
Assessment of damage is also somewhat uncertain
since debris and other visible evidence may not in
any particular case give a very accurate indication of

the actual damage inflicted on the submarine. For
purposes of analysis the assessments are usually
grouped in the following categories .
Sunk
A, B
Damaged
C, D, E
Undamaged
F, G
Nonsubmarine H, I, J
As shown in Appendix I, the total number of A and
B assessments did actually correspond closely to the
total enemy submarine losses during World War II .
The other data concerning the attack are often less
reliable than the assessment . The submarine's behavior is completely unknown, as a rule, and data
from the attacking ship are likely to be undependable. Ranges, bearings, and times are recorded in the
heat of battle or later from memory, and in either
case are likely to be inaccurate (if they are, in fact,
recorded at all) . For this reason the recorded data
cannot be used as a basis for a reconstruction of the
attack with any high hopes of accuracy . Even in practice attacks, where the data are taken more carefully
and submarine maneuvers are known, it is almost
impossible to determine within a reasonable margin
for error how close the barrage came to the submarine without some special device for doing so . The
detailed course of events during an attack on any
enemy submarine can rarely be determined, so that
operational analysis consists of evaluating statistically the effect o different changes in conditions or
methods of attack on the overall success as embodied
in the incident assessment . Results of such operational studies can then be compared with those of
theoretical investigations based on a detailed consideration of the factors influencing probability of success . In order to do this the importance of some of
these factors must first be indicated.
11 .2
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF
FACTORS DETERMINING THE
SUCCESS OF ATTACKS
The factors determining the probability o success

in an attack can be grouped in two general categories : attack errors on the one hand and weapon
lethality on the other . The first problem encountered
in examining the attack errors in detail is the estimation of errors involved in localization . Ranges and
bearings on the submarine are obtained by sonar,
FACTORS DETERMINING THE SUCCESS OF ATTACKS
which is subject to certain disturbances and limitations. In the first place, echoes are obtained not only
from the submarine but from its wake, from water
disturbances caused by previously exploded charges,
from the wakes of surface vessels, from the ocean
floor (in shallow water), and occasionally from the
surface of the water. A good sonar operator is not
easily led into thinking that these spurious echoes
originate from the submarine itself, but it is inevitable that a certain amount of error and confusion
creeps into range and bearing information. In addition, an inexperienced sonar operator may easily
mistake a false target for the submarine and hence
bring about an attack which is wholly futile . An indication of the importance of such mistakes is given
by Table 1 which shows the frequency of errors in
practice ahead-thrown attacks made at sea on "tame"
submarines . It will be noted that the percentage of
attacks on false targets is considerable even when an
actual submarine is known to be in the immediate
vicinity .
TABLE I . Attacks on false contacts in practice attacks
Area
Bermuda
Guantanamo
Key West
Key West
New London
San Diego
San Diego
Total
Type
attacks
Hedgehog
Mousetrap
Hedgehog
Mousetrap
Mousetrap
Hedgehog
Mousetrap
Number
on
submarine
Number
not on
submarine
Percentage
not on
submarine
64
59
170
575
32
86
162
18
10
40
259
8
13
22
22
14
19
31
20
13
12
1148
370
24
Even assuming the contact to be on the submarine

(or on some wake disturbance near and moving with
the submarine), errors in sonar data are by no means
negligible . Figure 3 shows how errors in range and
bearing may be introduced by the submarine's wake,
as an example. It has been estimated that the average
overall bearing errors are about 2 degrees if BDI
(bearing deviation indicator involving lobe comparison for accurate bearings) is used and 4 degrees and
5 degrees if cut-on bearing procedures are used . The
probable range error under the same conditions has
been taken as r 1 yd . These estimates include a normal amount of wake echo and other errors usual in
sonar operation. These errors are, of course, dependent on sonar conditions and sea state. When sound
115
FIGURE 3. Errors introduced by wake echo .
conditions are bad, the sonar operator is somewhat

more likely to snake errors . Roll and pitch of the
ship in high seas introduce errors for several reasons.
Present sound gear is not stabilized, so that violent
roll and pitch introduce errors in the bearing recorded and also make it difficult for the operator to
keep the projector trained on the target. In addition,
operator efficiency is reduced when the operator is
training the gear with one hand, holding on to the
bulkhead with the other, and combatting seasickness
at the same time . The importance of such factors can
hardly be determined theoretically, but operational
data on the overall effect of these variables will be
presented in a later section.
One of the most serious limitations on sonar information is the minimum range at which it can be
obtained . Figure 4 illustrates the reasons for this
minimum range with present United States sonar.
Because of the limited depression angle of the sound
beam, the submarine can pass under it . This causes
the ship to conduct the final part o a stern-dropped
attack after contact with the target has been lost .
Table 2 gives the average range of lost contact in attacks by United States surface craft. The increase of
SOUND BEAM
MINIMUM RANGE
FIGURE 4 . Minimum range on a deep submarine.
116
TABLE 2. Lost contact ranges .
Period
July
Jan
Aug
Mar
1942-Dec 1942
1943-July 1943
1943-Feb 1944
1944-May 1945
Average range at which

sonar contact was lost
176
192
223
279
yd
yd
yd
yd
average range reflects the increase in average depth of

submergence of U-boats when attacked .
The maximum sonar range is also of importance,
primarily in regaining contact for repeated attacks.
If the maximum range is less than about a thousand
yards, the attack is made difficult because the attacking ship cannot maneuver freely and remain in contact with the submarine. For greater ranges, however, maximum range has little effect on the accuracy
of attack .
Sonar ranges and bearings, such as they are, must
be used in endeavoring to place the explosives so that
they will arrive at a point beneath the surface at the
same time the center of the submarine arrives at that
point. How is this placement to be made, and how
much in error will it be?
The most important factor in this problem is the
"blind time," defined as the time elapsed between
reception of the last useful information concerning
the submarine's position and the arrival of the explosives at the predetermined depth. In the case of
ahead-thrown attacks the barrage is usually fired before contact is lost, making the blind time simply the
time of flight of the charges plus the time required
for them to sink to the proper depth. For a sterndropped attack the blind time is usually about a
minute or more ; for an ahead-thrown attack it may
be as little as 15 sec. Since these are long enough for
the submarine to move a considerable distance, it is
necessary for the conning officer on the antisubmarine ship to estimate this movement and allow for it
in placing his barrage. Figure 5 shows the tracks of
ship and submarine in a typical depth-charge attack
and indicates the necessity for taking the blind time
into consideration . In this case 50 seconds elapse between loss of contact and explosion of the depth
charges. It is necessary for the conning officer to track
the target from time 0 sec to time 40 sec, determine
its course and speed, either implicitly or explicitly,
and then, on the basis of this information, determine
where it will be at time 90 sec.
FicuxE 5 . Plot of typical attack (figures give time in

seconds) .
In carrying out an attack the conning officer does

not know the submarine's motion beforehand but
must infer it from sonar range and bearing data .
Normally this tracking is done implicitly as ranges
are plotted on the sound range recorder in such a way
as to allow rapid determination of the rate of change
of range. From this information the recorder computes the time to fire the barrage. To determine the
course which should be steered in order to place the
charges at the proper point, the conning officer ordinarily observes the rate of change of bearing and
applies lead angle according to simple rules. Frequently, however, the attack is carried out by watching the plot of the attack furnished by the antisubmarine attack plotter. In this case a plot quite similar
to that of Figure 5 is presented. The conning officer
estimates the geographical position o the submarine
at explosion tune (90 sec in Figure 5) and steers his
ship accordingly. Here tracking is quite explicit .
Now, errors in placing the barrage of explosives in
the attack are intimately related to blind time,
method of tracking, and sonar errors . Figure 6 is a
simplified illustration of this relationship . Suppose
we have tracked the submarine from point A to point
B, at which point we lose contact with it. Because of
the sonar errors the submarine will probably lie
within a distance e of point B at the time o lost contact, where e is the probable errorb in location . Furthermore, because of these sonar errors the exact
b The rule of combination of errors used in equation (I) is
consistent with the normal usage of the term probable error,
but Figures 6 and 7 are not. They should be considered as illustrations only, not exact diagrams .
11'r
EVASION ERROR AREA
APPROACH ERRORS
ESTIMATED
APPROACH
ERRORAREA
COURSE OF
SUBMARINE
g t2_I
2 cy~-
~a~2
2
L1 a
~o sty
TURNING RADIUS OF SUBMARINE
FIGURE 6. Diagram of attack errors.
Ficvcx-. 7. Attack and evasion errors .
course and speed of the submarine at point B are not

known. Suppose that the probable error in course
estimation is Aa and the probable error in speed
estimation is Ds. Now suppose that we estimate
C to be the point at which the submarine and
the barrage will arrive simultaneously, that is, the
point of explosion of the charges. Then the blind
time t, is the time required for the submarine to
travel at its estimated speed from B to C. Because of
the errors involved, the submarine is not likely to be
at point C at the time the charges arrive there, but
probably will be somewhere within the shaded area
around C. The probable error in the attack (the
typical distance between the center of the barrage
and the center of the submarine at the time of explosion) will be approximately proportional to the
square root o the area . If the blind time were longer
so that D was the estimated point of explosion, the
shaded area would be larger, and hence the probable
error of the attack would be larger . It is apparent
from Figure 6 that the area within which the submarine lies is approximately proportional to the square
of the blind time and, therefore, that the probable
error in the attack is approximately proportional to
the blind time.
In Figure 6, however, we have assumed that during the blind time the submarine maintains the same
course and speed it had at point B where contact was
lost. In this case the error in the attack is called the
approach error. Unfortunately, submarines can and
do change their course and speed very considerably,
giving rise to an evasion error as well. Figure 7 is,
therefore, a more realistic picture of the area within

which the submarine may lie after a blind time t,
This area, it will be noted, is made up of two parts,
one of which is the approach area o Figure 6, the
other an evasion area dependent on the turning circle
of the submarine, its acceleration a and the blind time
t, This second area measures the submarine's evasive
capabilities and increases in size approximately as
the cube of the blind time . The total shaded area in
Figure 7 represents the total plan error in placing the
barrage. If the three sources o error are assumed to
be independent, the effective area in which the submarine may be is written as in equation (1),
A - k12 -F k,' (vt)= -I- k32 (vt)3,
on the assumption that errors in estimating submarine velocity are proportional to the velocity. A
more complicated assumption would replace the
term with other powers of v, not greatly altering the
dependence of A on v. The k's are constant, v is the
submarine speed, and t is the blind time . To calculate the values of the k's from physical characteristics
of the gear which is used is an involved process, and
therefore we will merely consider them as empirical
constants.
Analysis of experimental data derived from practice attacks at sea and on the attack teacher has
shown that the distribution of attack errors is in most
cases similar to a Gaussian distribution . For purposes
of calculation, therefore, it is frequently assumed
that the attack error distribution is, in fact, Gaussian .
118
TABLE 3 . Errors in practice attacks.
Example
number
Type o
attack
Reported
by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Stern-dropped
Ahead-thrown
(Hedgehog)
ASDevLant
ASDevLant
ASDevLant
ASDevLant
ASDevLant
ASDevLant
ASDevLant
COCTLant
CIT
Method
of attack
Attack
Attack
Attack
Attack
Attack
Attack
At sea
At sea
At sea
teacher
teacher
teacher
teacher
teacher
teacher
Submarine
course
Submarine
speed
(knots)
Average
range
of lost
contact
(yards)
Sinking
time
(seconds)
Average
attack
error
(yards)
Straight
Straight
Straight
Straight
Highly evasive
Evasive
Evasive
Highly evasive
Evasive
0
3
5
7
5
7
About 3
About 5
About 3
200
200
200
200
200
200
Less than 100
Over 100
Not lost
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
12*
55
91
99
124
117
152
55
1'10
41
Includes time of flight.
Equation (1) indicates that the corresponding probable error would be given by
EZ = Kl2 -t- K22(vt)2
where
+ K32(71t)3
(2)
E = radial probable error of attack,

v = submarine speed,
t = blind time,
Kl, K2, K3 = empirical constants.

Equation (2) must be considered as an approximate
expression in which the coefficients vary widely according to the evasive capabilities of the submarine
and the tracking capabilites of the antisubmarine
ship . The important point is merely that the attack
error increases rapidly with increasing blind time, so
that the chief problem in improving the effectiveness
of antisubmarine attack is that of reducing the blind
time .
The probable error E described above is a horizontal or plan error only. A vertical or depth error is also
present in most attacks because o uncertainty as to
the depth of the submarine. Very few United States
ships have been fitted with depth-determining sonar,
and consequently errors in estimation of depth have
been large. A rough estimate is given by the range at
which contact is lost, but it is not at all reliable .
Means of reducing the depth error are, therefore, of
very great importance .
Having considered the various sources of attack
error, we must now determine what the overall magnitude of the error E is under some typical conditions . It is not possible to determine attack errors
from operational data, since we do not have sufficiently detailed data concerning attacks on enemy
submarines . There is, however, a fairly considerable
amount of data available from practice attacks where
records are sufficiently complete . Two sources are
available. One consists of the runs made on the attack
teacher, which is a mechanical device for reproducing the conditions of an attack at sea ; the other, of
practice attacks made at sea against friendly submarines. 'fable 3 presents representative data from both
sources. In all these attacks the depth of the submarine was known, so that only plan errors are involved .
The first conclusion which can be drawn from
Table 3 is that the attack errors increase with increasing submarine speed, other things being equal.
This is shown by comparison of examples 1, 2, 3, and
4. There are a number of reasons for this increase .
The distance traveled by the submarine in the blind
time is increased by higher speed, so that the shaded
areas shown in Figures 6 and 7 are larger for higher
speeds . In addition the average blind time is increased because the majority of attacks end with the
submarine heading away from the ship, in which case
high submarine speed results in a low rate of closing
the range. Finally, attack on a high-speed submarine
may require somewhat more difficult maneuvering by
the attacking ship.
Examples 5 and 6 show somewhat greater errors
than do examples 3 and 4 because of the submarine's
evasive maneuvers, but the difference is not so large
as might be expected . In these attacks however, the
nonevasive attacks were mixed with the evasive ones
so that the conning officer diet not know ahead of
time whether the submarine would evade or not. In
such a case erroneous indications of evasive maneuvers are frequently acted upon and the charges
dropped in the evasion area of Figure 7 rather than
in the approach area . Thus an evasive error exists, in
effect, whether the target actually evades or not, as
long as it has evasive capabilities which the attacker
thinks it might use. The errors given in examples 1
to 6 can, however, be well represented by an equation
of the same type as (2), namely,
E=
602 + 244v2 -I- 22v3 .
(3)
This is done in Figure 8, and it is observed that the

agreement is good.
Examples 7 and 8 show the large effect of training
on the accuracy of attack . The short lost contact
ranges and low speed involved in example 7 would
lead one to predict an error of about 75 yd on the
basis of the curves in Figure 8. The small observed
error, 55 yd, probably indicates exceptionally high
skill on the part of this ASDevLant team . In the case
of example 8, the expected error would be about 115
yd for a 5-knot submarine, but the actual probable
error was 170 yd . This effect might be expected, since
crews in the training at COTCLant were probably a
good deal less skillful than the ASDevLant teams,
because of less training and experience .
Of particular importance is the figure for aheadthrown attacks in example 9. The error given, 41 yd,
119
is less than that for stern-dropped attacks on a stationary submarine in example T . It is reasonable to
conclude that the errors involved are those of locating the submarine-the term Ki-and that the blind
time for these ahead-thrown attacks is short enough
largely to eliminate submarine evasion error and prediction error (the K3 and K2 terms) .
So much for the attack errors . We are not interested in them for their own sake, but only for their
effect on the probability of success in an attack . The
next step is to determine the probability of a barrage
launched in an attack proving lethal to the submarine . In order to calculate this probability of lethality
or "effectiveness," both the attack errors and the
characteristics of the barrage itself must be taken into
account.
11.2.1
Weapon Lethality
The method of taking the characteristics of the

barrage into account can best be made clear by an
example. Suppose we are dealing with a depthcharge barrage such as the one shown in Figure 9.
I a depth charge explodes immediately alongside of
the submarine, it will undoubtedly make a large hole
in the pressure hull and almost surely sink it . If the
depth charge is many miles away, it will cause no
damage . The transition between these two situations
is probably a gradual one with a considerable region
in which an exploding depth charge may sometimes
cause the submarine either to sink or to surface and
may sometimes fail to do so, depending on the
strength of the particular submarine and on the
morale and skill of its crew .
DIRECTION OF MOTION OF SHIP
M
O
K
2
K
K
W .
Aft
40 YDS
SUB SPEED IN KNOTS
FIGURE S. Probable attack errors (Table 3, examples

1 to 6) .
Ilk
FIGURE 9 . Seven-charge depth-charge pattern (hypothetical) .
120

3(
H
z
21
N
O
Q
Q
Q
2
W ~~
J
Ficuxr: 11 . Commanded volume for hypothetical barrage .
100
200
300
POUNDS OF EXPLOSIVE
400
FIGURE 10 . Comparison of lethal radii of Torpex 2 and

TNT (%-in. HTS hull).
Experimental evidence suggests that the pressure

hull will be split if the charge explodes within a certain lethal radius of it. The lethal radius depends on
the weight and type o explosive and on hull thickness, but its exact determination is difficult. The
ideal method of determination would involve actual
tests against enemy submarines, but this is rarely
possible and most tests are made on models . In Figure 10 curves showing the lethal radius for TNT and
Torpex as a function of charge weight are given for a
7-in. HTS hull .
Although these curves cannot be taken as giving
exact lethal ranges, it is believed that they give a good
indication of effectiveness against the types of submarines encountered in World War II . In order to
simplify calculations it is usually assumed that all
charges exploding within a fixed lethal (or surfacing)
radius cause lethal (or surfacing) damage and that no
others are effective. For any given position of an exploding depth charge there is, then, a "commanded
volume" which has the property that any submarine
whose center lies in the commanded volume is sunk,
but any other submarine is unaffected .
11 .2.2
Calculation of Barrage Lethality
The actual method of using the commanded volume to calculate the effectiveness of a barrage follows . First, a three-dimensional outline of the pres-
sure hull is drawn around each charge, centered at

the charge's explosion point and oriented at the appropriate target angle (for example, 150 degrees) . An
envelope is drawn around these outlines so that it is
everywhere 21 ft from them (for lethal radius of 21
ft). The results of this construction axe shown in
Figure 11 . Now if the center o the submarine lies
within these commanded volumes of Figure 11, it
will be sunk . Therefore to determine the lethal probability of the barrage it is only necessary to determine
the probability that the center of the submarine will
lie within the commanded volume . This probability
is determined by the distribution of attack errors,
denoted by p(x, y, z), defined so that p(x, y, z)dxdydz
is the probability that the center of the submarine
will be in position (x, y, z) relative to the center of the
barrage at the time the charges explode . The probability P that the center of the submarine will lie in
the command volume is
P = fff P(x,y,z) dxdydz .
(4)
Commanded volume
The integration indicated in equation (4) is ordinarily carried out by graphical methods, working
first with the plan errors, then with errors in depth.
Since the commanded volume varies with orientation
of the submarine, the process must be carried out for
a number of target angles in order to obtain an
average effectiveness for the barrage. The overall
conclusion, however, is obvious-P increases with increase in the commanded volume and decreases as the
attack errors increase .
The commanded volume depends, of course, on the
type of ordnance employed . Suppose that a barrage of
contact-fuzed charges, rather than depth charges, had
121
been considered in the above discussion. The commanded volumes of Figure 11 would then consist of
cylinders having a cross section approximately equal
to that of the submarines and extending from the
arming depth down to the floor of the ocean. In this
case the commanded volume would be much larger
than for depth charges. If depth errors are large, that
is, if p(x, y, z) has an appreciable value over some
two or three hundred ft in depth, this additional
volume would result in a larger value of P-a more
effective barrage for the contact charges. If, on the
other hand, the depth errors were limited to 30 ft or
so, the greater concentration of the depth-charge
commanded volume within this region due to greater
lethal radius will cause the value of P to be larger for
the depth-charge case than for the contact-charge barrage . In general, depth errors are very large with
present United States equipment so that the additional commanded volume of contact charges has
been a point very much in their favor . Like contact
charges, proximity charges cover a wide range of
depth. Their commanded volumes are cylinders of
cross section approximately equal to that of a depth
charge . This being so, the amount of commanded
volume of proximity charges lying within the desired
depth range is always as great as, or greater than,
that of depth charges. Charges equipped with proximity fuzes are, therefore, as effective as similar
charges equipped with depth pistols when depth
errors are small and many times more effective when
depth errors are large.
c A slight correction must be made to take account of charges
that either hit glancing blows on the sides of the submarine and
fail to explode or hit and explode in some position too far from
the pressure hull to be lethal.
Figures for the effectiveness of various types of

barrages are presented in Table 4. The theoretical
advantage of ahead-thrown weapons due to decreased
blind time (and greater commanded volume for
Hedgehog and Mousetrap) is clearly shown. At first
thought one might expect the Squid to be much less
effective than Hedgehog because it employs depth
charges rather than contact-fuzed charges, thereby
commanding a much smaller volume . Squid is used,
however, in conjunction with depth-determining
gear which lowers the probable depth error to a
point where the large lethal radius of the Squid
largely makes up for the Hedgehog's ability to cover
a large range of depths . In addition, the higher sinking speed of the Squid projectile gives a somewhat
shorter blind time . Fox very deep submarines this
becomes important and Squid is considerably the
more effective weapon. It has the extra advantage
that nonlethal barrages may still bring the submarine to the surface where it can be sunk by other
weapons.
"~2~3
Calculation of Probability of
Success per Incident
Up to this point only single attacks have been discussed . Usually, however, an action against a submarine consists of a number of attacks which are
grouped together as an incident for purposes of assessment. Unfortunately for the antisubmarine team,
it cannot always deliver as many attacks as it may
wish . In the first place, contact is usually lost for the
reason illustrated in Figure 4. Contact may also be
lost during an attack as a result of water disturbances
of one kind or another. In the second place, there
TABLE 4. Theoretical effectiveness of antisubmarine barrages .
Weapon type
Submarine depth
assumption
Side-stern-launched Equally likely from

depth charges
10300 ft depth
Side-stern-launched Equally likely from
proximity charges
100-300 ft depth
Hedgehog (Mk 10)
Equally likely from
10U-300 Et depth
Mousetrap (Mk 22)
Equally likely from
100-300 ft depth
Squid
At 200 ft depth with
30-ft standard error on account of
depth-determining feature
Probable
effectiveness
No . of
Lethal radius
Depth pistol
21
Influence pistol
21
24
Fuze
charges
(feet)
(per cent)
Contact
24
Contact
28
Contact
16
Contact
17
Depth pistol
3
or
6
21
16
or
26
122
A'T'TACKS BY SURFACE CRAFT
is never a 100-per cent probability of regaining contact once it has been lost . The formation of wakes,
knuckles, and explosion disturbances often causes
contact to be lost permanently after a small number
of attacks. A well-trained team working in good sonar
conditions will not experience great difficulty in regaining contact, but a poor team working under
poor conditions will find it almost impossible to do so .
The theoretical probability of success in an incident
is thus a function both of the probability of success in
a .single attack and of the probability of regaining
contact after the attack. On the assumption that the
probability of regaining contact after an attack is a
constant, independent of the number of attacks previously made, the following equation can be written.
Pr = Pa -{- C (I - Pa) P. -F C2 (I - P")2 P"
. . . + Cn(l - Pan P"
1 - C-(1 -P.)-F
1-C(1-P)'
where
PI
Pa
C
n
=
=
=
=
(5)
probability of success per incident,

probability of success per attack,
probability of regaining contact,
total number of attacks which can
be delivered without exhausting
ordnance .
Operational data indicate values of C varying from

0.50 to 0.90, depending on the number of ships present, period considered, and other factors. Table 5
presents some typical values .
TABLE 5 . Probability of regaining contact .
Jan 1943-July 1943

Aug 1943-Feb 1944
Single ship
Coordinated group
of ships
0.54
0.68
About 0.8
About 0.9
Since the probability of success per incident is

much improved by an increase in probability of regaining contact, this is a strong argument for the use
of coordinated groups of ships.d
d The interpretation of these figures is open to some question, however, because incidents have normally been classed as
coordinated only when several ships actually attacked the submarine . Gases in which several ships were on hand but only one
released depth charges are not usually counted as coordinated.
This type of selection introduces a bias such that coordinated
incidents may be credited with values of C (and of lethality)
which are higher than those actually obtained in operations .
Although this discussion has presented by no

means all details o attack theory, the main ideas
have been mentioned. Accordingly, it is now desirable to consider operational data which can be compared with the theoretical predictions .
11.3
OPERATIONAL DATA ON
EFFECTIVENESS OF ATTACKS
The data available concerning attacks on enemy

submarines are not sufficiently complete to enable
one to reconstruct the details of each attack . For each
incident (which may involve several attacks) certain
basic information can be obtained as to the conditions under which attacks were made, the weapons
used, the ships involved, and the resulting success as
expressed in the assessment of the aetack .e Most
analyses of operational data therefore consist of
breakdowns to determine the effect of changes in
the conditions or nature of attack on the success as
evidenced by the assessment. Some figures of this
type will now be presented which are typical of the
results obtained from operational data .
11.3.1
Factors Influencing Attack Errors
As was pointed out in the previous section, two

overall factors determine the probability of success
in ate antisubmarine attack : the attack errors and the
weapon effectiveness . One of the variables which is of
importance in determining accuracy is the state of
the ocean with respect to sound transmission . If
sound conditions are bad, the overall effectiveness of
the ships will be reduced. Data are presented in
Table 6 which show that such is indeed the case .f
These figures, it should be noted, are given on a "per
incident" basis. The effectiveness of an incident depends both on the probability of success in a single
barrage and on the number of barrages that can be
dropped in an incident before contact is lost .
e During the course of World War II, this assessment was
based on visible evidence of damage, survivors from the U-boat,
if any, and supporting intelligence . After the German surrender,
however, captured documents have become available to supplement this information, and assessments have been revised. The
data presented here are based on the earlier wartime assessments. See the Appendix and Chapter 8 for further discussion
of this question .
g The figures given are for United States attacks from July
1942 to July 1943 assessed A to G, for which the information
necessary [o estimate sound conditions from oceanographic considerations was given.
OPERATIONAL DATA ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ATTACKS

TABLE 6. Effect of sonar conditions on attack effectiveness .
Number of incidents
Sound
Assessed
Assessed
percentage of
damaging
Good-Fair
Poor-Bad
120
74
27
5
22
7
conditions
A-G
A-E
incidents
Through the combination of these effects, good

sound conditions lead to a larger fraction of submarines damaged or sunk per submarine encountered.
Another source of error and difficulty in localizing
the submarine with sonar is the roll and pitch of the
ship . Present sound projectors are not stabilized, so
that if the ship rolls and pitches violently, the operator has difficulty in keeping the projector pointed at
the target. Much information is lost in this manner,
and, furthermore, rather serious errors may be noted
in the bearings if they are taken at one or the other
extreme of the ship's roll . In addition, general operator efficiency is reduced under such conditions . The
figures given in Table 7 show that such an effect apparently becomes important in seas classed as rough
or higher . (The numbers are too small to give definite
proof.) Moderate seas show no deleterious effect,
however, possibly because smooth seas are likely to be
accompanied by thermal gradients and layering
which cause poor sound transmission.
TABLE 7. Effect of sea state on attack effectiveness .
(U . S. attacks from July 1942-July 1948 .)
Number of i nci dents

State of sea
Calm, smooth, slight
Moderate
Rough and higher
Assessed
A-G
Assessed
A-E
percentage of
damaging
incidents
116
50
13
20
10
1
17
20
8
The attack errors depend on many things besides

oceanographic conditions . The type of ship and
sound gear involved in the attack have a great deal
to do with it, as do the experience and skill of the attackers, the depth, speed, and evasive maneuvers of
the submarine. Concerning the last we have no information since we do not know what the enemy submarine really did in any of the attacks . The type o
sound gear involved is undoubtedly of importance,
but United States experience involved only one gen-
123
eral type of sonar gear . Even variations such as use o

BDI would not be expected to result in a major increase in effectiveness such as would be clearly evident in operational data . A considerable number of
Japanese attacks were, however, made using listening
gear only . Comparison of their effectiveness as estimated from United States submarine experience with
that of echo-ranging attacks is made in Table 8 . The
difference between attacks of the two types is very
striking and must be largely due to the superior
accuracy of echo-ranging gear . The difference between United States and Japanese echo-ranging attacks is probably largely due to differences in skill of
personnel involved, though United States gear was
undoubtedly the teeter of the two.
TABLE 8. Effectiveness of listening and echo-ranging
attacks.
No serious
damage
(per cent)
Major
damage
(per cent)
Jap attacks on U. S. subs

(July 1,1943-March 31,
1944)
Listening
Echo-ranging
99
87
1
12
0
1
U. S. attacks on U-boats
using echo ranging
1943
1944
85
65
10
5
5
80
Submarines
sunk
(per cent)
The effect of training and experience on the part

of the attack team is one which was of extreme practical importance in the Battle of the Atlantic . Perhaps the best example of improvement with experience is a set of figures on the success of Hedgehog attacks compiled by the British. The data are given in
Figure 12 . The rise from an effectiveness of 7.5 per
cent per attack in 1943 to over 20 per cent in late 1944
and 195 must be ascribed largely to training, since
there was no radical change in the type of sound gear
used, nor in the enemy's evasive tactics. The values in
Figure 12 are given on a per attack basis,g unlike
those in Tables 6 and 7, which are on a per incident
basis. Consequently, any changes in the number o attacks made per incident should not affect these
values . The individual attacks made were undoubtedly more accurate in the recent periods than they
g In the analysis, attacks thought to have been made on the
U-boat's wake or made after a kill had already been assured are
not counted. Hence the figures are a fairly pure measure of
weapon effectiveness .
124
30
x
F
w 20
c~ Q
w
U
U
Z
mJ
LLw
OW
~-z3
ZW
0
40
Z
Y
10
X/
ti
--
20
F
Z
W
U
W
a
1943
1944
1345
a
2
FIGURE 12. Success of British Hedgehog attacks .
F-
were when the weapon was new and crews inexperienced in its use.
It is evident that the points plotted in Figure 12
indicate a marked rise in effectiveness to a value of
about 20-30 per cent, in accordance with the theoretical figures in Table 4. In the first months of Hedgehog use, its results were very disappointing, since
earliest theoretical predictions were more optimistic
than 28 per cent . After the weapon had been in use
for a year or so, however, it was used much more
effectively, and theoretical studies were made somewhat more conservative as a result of a better understanding of the problems involved, so that the theoretical predictions and the results now agree.
The effect of experience and training can also be
illustrated by the results obtained by United States
crews in depth-charge attacks during the early years
of the war. Figure 13 shows two curves-an effectiveness per charge and an effectiveness per incident . The
increase in probability of success per incident is obviously greater than the increase per depth charge
dropped. The latter measures the increase in attack
accuracy, whereas the overall figure also depends on
the number of charges dropped per incident . In Figure 13B the theoretical effectiveness per depth
charge is given for comparison with results achieved .
In the early period there was a considerable discrepancy, but the agreement became fairly good in later
periods. The even more abrupt rise in Figure I3A
indicates that larger barrages, greater skill in regaining contact, and more frequent coordinated attacks
contributed a great deal to increase the overall effectiveness of incidents.
10
J
m
Q
1-00
oW
0
z=
UV
Qa
THEORETICAL VALUE, PROM
TABLE 4
CD Z
OY
am
1942
FIGURE
'1'3'2
1943
1944
13 . Success of U. S. depth-charge attacks.
Comparative Effectiveness
of Weapons
So much for the influence of factors having to do

with attack accuracy . The weapon used is also of importance, and operational data can be used to show
the relative merits of different types of ordnance .
The most widespread innovation in the course of
World War II was the introduction of Hedgehog . A
comparison between Figures 12 and 13 suggests that
operational data do bear out the theoretical value of
the Hedgehog attack . A direct comparison is presented in Table 9. There is a training factor which
must be kept in mind. During the early periods
Hedgehog was not used in such a way as to realize its
full effectiveness.
OPERATIONAL DATA ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ATTACKS

TABLE 9. Comparison of Hedgehog, depth charge, and
Squid. (On a per barrage basis.')
125
40
w 30
Period
Nationality
Depth
charge Hedgehog
Squid
1st half 1943
British
5 .4o-fo
.. . ...
......
2nd half 1943
British
4.0)o
i.5Jo
......
1st half 1944
British
6.4%
15 .4%
......
2ndhalf 1944 British
5.1o-/0
2g,loo
1st quarter
1945
18.2% (single)
33 .3 7, (double)
British
7%
23%
62%
Aug 1942June 1944
All
Allied-
4 .0%
Mar 1944May 1945
8 .0%a
. .,. . .
U. S.
4.5%
9 .9%
......
' As mentioned in Section 11 .3.1, British studies discard attack not

thought to be potentially effective and therefore give higher figures
than those based on all attack including some on wakes, bubbles, etc.
t Based on only those incidents in which Hedgehog was used for at

least one attack.
In evaluating the depth charge versus Hedgehog

comparison, it must be kept in mind that Hedgehog
attacks may, on the whole, have been made by bettertrained ships, in better sound conditions, or on shallower submarines, since Hedgehog is not to be used
under unfavorable conditions . In the figures quoted
for August 1942 to June 1944, however, only depthcharge attacks made in incidents which involved
Hedgehog are counted.
In these bases the same ships are involved for both
weapons ancl the general conditions of attack are the
same . The superiority of Hedgehog is again demonstrated, so that it may be concluded that the superiority is inherent in the weapon .
The figures on Squid success are based on a very
small number of attacks and cannot be considered
conclusive . They are, however, even better than the
theoretical predictions, as expressed in Table 4, confirming the high effectiveness expected of Squid.
As an overall conclusion on the relationship between theoretical and operational values for the
effectiveness of various types of ordnance, one can
say that theory gives a correct picture of the relative
merits of the various types and that it also gives a
reasonably accurate picture o their absolute values .
In other words, theoretical studies provide a basis for
evaluating the state of training of antisubmarine
vessels by furnishing a standard to be reached and
also indicate the direction for most profitable development of antisubmarine ordnance .
~ 20
Z
W
10
.
0
2
3
4
NUMBER 4F ATTACKS
FIGURE 14. Success of incidents as a function of number

of attacks (U . S . craft, January 1943-February 1944) .
It has been implied throughout that the probability of success in an incident is strongly influenced
by the number of attacks made : the more attacks, the
greater the chances of sinking a submarine. Operational results prove that this is indeed the case . Figure 14 shows the relationship between success and
number of attacks. It is evident that the percentage
of damaging incidents increases steadily as the number of attacks per incident increases, corresponding
to about 5 per cent damaged in each attack, which
is in accordance with expectations . The percentage
of lethal incidents also rises, a fact of considerable
importance . It might be expected that the mere existence of a fourth attack, for example, would mean
that the previous three had not been lethal, and the
fraction of submarines sunk in cases where four attacks were made would simply measure the pxobaTABLE 10 . Coordinated versus independent attacks .
U. S. attacks, Atlantic and Mediterranean,

Jan 1943-Feb 1944
Number of incidents (A-G, -F JS*)
Number assessed A or B
Per cent successful
Independent
Coordinated
176
9
5
18
3
17
41
5
12
38
21
55
181
16
g
29
6
21
U. S. attacks, Atlantic and Mediterranean,
March 1944-May 1945
Number of incidents (A-G, -!- J5*)

Per cent successful
U. S. attacks, Pacific, December 1941-
April 1944
Number of incidents (A-G, -i- JS .)

Per cent successful
' Incidents are assessed JS when a submarine is believed to have

been present but complete information on the incident was not yet
available at the time of study.
126
bility of sinking in the fourth attack . Figure 14, indicates, however, that lethal damage may accumulate as a result of a succession of attacks. When,a number of attacks have been made, the next is more likely
to prove lethal than it would otherwise. Figure 14
does more than confirm the importance of persistence which was demonstrated by equation (5) . This
equation was based on the assumption that each attack had a fixed chance of success, whereas the operational results suggest strongly that the chance gets
better with each succeeding attack . It may be concluded that regaining contact for persistent and repeated attacks is of the utmost importance .
Employment of several ships in coordinated hunt
does much to assure that contact will be regained a
large number of times, as shown in Table 5. Correspondingly, coordinated incidents have a high probability of success. Some typical comparisons between
independent and coordinated incidents are given in

Table 10 . The coordinated incidents are consistently
at least two or three times as effective as the independenth
The overall conclusions concerning antisubmarine
attacks are simple . For good effectiveness three things
are required : (1) good attack accuracy through
proper design of sound gear and ordnance and training of personnel, (2) good weapon effectiveness
through a large commanded volume, and (3) persistent and repeated attacks with good ability to hold
and regain contact.
b This effect may be somewhat exaggerated by the method of
designating coordinated incidents. If two ships make attacks a
few hours apart on what was probably the same submarine, the
actions involved will be likely to be considered a single coordinated incident if damage is done, two independent incidents if
there is no damage .
Chapter 12
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
12.1
GENERAL STATEMENT
AmENO
OF PROBLEM
DEPTH BOMB TRAJECTORY
HE GENERAL THEORY of aircraft attacks can be apT proached along the lines used in considering
surface craft attacks. Although the details of the two

subjects differ widely, many of the basic theoretical
ideas developed in the previous chapter are applicable in the present one. Furthermore, the general
type of operational data available and the system
used in assessing attacks are the same. As before, we
shall first give a brief overall description of the problem and then proceed to detailed considerations . In
both cases, a priori and a posteriori aspects will be
treated.
Aircraft are greatly superior to surface craft in locating submarines on the surface, but their effectiveness for underwater search and tracking is very limited.,, As a result, aircraft are primarily of value in
attacking submarines sighted on the surface. Many
attacks will actually be delivered while the submarine is still fully or partly surfaced, but the rapidity
with which a submarine can crash dive as the aircraft
closes to attack means that attacks shortly after submergence must also be considered.b
When an aircraft has made contact with a surfaced

submarine (either visually or by radar), it must next
get into a favorable position to make an attack . Since

the target is small, it is necessary to get down to a low
altitude for maximum accuracy . The target will,
however, usually submerge on sighting the aircraft in
order to escape attack, and therefore the approach
must be made in such a way as to obtain the maximum element of surprise and limit, as much as possible, the degree to which the submarine can submerge prior to attack . During the approach the
course and speed of the submarine must be estimated
so that allowance can be made for target motion.
When the proper position has been reached, the aircraft releases its weapons. These may be either
a See Chapter 13 for a further discussion of this point .

b Use of Schnorchel by the submarine will, of course, greatly
reduce the searching effectiveness of the aircraft but will not
change the basic attack problem except to the extent that it
increases the average degree of submergence of submarines
when attacked .
FIGURE 1. Aircraft depth-bomb attack .
rockets or bombs. As in the case of surface craft attacks, the problem is to release the weapons so that
they will reach a point beneath the surface at the
same time the submarine reaches that point . (See Figure 1.) From a knowledge of the characteristics of the
weapons and of the position of the submarine at the
time of attack, it is possible to determine where the
weapons should strike the water to be effective. The
probability of success will then depend on the accuracy with which the correct target position is estimated, on the errors made in placing the weapons in
the desired position, and on the lethality of the
weapons used .
The above factors will be considered in detail in
the balance of this chapter. We shall first give a theoretical discussion and follow with a consideration of
operational results. Since depth bombs have so far
been the primary aircraft weapon against the submarine, operational experience is most extensive for
this weapon . Certain other phases of operational results cannot be discussed at this time because highly
classified information is involved . Hence much of the
following detailed discussion will be confined to the
depth bomb and it should be considered as an example of methods of evaluaton rather than as a complete examination of the subject of aircraft attack
weapons and tactics.
2
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF
FACTORS DETERMINING THE
SUCCESS OF ATTACKS
The factors determining the probability of success

in an aircraft attack can be grouped in the same two
general categories as were involved in surface craft
attacks: attack errors and weapon lethality. Attack
errors, in turn, may be subdivided as follows.
127
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
128
1 . Errors in estimating submarine position .

2. Errors caused by variation in the behavior of
individual missiles .
3. Aiming errors.
12'2'j
Attack Errors
If weapons are released while the submarine is still

visible, errors in estimating target position will be
restricted to misestimates of target motion from the
time of release to the time of impact or explosion
(the "blind time") .,, For rockets such movement of
the submarine is so small that no allowance is ordinarily made for it. For depth bombs, the time from
release to explosion will be on the order of 5 sec or
so, depending on exact conditions of attack, in which
time a submarine can travel only about one-half its
length . It is fairly easy to make allowance for such
changes in target position and errors will be negligible.
On the other hand, if the submarine submerges
completely before attack, there is a longer blind time
and the uncertainty o submarine position will increase with increase in this blind time, in the manner
discussed in Chapter 11 . The effect of a long blind
time will be especially serious in aircraft attacks since
there is no information as to the target's course and
speed except visual estimation, and the barrage which
can be dropped by aircraft is too small to cover radi-
0
N
z
a
w
d
W
J
m
to
N
O
a
N
(J
2
a
m
N
TIME IN SECONDS AFTER SUBMERGENCE

FIGURE 2 . Submarine evasion area as a function of time .
c Blind time has been defined in Chapter 11 .
cal changes of speed and course on submerging. The

expansion of the possible area in which the submarines may be at the end of a given number of seconds
after submergence is shown in Figure 2. This is based
on the turning characteristics of the 500-ton German
U-boat and assumes that speed may vary from 3 to 7
knots. It will be noticed that the possible area remains very small fox the first 15 sec or so and then
increases rapidly until, at the end of 1 minute, it is
about 270,000 sq ft.
From the above discussion, it is evident that attack
errors due to misestimation of target position increase so rapidly with time after submergence that
the probability of success quickly approaches zero .
For Class A attacks, which are defined as those made
on visible submarines or on submarines submerged
less than 15 sec, the submarine's position is quite
well known. For Class B attacks, which are attacks on
submarines submerged between 15 and 30 sec, the
submarine's position has become uncertain. For attacks made still later, the probable error in estimating submarine position has become extremely large.
A priori, therefore, we would expect a much greater
degree of success in Glass A attacks than in others,
the probability diminishing rapidly for Class B and
later attacks. An accurate, quantitative a priori evaluation is not available, but one based on operational
experience will be given later to bear out the above
qualitative conclusion .
The obvious method of reducing errors of the type
just discussed is to reduce blind time, that is, to make
as many attacks as possible on visible submarines or,
at least, on those within the Class A category . It is
therefore important to employ tactics designed to
achieve the greatest amount of surprise in the attack .
Some of the factors involved are speed of aircraft,
correct patrol altitude, approach from cloud cover,
use of camouflage to avoid visual detection of aircraft, and use of countermeasures to search receivers
to avoid detection of radar emissions.,' It is also advantageous to make attacks in locations where submarines are less alert, that is, to surprise them in
areas where aircraft attack is not expected . In addition to such measures, the number of favorable attacks can be increased by avoiding attacks which involve too great a blind time and which therefore
have a negligible probability of success so that time
and weapons may be conserved for possible future
d See Chapter 14 .
129
opportunities against Class A targets. The effect of

all such measures in increasing the proportion of
Class A attacks is somewhat difficult to evaluate a
priori, but we shall show later, from operational experience, the overall improvement which resulted
from emphasis on the importance of prompt attacks
involving the maximum element of surprise .
The second class of attack errors mentioned above
involved those due to variation in the behavior of
individual missiles . In aiming a given weapon, it is
necessary to assume a certain behavior after it leaves
the aircraft. Variations from this normal will, of
course, occur. Depth bombs, for example, will vary
in their fail through air and in their underwater
travel . There will also be a variation in the depth at
which they explode. Similarly, rockets will vary in
flight path and in underwater trajectory. Such deviation will, of course, decrease the accuracy of the attack . Errors of this type can only be reduced by improved design of weapons . Extensive practical tests
and analyses of operational results will often prove
of value in determining the effectiveness of improved
design .
As an illustration of the size of errors of the type
just discussed, the following estimates for depth and
contact bombs are quoted in Table l .
TABLE 1. Variation of individual missiles.
(Aircraft speed 100-200 knots, altitude 50-200 ft.)
Type of bomb
Round-nose U. S. depth bomb
Flat-nose U. S. depth bomb
Contact bomb (Hedgehog or
Mousetrap)
Probable
deviation
along
aircraft
course (feet)
Probable
deviation
perpendicular
to aircraft
course (feet)
17
7
17
7
8v,
Considerations of target position and weapon

characteristics determine the point on the water at
which the weapons must strike to be effective. Errors
in placing them in the desired position may be called
aiming errors . This is the third subdivision of attack
errors mentioned above. Aiming errors are commonly measured with relation to the aircraft's course.
Errors along its course are called range errors, while
those perpendicular to its course are called line
errors .
Line errors are caused by failure of the pilot to fly
in a straight. line directly over the aim point, while
h
a
t
FIGURE 3. Geometry of horizontal bombing.
range errors are due to release of bombs at the wrong

moment, or, in the case of rockets, to improper altitude of the plane at the moment of firing . The size
of these errors will depend on the conditions of attack, on the skill of the pilot and bombardier, and on
the accuracy of the bomb or rocket sight used .
As an example of aiming errors and methods of
reducing them, consider the problem of delivering
an attack with depth bombs. The pilot flies as nearly
as possible straight across the aim point and thus
controls the line error. The problem as far as range
is concerned is, then, to determine the proper moment for release of the bombs. For a horizontal attack, the geometry of the situation is simple . In Figure 3, P represents the position of the plane at
moment of release of the center bomb of the stick, A
represents aim point, h is altitude, r slant range, and
l horizontal range (in feet) . The angle a is the angle
between the line PA and the horizontal. Then, disregarding air resistance, the center bomb will travel
forward a distance V 2h/g ft, where U is plane
velocity in feet per second. Hence correct release will
occur when l = V 2 h/g or r =
K2+ VZ 2h/g or
when a has the value determined by the relationship
tan a = hl l. Hence the aiming problem in range
can be solved for a given altitude by selecting either
the proper slant range, horizontal range, or angle
between the horizontal and line from aircraft to aim
point. Use of r is indicated for radar bombsights
since slant range can be determined by radar. Use of
the angle is involved in using the reflector gunsight which enables determination of this angle. In
addition to the above means it is possible to utilize
the rate at which the angle a is changing, as is done
in the angular velocity bombsight . Whereas other
methods are sensitive to correct determination of
speed and altitude this latter method is relatively insensitive to errors in such factors.
The aircraft will not necessarily make a level approach to the target . On sighting the submarine the
plane will normally be at a rather high search altitude and must lose altitude to make the attack .
130
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
Hence it is often natural for the plane to make the

bombing run while still in a glide. In a glide attack
the formulas for determining release point are somewhat more complex than in horizontal bombing, but
similar methods of controlling range errors can be
used. There is also the possibility of using the plane's
motion in pulling out of a glide to release the bombs,
a method known as toss-bombing.
Commonly used during the recent war, because of
the lack of suitable bombsights, was the so-called
seaman's eye method of bombing. This term is applied to bombing without a sight in which the pilot
releases bombs at the proper moment by instinct
gained over long periods of practice .
Aiming errors, for a given method of aiming, will
vary widely with such factors as type of aircraft, degree of training and individual ability of pilots and
bombardiers, conditions of attack, etc. It is not possible, therefore, to quote figures of general applicability . The performance of a typical TBF squadron
trained in glide bombing at ASDevLant gives an indication of the order of magnitude of such errors in
training and of the effect of practice in reducing
them .
During a 3-week period, each pilot made about
100 practice attacks on a towed target, using a glide
angle of about 15 degrees and aiming by means of a
reflector sight. The mean point of impact [MPI] for
all attacks was 62 ft over in range and 8 ft right in
line . Probable error about the MPI was 80 ft in range
and 30 ft in line .e
During the 3-week period the MPI in range decreased from about 135 ft to 18 ft . The MPI in line
did not improve . The probable error about the MPI
decreased from 98 ft to 40 ft in range and from 38
ft to 25 ft in line . It is evident, therefore, that training brought the MPI effectively on the target and
reduced dispersion about the target very noticeably .
Improvement was still continuing after 100 practice
attacks per pilot.
After the 3-week training period in glide bombing
the squadron spent a week in horizontal bombing by
seaman's eye. The MPI was 31 ft over in range and I
ft right in line, with probable errors about the MPI
e it should be noted that line errors varied noticeably with
angle between aircraft course and target course. The MPI was
on target for track attacks and 10 or 20 ft right for beam attacks,
according to whether approach was from port or starboard.
Probable error about the MPI was about 15 ft for track attacks
and 40 ft for beam attacks.
of 66 t in range and 14 ft in line . Since these results

were obtained after the extensive practice in glide
bombing, a direct comparison of overall results by
the two bombing methods is not fair, but it can be
judged that range errors in horizontal bombing were
about 20 per cent greater than in glide bombing
while line errors were only about half as great.
The improvement possible by use of an accurate
sight is suggested by the fact that tests at ASDevLant
with the BARB (angular velocity) sight showed a
probable error of only 16 ft in range. It was found
that very little training was required . Similar improvement in rocket accuracy by use of proper sights
is indicated by ASDevLant tests. Using the reflector
sight with prescribed sighting allowance, mean deviation of about IO mils in range was achieved by the
best trained squadrons, the RASP (automatic vector)
sight gave 8 mils, and toss-rocketing, 6.3 mils .
Operational errors usually proved considerably
greater than those obtained in practice attacks. These
will be discussed in the next section.
The effect of the three types of errors discussed
above on the success o an attack can only be determined by considering such errors in connection with
the lethality of a given weapon . We shall therefore
next discuss weapon lethality and then illustrate the
combination of attack errors and weapon lethality in
determining a priori probabilities of success .
'2~2~2
Weapon Lethality
From a general point o view, the concept o commanded volume discussed under surface craft attacks
is applicable to aircraft attacks. For example, if a
stick of depth bombs is dropped, each bomb will
have around it a commanded volume constructed by
the method previously given. The probability of success will be given by equation (1).
P = fff P (x,y,z) dxdydz,
(1}
Commanded volume
where the function p(x,y,z) is the probability that the

center of the submarine is at position x,y,z and is determined by the attack errors . The probability of a
hit on the pressure hull by a salvo of rockets could be
similarly determined ; in this case the commanded
volume of each rocket would be the solid generated
by moving along the underwater trajectory of the
rocket an area equal to the cross section presented by
131
40' 30' 6 ;'

RADIUS OF PRESSURE HULL
LETHAL RADIUS
\\`l\
TIcoRr 4. Commanded volume of antisubmarine rocket .
the pressure hull for the given angle of attack .' (See
Figure 4.)
Because of the effect of blind time on bombing
errors, however, aircraft attacks must be made on
surfaced or nearly surfaced submarines to be successful. It is convenient, therefore, to eliminate submarine depth as a variable in the problem and to make
probability calculations on the basis of an assumed
depth or a small range of equally probable depths .
This enables us to replace the concept of commanded volume by one of lethal area .
This method may be illustrated by considering an
attack against a German 500-ton U-boat by an aircraft dropping a stick of depth bombs of the type
used in World War II . For such attacks, a fixed
depth setting of 25 t was ultimately adopted . This
is approximately correct for the average Class A
submarine if we consider all depths of the pressure
hull's center between 61/2 ft (for surfaced U-boats)
and 40 ft (for U-boats down 15 sec) as equally likely.

Since bombs set for 25 ft actually exploded somewhat deeper, we shall assume an effective depth setting of 30 ft for our illustration . (This is probably
about correct for the best United States fuze developed in World War II .)
Considering, then, only Class A attacks made with

this effective depth setting and assuming all depths
between 6%2 ft and 40 ft as equally likely, the lethal
area may be determined as follows. The average distance from the center of the pressure hull measured
perpendicular to the submarine's keel within which
a depth bomb must explode to be lethal is found
from Figure 5 . The bomb will be effective provided
the center of the pressure hull lies within the shaded
area of the diagram, that is, within a radius of the
point of explosion equal to the lethal radius of the
bomb plus the radius of the pressure hull . In the diaP Angle of attack is angle between aircraft course and submarine course .
SCALE
10
20
30
FEET
40
F[GURE 5. Depth coverage . Depth bomb, lethal radius =

17V2 ft . Average width covered = 40 ft.
gram, a lethal radius of 17i/2 ft has been used ; this is

about correct for a TNT-filled, 350-1b United States
depth bomb . From this diagram the average width
for which such a depth bomb is effective can be easily
determined ; it comes out as about 40 ft . In other
words the charge must be at a distance, measured
perpendicular to the keel, of not over 20 ft from the
center of the pressure hull . Consider next the distance measured parallel to the submarine's keel
within which such a bomb must explode to be lethal .
For the 500-ton U-boat, allowing for variation in
diameter at the ends and also for the fact that the
charge may be effective somewhat ahead or aft of the
hull, it is found that a bomb with a 171/2-ft lethal
radius should be effective if it explodes not more than
95 ft ahead or astern of the pressure hull's center,
based on the same considerations as to depth as were
previously used .
It follows, therefore, that for the kind of bomb and
submarine considered there is a lethal area 190 ft
long and 40 ft wide on the surface of the water with
its center directly above the center of the pressure
hull, as shown in Figure 6 . Thus if a bomb explodes
below this area at the assumed depth of 30 ft, it will
sink the submarine .g The probability that this will
occur depends, of course, on the attack errors .
Another point of view is to consider this lethal area

as surrounding each bomb, with its long dimension
in the direction of the U-boat's keel . Then if the
center of the submarine lies within the lethal area of
any one of the bombs of the stick, the attack will be
s This is not strictly true of course, since there are bound to
be fluctuations ; some bombs will explode under the lethal area
and fail to destroy the target, while others somewhat outside
this area will succeed. The assumption of a fixed lethal area can,
however, give us the correct average expectancy for a large nuinber of cases.
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
132
12 . .3
'
40'
rso'
FIGURE G . Lethal area for depth bomb (TNT-filled 350-1u
bomb) .
successful . As before, the probability of this occurring may be found by consideration of the attack
errors .
Similar methods of approach can be used for other
types of bombs. The problem for rockets is also analogous. Under given conditions of submarine depth
and angle of attack, considerations of the underwater
trajectory of the rocket during the period for which
speed is adequate for penetration will indicate how
far short of the target, in range, it can strike and still
be lethal ." The aspect presented by the submarine
will determine permissible variation in line. For example, in a beam attack on a surfaced submarine
with a 15 glide angle, it has been estimated that a
Model 5 rocket will be lethal if it strikes the water not
more than 67 ft short of the submarine nor more than
80 ft to either side-that is, under these conditions
the lethal area is 67x160 ft, as shown in Figure 7.
Probability of Success
We can illustrate the method of combining attack

errors and weapon lethality to determine a priori
probabilities of success by considering a stick of four
depth bombs under the same assumptions as were
used in our illustration of lethal area . For simplicity
let us assume an attack made from directly on the
beam and disregard individual dispersion of the
bombs. We shall further assume that probable attack
errors in range and line are 120 ft and 65 ft, respectively, and that these are normally distributed about
the U-boat's center .' Under such assumptions it is
evident that the most effective stick spacing is 40 ft,
since with this spacing the lethal area of each bomb
just touches that of each of the adjacent bombs and
there are no gaps or overlaps in the total lethal area
of the four bombs. We have, then, an effective lethal
area for the whole stick of 160 ft along the aircraft's
track and 190 ft perpendicular to the aircraft's track,
as shown in Figure 8. If the center of the submarine
lies within this total area the attack will be a success.
Based on the assumed probable error of 120 ft in
range, the curve showing the probability that the
center of the submarine will be a given distance in
range from the center of the stick is simply the normal distribution curve shown in Figure 9. The probability that the center of the submarine will be
within 80 ft of the center of the stick in range is,
therefore, the area under this curve from x = -80 to
x = -{-80, namely, 0.35 .
A similar calculation of the probability that the
center of the submarine will be within 95 ft o the
center of the stick in line, based on the assumed prob-
COURSE OF AIRCRAFT
40
160
FIGURE 7 . Lethal area for rocket against surfaced submarine (beam attack .
h Penetration of the pressure hull by a rocket may not always
cause immediate sinking, but the resulting damage should normally be sufficient to keep the submarine on the surface and
permit follow-up attacks to sink it . Hence the term lethal may
reasonably be used .
.. :
.
40~
~40'
,
.:
COURSE OF
TUBMARIN E
4? '
190 --s-I
FIGURE 8. Area for stick of four depth bombs.
These errors, considerably greater than those quoted earlier
for practice drops, are still rather small for operational errors .
133
TABLE 2. Characteristics of bombs .

.
Type
350-ib depth bomb
(explosive 2501b)
650-Ib depth bomb
(explosive 4501b)
6d-Ib contact
(explosive 301b)
Explosive
I
TNT
1 Torpex
~
TNT
TNT
Dispersion
Nose
Lethal
radius
Depth of
explosion
Flat
Round
Flat
Flat
Round
17/2 ft
17/2 ft
22 ft
25 ft
25 ft
30 ft
30 ft
30 ft
30 ft
30 ft
Contact
Contact
Flat
able error of 65 ft in line, gives 0.68. The actual probability of success depends on the occurrence of both
these events and is therefore 0.35 X 0.68 = 0.24; in
other words, under the assumptions made the stick of
bombs has a 24 per cent chance of killing the submarine .
The calculation is considerably more complex if
individual bomb dispersion is taken into account
and if angles of attack intermediate between 0 degree and 90 degrees to the submarine's course are
considered . The above example, however, illustrates
the basic theory involved . We shall next examine the
results of some a priori calculations of this sort .
Such calculations serve several purposes . They
make it possible to determine optimum tactics for
the use of a given weapon and answer such questions
as : what is the best angle of attack, what is the best
spacing for bombs in a stick, etc. More fundamentally, they make it possible to compare the expected
effectiveness of different basic types of weapons and
of different models of a given type . Such comparisons
are of value in determining which weapons should be
Along
aircraft
course
Perpendicular
to aircraft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
7 ft
17 ft
7 ft
7 ft
17 ft
31/2 ft
7
17
7
7
17
used and often suggest profitable improvements in

their design. A priori probability calculations may
also be used to study the effect of accuracy in the use
of a given weapon and show to what extent improvement in probability of success is possible through
improvement in accuracy . Finally, such calculations
predict what should be expected from operational
results and are useful in evaluating such results . We
shall illustrate the above points by considering the
use of bombs in Class A attacks against the German
500-ton U-boat with the same assumptions as to the

depth of the pressure hull's center as were used in
discussing lethal area (i .e ., all depths between 62 ft
and 40 ft are considered equally likely) . Results will
be shown for the basic types of United States bombs
used in World War II . Table 2 summarizes the assumptions made as to their characteristics . (Weight
is given in round figures-individual types of bombs
vary somewhat in weight.)
Assumptions as to probable aiming errors (including probable submarine position error) are shown in
Table 3 for beam attacks and lengthwise attacks.
(Consistent values have been used for intermediate
angles of attack .)
On the above assumptions the effect of stick spacing on probability of success is illustrated in Figure
10 for 350-1b, TNT-filled, round-nose depth bombs .
On the basis of similar calculations for various angles
of attack, the curves shown in Figure 11 can be obtained . It will be noted from Figure 11 that there is a
TABLE 3. Assumed bombing errors for Class A attacks.
-400
-200
0
200
400
DISTANCE IN RANGE FROM CENTER OF STICK
FIGURE 9. Probability that center of submarine will be a
given distance in range from center of stick.
Beam attack
Lengthwise attack
Probable error
in range
Probable error
in line
120 ft
135 ft
65 ft
20 ft
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
134
_J so
w 0 =)
~ x N 60
%.
to
U9~ 40
Y
(''
a
W
a
aJ
ON
N 2Q
~w
c
FV
20
WN
0
a
INO-NOSE
BOMBS
30
60
90 0
30
60
ANGLE OF ATTACK IN DEGREES
90
FIGURE 12 . Probability of sinking as a function of angle

of attack, with best stick spacing for each angle.
GW.
so
goo
iso o
so
STICK SPACING IN FEET
100
iso
FIGURE 10 . Probability of sinking as a function o[ suck

spacing, 350 lb, round-nose depth bombs, TNT-filled .
wide variation in optimum spacing for a two-bomb

stick according to angle of attack and only small
variation for other stick sizes . Figure 10, however,
shows that the actual effect of stick spacing on probability of success is almost negligible for a two-bomb
stick and is greatest for the longer sticks . In other
words, for cases where the optimum varies, the importance of using the optimum value is small, whereas for cases for which use of an optimum value is
important nearly the same value is optimum for all
angles of attack . It follows therefore that an overall
value of about 75 ft for all angles is quite satisfactory .
21
v
oa.
Y
U
ANGLE OF ATTACK IN DEGREES
FIGURE 11 . Optimum stick spacing as a function of angle

of attack, 350-1b, TNT-filled, round-nose depth bombs .
This is an important conclusion, since varying the

stick spacing for each attack would result in complication and delay. It can also be seen from Figure IO
that even for larger sticks the use of values deviating
somewhat from the 75-ft value suggested will be
quite acceptable . (Similar conclusions have been
found for flat-nose bombs.)
The effect of angle of attack on success is illustrated in Figure 12 for the round-nose depth bombs
just considered and for corresponding flat-nose
bombs. It is apparent that angles along the submarine's track give the best probability of success. The
improvement possible by selecting this angle makes
it worthwhile to do so wherever convenient . However, the gain is not sufficient to warrant delay in
attack for this purpose.
The above results are merely illustrative since the
effect of stick spacing and angle of attack will vary
with the type of bomb considered and the assumptions made in the calculations, but it is felt that the
conclusions may safely be applied to low-level depth
bomb attacks on Class A submarines . We shall now
proceed to a comparison of the different types of
bombs listed in Table 2, averaging results over all
angles of attack and using the best stick spacing at
each angle.
Such a comparison is most instructive if made on
a weight-for-weight basis, as has been done in preparing the curves shown in Figure 13 .
One fact is immediately evident from these curves.
There is a great gain in effectiveness with number of
bombs dropped, regardless of type . This means that
it is important to drop a sufficient number in the first
attack to secure a high probability of success. Withholding bombs is not warranted unless there is a very
good chance o making a second Class A attack . For
example, if the chance of a second attack is less than
25 per cent, as many as ten 350-1b bombs are justifiably expended on the first attack .
135
100
80
-~ 60
o "N
w U)
w40
F- U
zM
w0
w
a
20
0
2000
1000
WEIGHT OF BOMB IN POUNDS
3000
FIGURE 13 . Probability of sinking as a function of weight

of bombs in stick for various types of bombs. Averaged
over all angles of attack with optimum stick spacing at
each angle. A-350-1u Torpex flat-nose ; 8-350-1b TNT
flat-nose ; C-contact; D-350-IU TNT round-nose ; E650-1u TNT flat-nose ; F-650-IV TNT round-nose .
A comparison of the results according to type of

bomb illustrates several important points . These
may be summarized as follows.
1 . A comparison of the curves for round-nose
bombs with the corresponding curves for flat-nose
bombs indicates the marked improvement achieved
by decreasing the dispersion in underwater trajectories of individual bombs from 17 ft to 7 ft through
proper design of the bomb .
2. A comparison of the curves for 350-1b bombs
with those for 650-1b bombs shows that on a weightfor-weight basis the smaller bombs should be markedly superior for all sizes of bomb stick. Although
the 350-1h depth bomb is the lightest used by the
United States Navy, it is not necessarily optimum. A
study, under the same assumptions, of the British 2651b bomb (weight of Torpex,1931b) showed somewhat
better results on a weight-for-weight basis. It is quite
possible that still lighter bombs might be effective,
but the results would depend on various factors, such
as the percentage of explosive weight to total weight,
weight of equipment required to drop longer sticks,
etc.
3. A comparison of the curve for the 350-1b Torpex
flat-nose bomb with the curve for the corresponding
TNT-filled bomb shows the value of using a more
powerful explosive. Improvement of lethal radius
for a given weight of bomb by means of an improved
explosive is a very effective means of increasing the

lethality of attack .
4. The curves show that for the bombs considered
(and under the assumptions made) the 350-1b flatnose, Torpex-filled depth bomb is superior for any
given weight of bombs dropped. For the other types,
the contact bomb of Hedgehog type appears superior
for weights under about 1000 lb, but this may be
only an apparent advantage . Depth bombs exploding outside lethal range may still damage the submarine, whereas a near miss with a contact bomb
does no damage . Furthermore, the extra weight required by more numerous bomb racks for small contact bombs will also lessen their advantage. Since
only Class A attacks have been considered, it may
seem that the advantage of contact bombs in covering
all possible submarine depths has been disregarded
in our analysis . Actually, however, consideration of
later attacks would add little to the probabilities for
contact bombs because of the uncertainty of submarine position .
The above results are based on fixed assumptions
as to aiming errors . The effect of such errors is illustrated in Figure 14 for a stick of six 350-1b Torpex
flat-nose depth bombs. Probability of sinking has
been averaged over all angles of attack with best
stick spacing for each angle. Results are shown according to the probable range error for a beam attack. Line errors for beam attacks and both line and
range errors for other angles of attack have also been
varied so as to be proportional to the range error
indicated, using the relationship reflected in Table 3.
This curve shows very strikingly the importance of
accuracy in aiming. For range errors under 50 ft, an
attack is almost certain to be successful, but the prob100
0N
N
W
o
w U)
00
=Y
W
a
806fl
40 20
0
50
100
150
200
PROBABLE RANGE ERROR 1N FEET

FIGURE 14. Probability of sinking as a function of the
expected errors in bombing for six 350-1v Torpex flatnose depth bombs.
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
136
TABLE 4. Effect of degree of submergence at attack .

(Independent attacks by United States aircraft .)
July-Dec 1942
Jan-July 1943
Degree of
Submergence
No.
%a A-D
Fully surfaced
Decks awash
Stern and/or conning tower
Periscope
Down 0-15 sec
Down 15-30 sec
Down 30-45 sec
Down over 45 sec
Other
17
7
22
3
38
25
12
22
9
41
29
32
0
3
4
0
0
8
24
0
5
0
3
4
0
0
8
52
5
25
2
11
11
4
5
33
37
40
20
0
18
0
0
0
30
23
20
4
0
9
0
0
0
21
167
150
25
15
TOTAL
ability drops off rapidly thereafter . For errors of

about 125 ft it is down to about 50 per cent . The
value of an effective bomb sight is clearly indicated
by these figures.
A priori probabilities of success with eight solidhead rockets, for effective angles of attack, are of
about the same order of magnitude as corresponding
probabilities of success with six depth bombs using
the seaman's eye method of aiming. For example,
using aiming errors (standard deviation) of 35 mils
in azimuth and 25 mils in elevation (which are about
twice the errors obtained in practice), the probability
of a kill on a Class A U-boat at 400-yd range in a 20degree dive with eight rockets is about 50 per cent .
This is about the same as the probability shown in
Figure 14 for six United States Torpex flat-nose
depth bombs with a range error of 120 ft . 'the above
comparison, of course, involves certain specific assumptions as to aiming errors and weapon characteristics . Future improvement in aiming methods and,
possibly, in weapon design may affect the two weapons differently and it is, therefore, not possible to
conclude which will ultimately be the better . Actually, it is not necessary to decide this point since they
are complementary in nature . Depth bombs are effective at all angles of attack and for attacks made
shortly after submergence, while rockets are restricted
to angles near the beam and to use on visible submarines. On the other hand, rockets are light in
weight and provide an effective weapon for small
planes which cannot carry bombs. They also provide
an additional punch for bombing planes, giving
them something like twice the effective weapon
capacity with only a small increase in load .
%a A or B
12 .3
No .
%A-D
trio A or B
OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Actual results achieved in aircraft attacks during

World War II verify many of the a priori conclusions
drawn in the previous section. First to be considered
is the importance of making prompt attacks and of
using a depth setting appropriate for such attacks.
12.3.1
Effect of Degree of Submergence

at Attack
Table 4 shows the results achieved by independent

United States aircraft attacks in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean during the last half of 1942 and the
first 7 months of 1943 . The percentage of A-D attacks
(U-boat sunk or damaged) and that of A or B attacks
(U-boat sunk or probably sunk) are shown for each
period according to the degree of submergence at
attack.
The marked improvement in overall results from
the first period to the second is clearly associated with
a much greater proportion of attacks on fully surfaced U-boats. The detailed breakdown fox each
period shows quantitatively the correctness of the
conclusion reached in our theoretical discussion as to
the decrease in probability of success with increase in
degree of submergence .
12 .3 .2
Importance of 25-ft Depth Setting
When the United States entered World War II,

depth settings o 50 ft were common . By the latter
half of 1942, the importance . of a shallower setting
had been recognized and the usual depth setting was
OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE
25 ft . However, 39 attacks during July-December

1942 involved 50-ft settings . These resulted in 3 per
cent A-D assessments as compared with the overall
figure of 11 per cent shown in the above table. During
the first half of 1942, when the deeper setting was
generally used, a total of 174 independent aircraft
attacks on U-boats in the United States Strategic Area
resulted in only 4.6 per cent A-D assessments . Undoubtedly the deeper setting was at least partly responsible for this poor showing. Operational experience thus bears out clearly the importance of making
prompt attacks with a shallow depth setting.
Since the 25-ft setting for United States depth

bombs actually produced explosion at depths greater
than 25 ft on the average, the improvement noted
above was only a partial realization of that which
was theoretically possible . Tests indicated that during the period JanuaryJuly 1943 the current United
States depth bomb when set for 25 ft actually fired at
depths between 27 and 64 ft, with an average of about
40 ft . On the other hand, the British depth bomb
fired at very nearly the correct depth . A comparison
of operational results with the two different bombs
should therefore indicate the advantage of the one
which exploded at the desired depth . Such a comparison is made in Table 5 . The British figures are based
on daylight attacks on fully or partly surfaced UTABLE 5. Operational results with different depth bombs.
British depth bomb .
Theoretical results
No. of
bombs
Operational results
Per cent
kill
No. of
bombs
(average)
Per cent
kill
Ratio of
operational
to
theoretical
20.5
34
51
57
2 .5
4
5 .9
7.8
20
28
37
55
98%
82%
73o-/0
96%
United States depth bomb.

Theoretical results
No. of
bombs
137
boats during the period April-October 1943 . The

United States figures are based on attacks for the
period January-July 1943, including all degrees of
submergence . To compensate for the inclusion of
attacks on submerged submarines, United States attacks assessed A-D (sunk or seriously damaged) are
considered successful . (Since 72 per cent of the
United States attacks were on fully or partly visible
U-boats, whereas kills were only 54 per cent of the
total A-D assessments, this actually results in overcompensation, and the comparison is therefore somewhat too favorable to the United States depth bomb .)
It can be seen from the above that the British bomb
gave results close to expectation, whereas the United
States bombs averaged a little over half the expectation .
12.3 .3
Importance of Bombing Errors
Next to be considered are operational bombing

errors and improvement in them due to practice and
the use of bombsights. As to the actual size of such
errors a British analysis of 43 photographed daylight

attacks made by seaman's eye on visible submarines
during the period March-October 1943, showed
mean errors about the conning tower of 141 ft in
range and 71 ft in line . These errors were not uniformly distributed about the conning tower . Systematic errors in estimating submarine motion were apparently negligible but there was a systematic overshoot along the aircraft track resulting in an MPI
which was 86 ft over in range. The MPI in line was
reasonably near the conning tower, i .e ., 13 feet left .
The errors showed considerable variation with angle
of attack ; the measured results are shown below . It
was found that the photographic sample was biased
since track attacks with small line error rarely gave
satisfactory photographs because explosion plumes
obscured the U-boat . Therefore, the line error in
track attacks shown in Table fi is somewhat too large .
Attacks on submarines which had submerged less
than 15 sec before attack gave average errors of 192
ft in range and 73 ft in line . The sample, however,
Operational results
Percent
kill
No . of
bombs
(average)
Per cent
kill
Ratio of
operational
to
theoretical
23 .5
41 .5
54
66
2 .4
4
5 .7
8 .3
11
27
33
36
47]o
6-5Jo
61%
55%a
TABLE 6. Operational bombing errors (visible U-boats).
Beam
Quarter
Track
Average
line error (feet)
Average
range error (feet)
75
75
66
124
155
139
ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT
138
was small and results are not very reliable . Comparison of those measured errors with those assumed in
Table 3 for theoretical calculations shows reasonable
agreement, with the assumed errors somewhat
smaller than those actually made in operations .
The effect of practice in reducing bombing errors
cannot be evaluated explicitly from operational results because of the lack of sufficient photographs.
The importance of continued practice is, however,
illustrated by Coastal Command experience fox the
period May-December 1943 . Table 7 shows a comparison of results for this period according to amount
of practice .
TABLE 7 . Effect of practice on attack accuracy .
Bomb aimers who had
dropped less than 10
practice bombs during
preceding month
Good attacks
Moderate attacks
Bad attacks
51%
13%
36%
Bomb aimers who had

dropped more than 10
practice bombs during
preceding month
65]o
20%
15%
The effect of a bombsight on bombing accuracy is

illustrated by British experience with the Mk III
(angular velocity) sight. An analysis of results
through June 1944 showed average range errors
about the conning tower of 130 ft as compared to 180
ft for seaman's eye bombing under the same conditions. Average line errors were 33 ft as compared to
56 ft by seaman's eye, though there is no reason to
expect an improvement in line error. There was an
increase in lethality of about 35 per cent in kills
and 60 per cent in kills and damage . These results
are based on a very small sample (32 attacks, 16
photographs) and therefore are not conclusive ; however they do show the bombsight to be a promising
development.
12.3 .4
Importance of Large Bomb Stick
Operational experience has clearly borne out the
advantage of dropping large sticks of bombs. For

example, in the period from July 1942 to duly 1943
United States results for depth bombs set at 25 ft
were as given in Table 8 .
TABLE 8. Success of attack for different sizes of stick.
(United States aircraft, July 1942-July 1943 .)
Number of bombs
Percentage A-D assessments
I-3
4
5-12
13
21
34
12.3.5
Results with Rockets
Operational results with rockets are not very extensive. Almost all United States rocket attacks were
made in connection with other types of attacks so
that no specific conclusions can be drawn from them .
British attacks, however, demonstrate that rockets
have been effective. For example, during the period
May-December 1943, IS attacks on Class A U-boats
(of which 14 were fully surfaced) resulted in 33 per
cent A or B assessments and an additional 22 per cent
C, D, and E assessments . The 33 per cent kills is in
fair agreement with the 50 per cent expected figure
quoted in our theoretical discussion when consideration is given to the fact that the average firing range
was 600 yd instead of 400 yd, the average number of
projectiles 7.3 instead of 8, and the average glide
angle 17 degrees to 25 degrees instead of 20 degrees.
The above figure of 33 per cent kills is comparable to
the result previously shown for British depth-bomb
attacks on visible submarines, using six bombs, for
the period April-October 1943, namely 37 per cent .
(See Table 5 .) It is the same as the figure previously
shown for six United States depth bombs (based on
A-D assessments, all attacks) . There seems little
doubt, therefore, that rockets are of about the same
degree of effectiveness as depth bombs, although, as
pointed out previously ; each weapon has its own particular advantages .
Chapter 13
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
REVIOUS CHAPTERs have discussed problems inP volved in the defense of ships and convoys and in
attacks on submarines by surface craft and aircraft .

To some extent these attacks may be made on submarines contacted during escort of convoy operations, but these operations are not the only source of
contacts . Normally, offensive operations are also undertaken for the specific purpose of contacting and
attacking submarines in order to inflict a high loss
rate on the enemy submarine fleet. While the overall
aim of all antisubmarine operations is a negative
one-to prevent the submarines from accomplishing
their objective-this aim can be achieved by both defensive and offensive means. Convoy escort is clearly
defensive, but once convoy escorts make a contact, an
effort is made to attack and sink the sub, that is, to
take the offensive. Sinking the submarine is valuable
in a direct defensive way in that it is then certainly
prevented from attacking the convoy, but a sinking is
also valuable offensively in that the submarine is
thereby eliminated from all future operations. The
clearly offensive phase of antisubmarine activity
takes the form of searching for submarines and attacking them even when they do not immediately
threaten any friendly ships. The distinction is not
absolutely hard and fast, since any submarine is a
potential threat . Defensive measures are intended to
find and attack submarines that may be dangerous
within the next few minutes or hours, offensive measures, those dangerous at more remote time .
Methods for attacking submarines are the same
whether the intent is offensive or defensive, but the
methods involved in searching for a submarine depend on the aim of the operation. In particular, defensive operations are carried out fairly close to the
ships being defended, whereas offensive operations
are concentrated in the regions containing the most
subs, other things being equal. This chapter will outline some of the considerations involved in conducting offensive searches . Three general types of situation are involved .
1 . Search of an area in which one or more submarines are thought to be patrolling.
2. Interception of submarines in transit whose
paths are thought to pass through a certain region .
3. Follow-up of contacts made some time previously and then lost, for the purpose of finding the
submarine again.
These problems have been discussed in general
terms in Volume 2B, Search and Screening, Chapters
3, 7, and 8, but not with special reference to searching
for submarines. In these chapters detailed methods
are described for designing searches in a great variety
of tactical situations, and the basic theory of search
is developed, which applies to search for submarines
as a special case . Consequently the following discussion is, in a sense, a review of material presented in
Search and Screening, with emphasis on the antisubmarine applications and operational data reflecting
experience in antisubmarine warfare [ASW] .
13 .1
SEARCH OF AN AREA
When available intelligence indicates" that submarines are on patrol in a certain region, search for
them will be productive of contacts in proportion to
the density of submarines and to the area which can
be covered by the searching craft. The general considerations of Chapter 3 of Search and Screening
apply, assuming the available intelligence to be expressed as a probability density function . For a given
function p3(x,y), the chances of success are determined by the search rate and the amount of searching effort available. In order to have an effective
search the searching craft must either be many in
number or have a large sweep rate .
13 .I .1
Aircraft Search for Surfaced
Submarines
Aircraft are outstanding for having a large sweep

rate because of their high speed and distant visual
horizon.b They are normally restricted to visual and
radar detection, however, and are thus effective only
$ While the accuracy of intelligence is of great importance in
deciding on the plan of any search operation, since it determines
the area that should be searched, analysis of the accuracy of different types of intelligence is beyond the scope of this discussion .
b See Chapters 4 and 5 of Volume 2B, Search and Screening.
139
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
140
against surfaced (or Schnorcheling) submarines .

Consequently the density which must be used in
studies of aircraft search is the density of surfaced
submarines, and a region in which there are many
submarines all of which are submerged is not profitable for search by aircraft .
As an example of the influence of the submarine's
submergence tactics, the offshore gain effect can be
used to illustrate the significance of sweep rates. It
was common experience that aircraft patrol was
relatively most effective when carried out at a considerable distance from shore bases, since submarines
close to them were cautious and spent a large fraction
of the time submerged. As an example of the phenomenon, data based on Moroccan Sea Frontier flying are of interest .
The region under study was divided into zones
200 miles wide, that is : a-200 miles from land, 200400 miles, 440-600 miles, and 600-800 miles. The
number of actual aircraft contacts in each zone was
counted, and an expected number computed, which
was based on the number of flying hours in each zone,
the total density of U-boats in the zone, and an assumed 5-mile sweep width. In this way the figures of
Table 1 were derived. The effective sweep width is
TABLE 1. Contacts in Moroccan sea frontier antisubmarine patrols.
Distance from base

(miles)
Expected No . contacts
Actual No . contacts
Per cent realized
Effective sweep width
(miles)
0-200 200-400 400-600 600-800 Total

83
5
G
58
5
9
30
10
33
20
6
30
191
26
14
0.3
0.5
1.6
1 .5
0.7
the value of sweep width that would have to be used

in computations to have the expected number of contacts equal to the number actually obtained. The increase in effective sweep width or "per cent realized"
as distance from shore bases is increased is probably
due to a relaxation of precautions by the U-boats.
Whatever its cause, however, it is evidence of the
desirability of flying at considerable distance from
shore bases when on offensive patrol .
The use of radar to increase the sweep width bec Special gear in the form of sonobuoys or magnetic anomaly
detectors [MAD] are available for detection of submerged submarines . They will be discussed later, since the sweep rates are
very small.
yond that achievable by visual means is of great importance in area search (or in any other type) . Early
radars did not have a detection range sufficiently
great to exceed that of visual detection except in
periods of darkness or low visibility, but the newer
types are powerful enough to do so a large part of
the time . The older radar was valuable chiefly because it made contacts in periods of low visibility
when U-boats were surfaced . Data on Army Air
Forces Anti-Submarine Command flying in Eastern
Sea Frontier for May through October 1942 and in
the Trinidad area for October and November both
bear this out, as is shown in Table 2. In these cases
TABLE 2. Radar versus visual search during 1942 (in terms
of hours per contact) .
Visual
only
Radar
during day
Radar
during night
21,108
32
660
4,665
10
466
1,125
7
161
2,400
4
640
434
9
50
ESF May-Oct
Hours of flying
No . of contacts
Hours per contact
Trinidad Oct-Nov
Hours of flying
No . of contacts
Hours per contact
1,40
3
470
use of radar during the daytime did not do very

much to reduce the number of flying hours required
to secure a contact, but radar used at night vas many
times more effective than in daytime . The chief explanation is, no doubt, that U-boats were submerged
in these regions during the daytime and good opportunities for contacting them were offered only at
night.
Patrol height is also of importance in achieving the
maximum sweep rate . For both visual and radar
search the altitude must be sufficiently high to give a
distant horizon, and for visual search the increased
apparent area of the wake is also of importance, as
explained in Chapter 4 of Volume 2. The theoretical
TABLE 3. Sweep widths for aircraft visual search .
(Surfaced submarine under way.)
Altitude (feet)
Visibility 3 miles
Visibility 15 miles
530
1,000
2>000
5,000
10,000
3.0
3.5
3 .5
......
, . . ,
g
1p
11
12
14
SEARCH OF AN AREA
table of sweep rates presented in Table 3 shows

clearly the advantages of high altitude for visual
search .
As an example of operational data confirming the
value of flying at fair height, data on sightings in the
Bay of Biscay area during May 1943 can be quoted .
Table 4 gives the sightings per 100 sorties. As would
be expected, altitudes over 2000 ft give only a slight
gain when meteorological visibility is low but have
considerable advantage under good visibility conditions.
The question may well be raised, however,
whether the high altitude is not a handicap in de-
141
Iivering an attack . The aircraft must lose altitude to

make a low-level bombing run, which would sometimes slow up the approach . The overall results
shown in Table 5 do not, however, indicate any significant effect of this sort. It is probable that U-boat
TABLE 4. Sightings per 100 sorties for different patrol
heights.
Meteorological visibility
Height of patrol
(A-4 miles
5-12 miles
over 12 miles
0-2,000 ft
Over 2,000 ft
6.2
7.9
14
26
22
37
TABLE 5. Effect of altitude on success of attacks.
Height
of patrol
(feet)
0-2,000
2,000-4,000
Over 4,000
Percentage of Class A attacks

( Coastal C ommand d ata, Ju ne-Nov 1948)
Total No .
No . of
Percent
sighting
Class A
Class A
96
86
38
44
34
18
46
40
41
lookouts have tended to scan the horizon in search

for aircraft so that the higher-flying aircraft have
somewhat of an advantage in approaching undetected . In any event the overall gain of altitude above
2000 ft is clear.
There are many other questions relating to the
most effective conduct of visual or radar search of a
submarine patrol area by aircraft . The general problem involved is to achieve the best possible sweep
width and then lay out a patrol where surfaced submarines are densest in accordance with Chapters 3
and 7 of Volume 2B, Search and Screening.
The advent of Schnorchel drastically reduced the
aircraft's search capabilities because both radar and
visual sweep width on Schnorchel are much less than
on surfaced U-boats-according to most estimates
only 1/10 to 1/100 as great. To a slight extent this
reduction is compensated by the Schnorcheling Uboat's need to operate in restricted focal areas, the
area to be searched by either aircraft or surface craft
being thus much reduced. A net result has been a
marked increase in the importance of surface craft
search compared with that by aircraft for submarines
operating on Schnorchel .
To some extent however, aircraft can conduct a
sonar search by use of sono-buoys . If the submarine is
Per cent of attacks causing damage

(U . S. Strategic Area July-Dec 1942)
Total No .
No . assessed
91
36
32
10
3
3
attacks
A-D
Per cent
A-D
11
8
9
proceeding at high speed on Schnorchel and is therefor noisy, the effective sweep rate of a group of sonobuoys monitored by an aircraft may be comparable
to that of surface craft using sonar.
13.1.2 Surface Craft Search and Submerged

Submarines
The role of surface craft in searching an area is
limited by their small sweep rate. Visual and radar
detection ranges are shorter than for aircraft, and the
speed of the ship very much less . Table 6 presents a
TABLE 6. Sweep rates under various conditions (in sq
miles per hour).
Aircraft
Visual (good visibility)

Radar-ASG
MAD
Sono-buoys
Surface craft
Visual
Radar (10 cm)
Sonar
Surfaced sub
Submerged sub
1,250
2,500
25*
200`
Approx 0
Approx 0
15-20*
15*
Approx D
100
15
Approx 0
Approx 0
15
' Estimated on the basis of tests but not confirmed by operational

data .
142
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
comparison of typical aircraft and surface craft sweep

rates. Visual search by surface craft is not likely to be
effective since the submarine can almost invariably
see the surface craft in time to dive before the surface
craft sees it. This visual search has purely hold-down
value and is not effective in an offensive sense. Radar
search by surface craft under low visibility conditions
may, on the other hand, be expected to lead to contacts on any surfaced submarines unless they are
fitted with search receivers and dive upon being approached . For surfaced submarines, however, the
surface craft have a considerably smaller sweep rate
than aircraft, so that the chief role of surface craft is
conducting searches for submerged subs, a task for
which aircraft are not effective.
The sweep rates for aircraft using magnetic anomaly detectors [MAD] or sono-buoys in hunting submerged submarines are about the same as that for
surface craft using sonar, according to Table 6. The
comparison is not a completely fair one, however. In
the first place, the aircraft figures are based on trial
results and have not been completely substantiated
by operational data . Operational experience has indicated that classification of MAD and sono-buoy
contacts is particularly difficult. In the second place,
neither of them gives an accurate determination of
the submarine's position but only a general indication o its presence, and it is difficult to make an
effective attack on contacts of this type .
The primary task of surface craft in area search is
thus sonar search for submerged submarines . Such
search can be effective only if the submarines are concentrated in a small area, since the surface craft sweep
rate is so small. To search an area 100 miles square
with five ships requires about 6 days, whereas a single
aircraft can search the same area for surfaced subs in
4 hours. Accordingly there are relatively few circumstances in which surface craft can be employed profitably for area search.
To some extent high-frequency direction-finding
[DF] extends the search capabilities of surface craft,
since it enables the ship to take a bearing on a submarine transmitting on high frequency within about
20 or 30 miles. I the submarines transmit frequently,
as German U-boats did during the height of the
Battle of the Atlantic, DF can increase the radar
sweep rate by a factor of up to 3 or 4 for surfaced subs .
A DF contact is not quite so valuable as a radar contact, however, because it is less definitely localized
and more difficult to convert into an attack.
Fundamentally, then, surface craft search of an

area is a matter of sonar search . World War II has
not offered very many opportunities for such search,
surface craft having been put to effective use mainly
in follow-up of contacts and in defensive operations,
and consequently little in the way of operational
data is available.
One tactical principle should be emphasized, however, that of searching in groups in line abreast. The
theoretical reason for doing this is that a submarine
has a good chance of evading a single ship by steering
to one side at high speed when the approach of the
ship is detected . Figure 1 shows the effect o such evaENTRAPMENT TRIANGLES
& i EFFECTIVE SWEEP WIDTH
RANGE AT YS
SUB BEGINS
EVADE
SOUND RANGE
SINGLE SHIP
GROUP OF SHIPS
I'icuxE I . Submarine evasion of sonar search .
sion . The "entrapment triangle" is drawn tangent to

the sonar detection circle with limiting escape lines
drawn at angle = sin-2 sub speed/ship speed . In this
way it is analogous to the submerged approach zone
except that the submarine is trying to get out rather
than in . As can be seen from Figure 1 searching in
line abreast makes such evasion impossible except

from positions near the ends of the line . Some theoretical considerations concerning search in line
abreast are given in Chapter 6, Volume 2B .
There are also many practical reasons for searching in line abreast. The ships are close enough for
convenient communications and know the positions
of their fellow ships at all times. Similarly the ships
are readily recognizable by aircraft or other forces in
the area, even at night. In addition ships are in a posi-
INTERCEPTION OF TRANSITS
tion to coordinate during attack once a contact is

made .
It is, in fact, almost always valuable to carry out
offensive operations in groups . If a group of units is
sent out at once on parallel sweeps (or to patrol the
same area according to some fixed plan), any unit
snaking contact has immediate assistance available
(provided communications are satisfactory), and all
the other units can, if desired, enter into the process
of attacking or following up the contact. In this way
the chances of sinking the submarine, once contact is
made, are very materially increased over what they
would be with a single attacking unit . As a balance to
this gain is the necessary loss in probability of making
contact which results from concentrating too much
of the searching effort into a particular area or period
of time to the exclusion of some others . These two
considerations must be weighed and the best compromise achieved . When the area to be searched is
rather large, however, as is usually the case, a search
by a group of units covers it only very incompletely
and there is no difficulty with "over-searching." In
such a case offensive patrol in groups spaced as closely
as possible without overlapping of the areas searched
by individual units is clearly desirable. Groups may
involve aircraft or surface craft, or both . The basic
idea is simply to provide for coordinated attack upon
any contact that is made without appreciable loss in
efficiency of distribution of search effort .
13 .2
In many cases it is profitable to endeavor to intercept submarines en route to their patrol area and attack them before they are able to become dangerous .
Submarines in transit may be thought of as making
up a moving density distribution (as opposed to a
stationary one for those on patrol). This comparison
is discussed in detail in Chapter 7 of Volume 2B and
the appropriate modifications in search plans are described. As a result of this movement, the crossover
type of barrier patrol is usually the most efficient, as
was pointed out in Volume 2B .
This movement does not, in itself, make detection
of the submarines involved any easier, but often results in a more accurate estimate of the submarine's
position than is possible with a submarine on patrol .
This may be very strikingly true if the submarines
are constrained to pass through a relatively narrow
region while on passage to the patrol area . In such a
143
FIGURE 2. Bay of Biscay.
case the submarine density is much higher in the

transit area than the patrol area and consequently
the former is the better area for exploitation by an
antisubmarine offensive, other things being equal.
13 .2.1
The Bay of Biscay Offensive
The outstanding transit area of this type has been

the Bay of Biscay off the U-boats' French ports of
Brest, Lorient, St. Nazaire, and La Pallice. All Uboats entering or leaving these ports had to funnel
through the Bay within reach of British-based air
cover, so that excellent opportunities for attacking
U-boats were presented. (See Figure 2.)
An analysis of the possibilities of an offensive in
the Bay was made late in 1942,4 some of whose salient
arguments are discussed here. The basic idea was
that the U-boats had to spend a fair amount of time
on the surface crossing the Bay and that therefore a
"balanced" force capable of carrying out effective
search both day and night would be able to intercept
d Operations Research Section-Coastal Command, Report
No . 204, Air Offensive Against U-Boats in Transit, December
10, 1942 .
144
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
a large fraction of the U-boats and inflict very serious

losses . (Schnorchel was not to appear until long after
this time .) By adopting maximum submergence tactics, the U-boat could reduce its time on the surface
during any given day very greatly, but a greater number of days was required to cross the Bay because of
the slower speed involved, and the entire passage
could not be made submerged. The net gain by submerging is shown in .Table 7, assuming a 300-mile
band covered by aircraft across which the U-boats
must pass . Thus the U-boat must spend about 13 hr
on the surface in crossing the Bay even when using
maximum submergence.
TABLE 7 . Surfaced days per transit .
Fraction of Speed
time spent
on
on surface surface
(kt)
(per cent)
100
50
20
10
100
Speed
submerged
(kt)
10
10
10
10
17
Average
speed
(kt)
......
4.5
2.8
1 .5
. .. . . .
10
7.2
4.2
2.4
17
Total
time
(hours)
Time
on
surface
(hours)
30
42
71
125
18
30
21
14
13
18
If the total number of transits per month is designated by T, then the average number of surfaced
U-boats in the area is (there being approximately 720
hr per month) :
13
720T'
Sweep rate Q
(sq miles per hour)
Flying hours
per month
required
Meter-wave
Centimeter
800
2,800
6,000
1,800
These figures for flying hours per month can

readily be interpreted in terms of the number of
planes required . A long-range plane is normally capable of flying about 50 hr per month, so that a force
of about 40 such planes equipped with centimeter
radar would be adequate to contact each U-boat
crossing the Bay. (The flying required to get back and
forth from base to the active Bay area would not increase this figure greatly.)
The comparison o actual results obtained in the
operations with these predictions is of particular interest. Since the situation changed rapidly from time
to time the data presented in Table 9 are given by
months and divided into three periods corresponding to various stages of the battle. Average values are
given for each period . At the end of the third period
the number of transits dropped off sharply and Uboat activity did not again reach the previous level.
TABLE 9. Results of Bay of Biscay offensive.
Fast period
June
July
Aug
Sept
where Q =aircraft sweep rate,

h = number of flying hours per month,
A = area involved .
1942
Average
In order to contact every transit U-boat once, for

example, it would be necessary to have N = r, which
condition can be used with equations (1) and (2) to
determine the number of flying hours required.
Qh 13
A 720 T'
= ~i Q = 55 Q~
Type detection
gear
Month
The expected number of contacts is
TABLE 8. Flying requirements to sight each transit.
(3)
The area involved is about 300 miles square so that

the hours required are as given by Table 8.
Second period
Oct
1942
Nov
Dec
Jan
1943
Average
Third period
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
1943
Average
Flying
hours
on patrol
U-boat
transits
Sightings
of U-boats
Per cent
sighted
2,600
3,750
3,200
4,100
50
65
80
90
26
20
37
39
52
31
46
43
3,440
71
30
43
4,100
4,600
3,400
3,130
95
140
130
105
18
19
14
10
19
14
11
10
3,800
117
15
13
4,400
4,600
4,200
5,350
5,900
8,700
100
135
115
120
57
78
32
42
52
98
60
81
32
31
45
81
105
104
5,500
101
61
60
The first period involves night flying by Wellingtons equipped with Leigh Lights and meter-wave
radar. Only about 10 aircraft were so equipped, but
the overall result was to sight almost half the transits .
Since the number of flying hours per month was only
slightly more than half that quoted in Table 8 for
meter-wave radar, this result is not far removed from
that predicted. Actually the predicted average number of sightings would be 40, the operational results
30-a pretty close agreement.
During the following months, however, the fraction of transits sighted declined markedly, reaching a
low of 10 per cent . To some extent this may have
been a seasonal effect because of the difficulties of
flying in winter, but the chief reason for the drop
was undoubtedly the introduction of search receivers
on U-boats which could detect meter-wave radar.
This development permitted the U-boats to surface
at night with fair safety, and the aircraft available no
longer constituted a balanced force . (See Chapter 14
for further discussion .)
During the spring of 1943 the Leigh Light Wellingtons were equipped with centimeter radar and
results during the third period were correspondingly
improved . By June and July the fraction of transits
sighted had risen to 100 per cent, a tenfold increase,
though the number of flying hours in those months
was only about twice what it had been in previous
periods. If all the planes had been fitted with centimeter radar, an even higher sighting rate would have
been expected on the basis of Table 8, since there was
considerably more flying than the 1800 hours per
month which should produce 100 per cent sightings.
Such was not the case, however, and the average
sweep rate of all planes involved vas probably more
nearly that of meter radar. On this basis 6000 hr per
month would be required to produce 100 per cent
sightings, which is in good agreement with the observed results. The average amount of flying was
5504 hours per month, which sighted 60 per cent of
the transits, reaching a peak of lOd per cent during
the best summer months .
It may be concluded, then, that the best periods of
the Bay operations provided returns quite in accordance with predictions, but that the U-boats were
quick to find and exploit any weak points in the
offensive. The highly profitable periods were not of
long duration . Even during the low points, however,
Biscay operations were quite profitable compared
with aircraft patrol in other regions, since the flying
145
hours required to make a sighting rarely rose above

500, whereas in many areas thousands of hours were
required .
13.2 .2
Value of Interception of Transit

Submarines
The final evaluation of any offensive against transit U-boats must be made on the basis of a comparison with other possible uses of the forces involved .
When the other use contemplated is also some type
of offensive patrol, the chief criterion is that of submarine density (or density of surfaced subs if more
appropriate), as is demonstrated in Volume 2B, Chapter 3. Offensive patrol should be carried out in the
region of greatest submarine density, subject to certain practical considerations . A region in which
weather conditions reduce the effectiveness of detection gear by a factor of three, for instance, would not
be a profitable one for an offensive unless the submarine density there vas at least three times that in
other regions.
When the comparison must be made between offensive and defensive operations, many more factors
must be considered . The usual objective measure of
the effectiveness of antisubmarine operations is the
number of ships saved. Defensive operations effect
such a saving quite directly, whereas offensive operations have an indirect effect through reduction in
numbers of submarines operating and through lowering of the morale and state of training of the submarine crews. The latter effect is very hard to assess
in any numerical terms . U-boats have usually withdrawn from areas in which their chance of being
sunk was greater than about IO per cent per month
of those at sea when there was a safer alternative, but
the high sinking rate has often been associated with
a low rate of sinking ships, so that the U-boats may
have withdrawn in search of more profitable areas,
rather than because of any effect on morale . Nevertheless, the U-boats' heavy losses in 1943 were followed by a period of very unaggressive operations,
even though the losses suffered were not enough seriously to diminish the size of the U-boat fleet, and
there is no doubt that a lowering of morale and experience of crews had something to do with it .
In order to illustrate the type of comparison that
must be made, consider a hypothetical situation in
which the enemy has a hundred submarines which
can spend half their time at sea. He can build five
146
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
per month, but we sink the same number by surface

craft (i .e ., 10 per cent of those at sea each month), so
that a sort of equilibrium has been reached . Given,
then, a force composed of 40 aircraft, should they be
employed either offensively, assuming that each submarine transit would then be sighted in accordance
with equations (1) to (3), or defensively for escort of
threatened convoys, assuming that the protection
offered would be in accordance with the data of
Chapter 10?
In each case the number of ships saved by the aircraft must be determined. For the offensive operations the saving can be estimated in the following
way :
The immediate effect of the offensive operation is

an increased number of submarines sunk per month.
This will reduce the number of submarines operating until, in the long run, a new equilibrium is
reached. The number of submarines sunk per month
will then be equal to the number built. If N is the
number of submarines available to the enemy, and
T is the length of a submarine patrol in months,
then:
N = number of submarines at sea, and
N
= number of transits made per month.
T
The capabilities of the surface craft are assumed to
be such that they sink 10 per cent of the subs at sea
per month, and data from Chapter 12 show that it is
reasonable to assume that about 10 per cent of all aircraft sightings lead to attacks which sink the submarine . Combining these figures with the ability of
the aircraft to intercept each transit, we have, at
equilibrium:
0.10 X 2 -F-
0_11N
cent . If the aircraft force available could provide this

extent of convoy coverage, it would be considerably
more valuable than when employed offensively, because the 65 per cent figure measures only direct defensive value and does not take into account any
attacks on submarines that the planes might make
while on convoy escort duty . The total amount of aircraft flying required for the convoy escort would not
generally be excessive. During the actual period
studied previously there were about 20 convoy-days
per month in the "threatened" class, so that only 80
sorties per month would be needed, whereas the aircraft could be expected to fly about 200 sorties
monthly. Some threatened convoys may, however, be
in positions which cannot readily be covered by aircraft, so that the expected thoroughness of coverage
must be estimated on the basis of weather, distance of
convoy routes from bases, and similar factors. In the
North Atlantic, convoys were, in fact, covered on
somewhat less than half the days when they were
threatened . If this sort of restriction must be accepted, the expected reduction in losses is only about
30 per cent, which is no longer obviously superior to
the offensive employment of aircraft in the transit
area . As a matter of fact the sightings made (about
15 per month) were about enough to make up the
discrepancy between 30 per cent and 50 per cent
saving.
Such a comparison is never strictly valid, however,
because it is made on the basis of an equilibrium condition which is not approached very quickly. If we
consider N to be a function of time, then equation (4)
is replaced by :
dN - O.lOx 2+4.10-5
= No . of subs built per mo = 5;
100T
N-2+7'
=0.05+N-5
The normal length cruise for a U-boat has been

about 2 months . Using this value for T we have
N - 50 submarines, which is only half the force that
was available in the absence of the aircraft offensive.
Thus we would expect this offensive use of aircraft to
cut the losses o merchant ships in half .
This figure can be compared with the direct defensive value in escort of threatened convoys. The
experience quoted in Chapter 10 was that four sorties
per day decreased the daily losses by about 65 per
(5)
Nz e
= Ne
(o
.os+o_io~ z
0.10
o.zo) a
005- -
~ ~
0.05
-I- N,, .
Here Neg is the equilibrium number of submarines .

For the case previously considered, T = 2 months,
the number of submarines is plotted in Figure 3.
Thus the value of an offensive operation depends
FOLLOW-UP OF CONTACTS
ioo
m
W
escort must be taken into account in arriving at an

evaluation of the relative merits of the two possible
uses of the aircraft. It is clear also that no general
conclusion can be made, but that each decision must
he made after a consideration of the tactical and
strategical situation obtaining at that time .
i
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SUBS
IN COMMISSION DURING
NEXT t MONTHS
80
so
0
w 40
z
.3
SUBS IN COMMISSION AFTER

t MONTHS FROM EQUATION (6)
20
10
20
TIME t IN MONTHS
147
30
40
FIGURE 3 . Diminution of submarine fleet by an antisubmarine offensive .
on the expected length of the war, the upper curve

giving the reduction in the average number of submarines operating as a function of the length of period
under consideration. If the war is expected to last
another 30 or more months, the offensive will achieve
very nearly its equilibrium effectiveness in that the
number of submarines operating is reduced by about
40 per cent with the lifetime (and consequently experience of ships and crews are correspondingly
reduced) . If, on the other hand, the war is to last only
6 months, the average reduction in submarines operating is only about 10 per cent .
The comparison between defensive and offensive
measures is made explicitly in Figure 4. The ordinate
is proportional to the reduction in ship losses, with
no account taken of the attacks on U-boats made by
escort aircraft . It is clear that the effect of the length
of the war on the value of an antisubmarine offensive
and the effect of the probable completeness of convoy
Probably the most important aspect of offensive

operations is the attempt to convert the largest possible fraction of all contacts into attacks and kills.
Often the manner in which contact is made is such
that an immediate attack is not possible . (A typical
example would be a sighting by a merchant ship or
nonoperational aircraft.) It may be that an attack has
been made on the sub and contact subsequently lost,
so that contact must be regained in order to continue the attack. In these cases it is usually very
profitable to conduct a follow-up search in order to
find the sub again.
Follow-up of contacts is a profitable employment
of antisubmarine forces because for the first few
hours after contact has been lost the region in which
the submarine can be is rather small. In this region
the probability density is accordingly high and it
therefore constitutes a profitable region for search . As
an example, consider the case of a submarine whose
position is definitely known at time t = 0, and is then
lost . The submarine is free to travel on the surface.
Since its speed is certainly not greater than 20 knots,
we can be sure that it is within a circle of radius 20t
miles. The corresponding submarine probability
density is shown in Figure 5, calculated on the assumption that the submarine is equally likely to be
anywhere within the circle, that is, that
1
7r(20t)2~
. -2u
AFTER GC7NlAG1
SUB SPEED 10 KT
o N 20
z _
F
~ 10
O
10
20
30
LENGTH OF WAR IN MONTHS
FIGURE 4. Relative saving of ships for various uses of aircraft. (A) Defensive value of escort of all threatened convoys ; (B) defensive value of partial escort of threatened
convoys.
W
<n a
(7)
TYPICAL DENSITY IN AN
ACTIVE AREA
SUB SPEED'
20 KT
10
0
20
TIME IN HOURS
30
FIGURE 5. Local probability density after a submarine

contact; calculated from equation (7).
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
148
The horizontal line drawn for comparison shows a

typical average U-boat density for an active area during the Atlantic war. The conclusion is that follow-up
of the contact is more profitable than general area
patrol for about 10-20 hours after the contact, in this
case . If the overall submarine density is increased,
follow-up of contact becomes relatively less profitable, whereas in a region of low density it is of utmost
importance to exploit each contact to the full .
Figure 5, drawn for submarine speeds of 10-20
knots, is applicable for surfaced submarines . If the
submarine is held down by aircraft or surface craft, its
speed may be considerably less, normally only 2-3
knots for conventional types of submarine. In this
case the local density remains high for a much longer
period than is shown in Figure 5. Consequently,
sonar search for submerged submarines is very much
more effective in follow-up of previous contacts than
in routine area search . Only in areas of great submarine density is it profitable to employ surface craft
for area search by sonar. In general the chief offensive
employment of surface craft will be to follow up
previous contacts, appropriate plans and tactics for
doing so being of prime importance .
There are, then, two distinct tactical situations,

according as aircraft or surface craft are the principal
agents of search . If the hunt is being carried out by
aircraft alone, the aim is to recontact promptly any
submarine which dares to show itself on the surface.
When surface craft are present, however, the submarine will normally remain submerged. (A coordinated hunt by aircraft should be carried out whenever possible to ensure that the submarine does not
make a high-speed escape on the surface .) So long as
the submarine's submerged speed is low, the surface
craft's sonar search has a good chance of resulting in
recontact. Of the two problems, that of surface craft
search is somewhat the simpler and will be discussed
first.
In the actual design of such follow-up searches for
surface craft, two primary requirements must be met
In the first place, the search must be as simple as
possible to carry out and involve no more turns or
changes in disposition than necessary . Ships should
be kept in a line-abreast formation unless there is
some special reason for doing otherwise. Standardized turns and maneuvers should be employed to
avoid confusion in operation. In addition the plan
t=4
Dcuxx 6. Submarine probability as a function of time (t = time in hours) .
t=2
149
flat-topped cylinder, that is, to assume that the submarine is equally likely to be anywhere within a certain radius of the initial point and is known to be
somewhere within that radius . It is reasonable to
write the radius as
r=
a~ + v2 tz,
where a = uncertainty in initial position,

v =submarine's speed,
t = time since initial contact.
Assume that the increment of probability of having
made contact can be written
Qdt
d~ - ,~ (a2 .f Vs tz~ ~ 1 - ~~
FIGURE 7. Typical plan for sonar search by surface craft.
must search regions in which the submarine is likely

to be, in general accordance with the rules of Volume
2B, Chapter 3. In designing the plan, then, an estimate of probability density distribution as a function
of time must be made . Immediately after the original
contact the density is very highly peaked, the only
dispersion arising from errors in reporting the contact position, but as time goes on the submarine may
move further and further from the position of the
original contact and will probably be at some distance from it . A typical set of densities is shown in
Figure 6, and further discussion of such distributions
may be found in Volume 2B, Chapter l .
It is evident that a search plan drawn up on the
basis of such an expanding distribution will usually
have the general shape shown in Figure 7. Extensive
sets of such plans are to be found in present doctrine .e
It is not necessary to go through a detailed analysis
of probability functions such as those of Figure 6,
however, to gain a general idea of the effectiveness o
surface craft follow-up tactics. An analysis of the following type is adequate to indicate the importance of
the factors considered. The fundamental simplification is to replace the surface shown in Figure 6 by a
e Plans are presented in FTP 228A . The mathematical basis
upon which such plans are constructed is given in Volume 2B,
Chapters 3 and 7.
, ,
This assumption implies that the search is carried

out at random, but can be used as a fair approximation to an actual search plan . (See Volume 2B, Chapter 3.) Then
~ = 1 - const X
e-c/7Ta0 tan-lc~~ia~ .
The constant of integration in equation (8) is determined by the condition that p = 4 at the time of commencing search . If this time is denoted by ti,
~~ = I - c:
-(ei~ab) ate-=(vtia)-ta~,-=cnt,ia>>
(9)
When a search is being conducted it should normally

be carried out until there is nothing to be gained by
further searching, i.e ., until p(t) is very near p(co),
which is the ultimate limit. Hence it is useful to write
the probability for t = co, which is
P(oo) = 1
-e-(l7r-)tc7r/21-cao-lt9e1/a>l .
(I0)
Some typical curves plotted on the basis of equation (10) are plotted in Figure 8. A sweep rate of 30
square miles per hour and a sub speed of 3 knots are
assumed . It is evident that a prompt start on the
search combined with accurate localization of the
contact are required for a good probability of success.
Operational data are available on success of followup hunts aimed at regaining contact with a submarine after lost contact following an attack ; these can
be compared with 'the theoretical predictions. For
150
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
75
Z I. .
~
WC~
.WX
Ok!
OZ
fz
w
m
d
50
W
a
25
TIME IN HOURS UNTIL START OF SEARCH

FicoxE 8. Probability of catch for: sweep rate 30 sq miles
per hour ; sub speed of 3 kt .
cases in which a submarine was believed to be present, the results are presented in Table 10 . An average of about two ships took part in the searches .
TABLE 10 . Success of searches to recontact U-boat .
Average time
No . of cases
from lost contact

to start of search
Per cent
successful
19
12
22 min
90 min
53
25
These figures are plotted in Figure 9, and a calculated curve is drawn which is in fair agreement with
the operational points . This curve is drawn on the
assumption that sub speed is 3 knots, initial uncertainty is I mile, and sweep rate is IO sq miles per
hour . The first two assumptions are reasonable for
the tactical situation involved . Since the problem is

one of recontacting a submarine which has been previously attacked, a location error of more than 1 mile
is unlikely. The sweep rate of only about 5 sq miles
per hour per ship is somewhat smaller than might be
expected, however . In Volume 213, Chapter 6, the
average sonar sweep width is estimated at 1800 yd,
corresponding to a sweep rate of about 10 to 12 sq
miles per hour . Several explanations are possible : (1)
in this case U-boats may have been especially careful
to make good use of layer effect and other opportunities to escape detection, (2) wakes, depth charge explosions, etc ., may have made search more difficult,
or (3) the previous estimate, based on the assumption
that a submarine would have been detected every
time at very short range, may have been unduly optimistic. There is, however, no irreconcilable difference between the theoretical expectations and operational results .
0.5
1.0
1.5
2C
TIME IN HOURS UNTIL START OF SEARCH
FicvRE 9 . Per cent of submarines contacted by surface

craft hunts . (Circles are operational data on regaining
contact . (Solid curve is calculated for : Q = 10 sq miles per
hour, A = I mile, V - 3 kt, by equation (10) .
Follow-up hunts by aircraft are of two general

types. The first o these is aimed at detection of submerged submarines by MAD or sono-buoys, the second at visual or radar detection of the submarine
when it has resurfaced. Aside from special limitations
on maneuverability, those of the first type have much
in common with surface craft hunts, since the submarine's behavior is approximately the same . In order
to have an acceptable chance of success the search
must be begun very soon after the initial lost contact,
and the accuracy of locating the initial point must be
high . Since this type of follow-up presents no essentially new problems, detailed discussion will not be
given here .
When, however, the aircraft relies on visual or
radar detection, the search must be planned with
recognition of the fact that a submerged submarine
cannot be detected . Two alternatives are possible,
either a hold-down hunt aimed at covering all possible positions of the submarine so as to keep it from
surfacing until battery and/or crew endurance are
exhausted, or a "gambit" procedure in which the
aircraft endeavor to permit the submarine to resurface and then recontact it . This latter alternative is
equivalent to designing the search so as to concentrate on those regions in which surfaced submarines
are most likely to be . In practice the gambit procedure has usually involved a box search centered at
HOLD-DOWN
AREA
Ut
GAMBIT
COURSE
9
FicURE 10 . Comparison of follow-up hunts.
the point of last contact and far enough distant that

the sub will surface and then try to cross the aircraft's
patrol . The hold-down hunt, on the other hand,
must cover the whole possible area of the submarine
at frequent intervals. This requires a much larger
expenditure of effort, actually far more than is usually available, as can be seen in Figure 10 .
Hold-down
Gambit
1 . Aircraft must cover area

,r(ut)2 about 3 times per hour
so as to keep sub down at all
times.
1. Aircraft must make circuit

2,rut in length often enough
to prevent crossing on surface.
2. For velocity of aircraft= V,

and sweep width w, this requires 3,r(ut)2/wV aircraft in
the region at time = t.
2. For aircraft velocity = V,

sweep width w, and sub surfaced speed Us this requires
(Ua/m) (2,rut/V) aircraft flying
at time = t.
3. To carry out from 1 hr to 36 hr with u - 3 kt, w - 10 miles,

Y = 125 .kt, and U, = 15 kt we require
150 flying hours
1050 flying hours
Obviously much less flying is required for the gambit procedure than for hold-down, especially since a
true hold-down should last for well over 36 hr . As
a matter of fact, there have been very few cases where
TABLE 11 ., Hours of flying on contact by type of mission .
(Trinidad area) .
Aug 1942
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 1943
Total
Total hours of flying
Avg hours per contact
Escort
of
Routine
convoy patrol
Hunts
Escort
of
Routine
convoy patrol Hunts
714
1,085
489
925
638
1,438
1,514
3,405
3,852
3,221
8,171
3,668
134
486
701
584
620
486
714
362
163
.. . ...
319
519
116
227
241
403
3,171
1,834
45
97
88
584
124
234
4,889
18,831
3,011
444
342
125
151
hunts have been made with sufficient intensity to

qualify as true hold-downs offering the submarine no
opportunity for surfacing. A hard and fast distinction cannot be made in the case of actual operations.
Operational results normally confirm the theoretical expectation that flying on hunts in follow-up
of contact is more profitable than any other type in
terms of flying hours required per submarine contact.
Table 11 presents data of this sort from the Trinidad
Area for the period august 1942 to January 1943 .
Hunt flying is seen to be three to four times as profitable as other types.
A small number of aircraft hunts have been
studied in detail in order to determine the relative
effectiveness of different types of follow-up tactics.
Although the number of cases involved was too small
to permit great reliance to be placed on the results,
they are of interest as confirmation of the expected
trends . A total of 18 hunts are involved, which occurred between March 15, 1943, and October 20,
1943, in the United States Strategic Area . The overall
results are summarized in Table 12 .
TABLE 12 . Results of aircraft hunts.
(United States strategic area, 1943 .)
Total number of hunts
Hunts achieving recontacts
Per cent of hunts successful
Average duration of hunt (hours)
Total number of recontacts made
Recontacts per hunt
Average time between recontacts (hours)
18
11
61
59
22
1 .22
14 .6
The effectiveness of these hunts is shown by the

fact that 61 per cent of them succeeded in again establishing contact with the submarine . On the average,
subs were recontacted about two times in those cases.
A more detailed breakdown of the results is presented in Table 13 .
TABLE 13 . Comparison of results by hunt type .
Number of hunts
Number successful
Per cent successful
Average flying hours
in hunt area
Number of recontacts
per hunt
Flying hours in area
per recontact
Continuous
gambit
Modified
exhaustion
Exhaustion
12
9
75
2
1
50
4
1
25
'15
280
$00
1 .33
58
2.50
114
0.25
1,186
152
OFFENSIVE SEARCH
This table shows clearly the high effectiveness of

the gambit type of hunt in comparison with other
types. It ranks well in terms of percentage success an,
average number of recuntacts per hunt. Since the
number of flying hours employed was much smaller
than for the other types, the results in terms of flying
hours required per recontact show a definite advantage to the gambit type.
In connection with the general importance of follow-up hunts, one further remark is worth while.
Such hunts are profitable because they are carried
out in a small area in which the submarine probability density is high . For best effectiveness accurate
navigation is required to locate the area properly and
to carry out the desired search plan . In addition communications must be excellent in order to assure that
the hunting craft reach the submarine position at
the earliest possible moment, since the early stages
of the hunt are the most profitable . In order to insure
that coordinated follow-up hunts are carried out
successfully, great skill is required in each of these
fields .
Chapter 14
EMPLOYMENT OF SEARCH RADAR IN RELATION TO

ENEMY COUNTERMEASURES
14 .1
INTRODUCTION
ADAR has been only one of the many weapons

Rapplied to defeat the German use of U-boats, but
it has played an important role at certain critical
times. Because the U-boat high command failed to
anticipate the effectiveness of search radar, its use by
the Allies caused especially grave concern to the Uboats. The moves and countermoves of the radar war
offer an interesting example of the importance of
quick and accurate evaluation of enemy measures .
Although the events of World War II conform in
general to the scheme of measures and countermeasure set forth in Volume 1 on Operations Research, a
review of them shows that evaluation of the operational effectiveness of enemy countermeasures is of
utmost importance . Even when a countermeasure has
excellent theoretical performance, it is a rare event
for it to be applied widely enough and with sufficient operational effectiveness to justify the extreme
tactic of abandoning the weapon being countered.
Usually the prompt (but not premature) application
of counter-countermeasures will largely restore the
effectiveness of the weapon . This has been particularly true of the radar versus search receiver competition which arose during the latter part of the Uboat war.
The following discussion will accordingly pay primary attention to the development of German search
receivers and the counter-countermeasures employed
to reduce the effectiveness of the German gear . In
addition, the importance of Schnorchel and radar
camouflage as a countermeasure to Allied search
radar will be considered . There have also, however,
been a number of less important German radar
countermeasure developments, which are described
briefly below.
1 . Submergence. It is evident that the submarine
can escape radar detection by staying submerged, and
in the final phases of World War II German U-boats
made a policy of keeping below the surface as much
as possible when in dangerous waters. As pointed out
in previous chapters, however, the loss in mobility
and in offensive capabilities was very serious, and a
normal type of U-boat (without Schnorchel) could

not operate effectively using maximum submergence
tactics. Such tactics as these must be considered a very
unsatisfactory last resort from the submarine's point
of view .-,
2. Aircraft warning radar . Radar of this type
(Hohentwiel) was developed and installed on a considerable number of U-boats . Its use was slight, however, and successes insignificant. This was due to two
factors, the relatively low power and short range of
this radar and the fear of Allied search receivers. In
general the range on aircraft of the long-wave, lowpower U-boat radar was shorter than the range on
surfaced U-boats of Allied microwave air-to-surfacevessel [ASV] radar. This increased the lack of confidence in radar current among U-boat commanders
which was caused by their basic objection to any radiation of energy which could be listened to and
located by direction-finding devices . They were convinced of the danger of Allied listening gear long before it existed in adequate quantity to be of operational importance. This threat was sufficient to nullify the use of U-boat radar. This fact has been subsequently established from statements made by German personnel but was appreciated earlier on the
basis of information obtained from ferret planes
equipped with listening gear . They were dispatched
to areas in which U-boats were known to be operating, but the sequence of negative reports showed that
there was no significant use of the radar sets installed
on the U-boats. Meanwhile laboratory developments
and small-scale production of homing and directionfinding search receivers anticipated a revival of Uboat radar. It is possible that submarine radar would
a At the end of the war German U-boats of high submerged
speed (10-15 knots for Type XXI, 15-25 knots for the proposed
Type XXVI) were approaching operational status . "They were
designed to operate effectively when submerged and would have
been able to stay submerged using Schnorchel to escape radar
detection, yet retain potent offensive capabilities because of their
special propulsion for high submerged speed. Conclusions drawn
from operations involving old-style U-boats may be completely
inapplicable to these new types . Their development shows, however, that the Germans had realized that the other types were
not satisfactory for completely submerged operation.
153
SEARCH RADAR IN RELATION TO ENEMY COUNTERMEASURES
154
be a handicap rather than a help if opposed by adequate airborne listening gear .b

3. Radar decoy. Various types of radar decoys or
false targets have been employed in the hopes of
drawing the attention of Allied radar search craft
away from the U-boats themselves . Nletallized fabriccovered balloons [RDB] and arrays of reasonant dipoles on spar buoys (Thetis) have been used, especially in the Bay of Biscay . In sufficient numbers they
might be expected to lead to a serious waste of search
time and effort, and there has been at least one instance of a United States surface vessel being torpedoed while investigating a decoy target . In general,
however, decoys have not been very successful in confusing Allied ASV radar search, largely because they
proved to be too small as radar targets to be detected .
In addition, careful study of target motion aids the
radar operator in distinguishing stationary spar
buoys or wind-blown balloons from true targets.
The most significant German countermeasures to
Allied search radar have been twofold-first, the development of intercept receivers and, second, the development of Schnorchel and associated radar camouflage. These will now be discussed.
r4~2
SEARCH RECEIVERS
For submarines, in particular, employment of an

effective radar intercept receiver provides a very
satisfactory countermeasure to search radar. Upon
receiving a signal of sufficient intensity from the
enemy radar, the submarine can dive and become
completely hidden . So long as the intercept receiver
can be depended on to outrange the enemy radar (as
it should, in principle, usually be able to do), the
b United States submarine crews have to some extent shared
the Germans' suspicion of aircraft warning radar and convinced
themselves that the Japanese were homing on SD radar transmissions from a number of individual incidents which seemed
to indicate such homing . Many of them ceased to use SD radar.
Statistical data showed, however, that no effective homing was
taking place as late as December 1944, as can be deduced from
the table below.
SD nonusers
SD users
14.2.1
Meter Radar Is Compromised by

Metox German Search Receiver
Even as early as August 1941 it had been suggested,

since aircraft not employing ASV radar were more
successful than aircraft using ASV in sighting Uboats, that U-boats were detecting ASV transmissions. To obtain evidence of this an experiment was
carried out by Coastal Command, and aircraft operating off Brest observed ASV silence on alternate
weeks for a brief period . The results of this experiment, given in Table 1, showed that there was no
evidence of any disadvantage involved in the use of
ASV, since aircraft using radar made more contacts
than those not using radar in the same amount of
flying.
TABLE 1. Contacts with and without radar.
(Biscay area, September 1941 .)
THE PROBLEM OF GERMAN
Aircraft contacts
per 100 days
(in Luzon strait)
protection offered is complete . Nevertheless, such

complete protection is rarely achieved in practice .
(See Chapter 5 in Volume 2B .) It is valuable to describe the various stages in the radar versus search receiver competition that took place in the U-boat war
as an example of the problems involved in evaluating
correctly the effectiveness of countermeasures of this
type .
Percentage of aircraft
(all areas)
that detected subs
Day
Night
Day
Night
84
86
23
24
12
9
10
8
Radar off
Flying hours in area
Contacts : Visual
Radar
528
3
. . . . .,
Radar on
541
5
21/,
Total
Later intelligence showed that this conclusion was

indeed correct. From the start of World War II, the
Germans were fully aware of the possibilities of
meter ASV radar and had developed their own airborne search equipment, but it was not until the
summer of 1942 that they concluded that the Allies
were using radar for U-boat search and initiated a
hurried program for the development of search receivers to detect the radiations . The first equipment
to be installed on U-boats was the R-600 or Metox
with a low wavelength limit of 130 cm . It was of the
heterodyne type, thought to be the only type capable
of sufficient sensitivity, and so it radiated energy, a
property which eventually caused its abandonment.
Nevertheless, it was used with apparent success, and
the conditions of its introduction and use are of considerable interest .
THE PROBLEM OF GERMAN SEARCH RECEIVERS
155
These data, like those obtained earlier by Coastal

Command, showed little evidence of any effective use
of radar listening gear by the U-boats, as shown in
Table 2. Two conclusions were possible, either that
the use of the gear was much less effective in the
Trinidad area than the Bay of Biscay or that the
Z
W
U
change in the Bay was not due to Metox but was, for
C
example, a seasonal change . The actual situation
i
may have involved more psychological benefit from
the Metox than physical benefit. The use of Leigh
Light Wellingtons in the summer of 1942 may have
scared U-boats into abandoning the policy of surfacing at night even though the number of planes was
AUG
SEP
NOV
DEG
JUN
JUL
OCT
small and surfacing in the daytime was still much
1942
more dangerous. With the advent of Metox they
Fccuxs 1. Fraction of U-boat transits of Bay of Biscay
may have returned to the safer policy of nighttime
that were sighted.
surfacing. In the Trinidad area, on the other hand,
The German development of search receivers was there was no radical change in U-boat tactics except
closely related to the progress of the aircraft anti-U- for a general increase in caution.
boat offensive in the Bay of Biscay. In June 1942 the
If this last explanation is taken as the correct one
introduction of night attacks by Leigh Light Wel- it is still, in a sense, fair to say that Metox caused the
lingtons and the accompanying sharp rise in the change in Bay of Biscay results in the fall of 1942 . It
number of attacks made on U-boats caused the Ger- would not be safe, however, to conclude that Metox
mans to take some action, and the Metox German was, therefore, a very effective search receiver. The
search receiver [GSR] was the result. Its operational actual mechanism linking cause and effect was a
success against the British Mk II radar was consider- more subtle one. Whatever the explanation of the
able, as sightings in the Bay transit area were greatly apparent success of Metox, it was short-lived, for the
reduced. Figure 1 shows that the fraction of U-boat Allies soon introduced S-band (10-cm) radar and the
transits sighted dropped markedly with the intro- effectiveness of air search reached even higher levels
duction of Metox after the summer of 1942, although than before .
the amount of flying done remained approximately
constant.
14.2 .2 Germans Baffled by S-Band Radar
During the period shown in Figure 1 data on the
Meanwhile, Allied development of airborne Seffectiveness of radar search were also obtained in
band
radar was proceeding, based on the magnetron
regions
than
the
Bay
of
Biscay,
example,
other
for
in
transmitter
tube, and it was put into operational
Trinidad
area
the
Caribbean
the
of
Sea Frontier.
service early in 1943 as the U.S . SCR-717 and ASG,
TABLE 2 . Contacts with and without radar
and the British Mk III types. This new wave band
(Trinidad area, Aug 1942 Jan 1948 .)
not only provided immunity from detection by
Metox but also gave increased ranges of detection on
Effective search
U-boats. The operational success of this type of gear
rate in sq . miles
was considerable. Aided by the seasonal upswing in
Hours of flying
Contacts
per hour
aircraft effectiveness normally occurring in the
Month No radar Radar No radar Radar No radar Radar
spring months because of better weather and more
Aug
1,511
851
11
6
526
507
daylight hours, S-band radar had much to do with
Sept
3,326
1,650
8
15
93
351
the peak of aircraft achievements reached in the
Oct
1,878
3,164
6
21
120
248
Nov
1,016
3,714
0
9
0
149
summer of 1943 .
Dec
3,229
1,200
6
2
106
95
Evidences of the success of the air war against
Jan
3,648
1,544
97
114
Total 14,608
12,123
35
55
127
241
c See Volume 213, Chapter 5, for detailed discussion of radar

ranges .
156
!00
BO
U/B~S ADOPT
MAXIMUM
SUBMERGENCE
CM RADAR
COMES IiVT
USE
40
a
a
z
W
c>
60
Y
2
40
a
a
m
~
20
30
20
10
0
0
z
J
F M
A M J
1943
Ftcvxe 2. Fraction of U-boat transits of Bay of Biscay

sighted.
U-boats at that time are shown in Figures 2 and 3 below. Figure 2 presents data on the sighting of U-boats
passing through the Bay of Biscay . The sharp rise it
the spring months is very evident. In Figure 3, which
gives the overall results of the aircraft offensive in
terms of U-boats sunk per month, there is also a sharp
rise at this time . S-band radar was by no means the
,, .only cause of this increase in air effectiveness, but
there is no doubt that it made a significant contribution . The other major factor was the introduction of
aircraft based on escort carriers for mid-ocean offensive operations .
With this upswing in Allied aircraft success, the
Germans became convinced that Allied aircraft were
using some new detection device and started a frantic
activity to identify and counter it . For a time they
occupied themselves with the idea that it was an infrared detector, since they had tried to develop one
of their own, and experimented with special paints
intended to give no infrared reflections. They also
considered the possibility of a frequency-scanning
radar anti developed a scanning receiver with a cathode-ray tube presentation . This was of definite advantage to the operator, but it still covered only the
same meter-wave band . The sinkings of U-boats
continued.
In desperation they jumped to the conclusion that
their GSR radiations were being homed on . The
NIetox receiver was outlawed and the Wanz G-1 in-
F M
A M
1943
Ficuat: 3. U-boats sunk per month by aircraft .
troduced . This was of an improved design and radiated much less power. However, the almost pathological fear of radiation which had been bred in the
minds of U-boat captains prevented them from
trusting it . Continued sinkings and skepticism of the
technical advantages kept it from being used .
Next the German scientists turned to the much
less sensitive crystal detector-receiver, which was entirely free from radiation, and produced the "Borkurn ." This was a broad-band intercept receiver
which covered the 7-300-cm band . Neither it nor the
Wanz was effective against the new Allied radar,
however.
Finally, in September 1943, the U-boat command
realized that 10-cm radar was being used against
them . The "Rotterdam Gerat," a British H2S radar
working in the 10-cm band, had been captured intact
at Rotterdam by the German Air Force in March
1943, and German scientists had soon determined its
characteristics. How the 6-month delay from March
to September occurred is unexplained. It was a significant time factor in the U-boat war . A further
delay of about 6 months intervened before the first
really effective S-band receivers became operational
in April 1944 . During this interval the frantic experimentings of the German Technical Service became
evident in such incidents as the patrol of the U-406
carrying one of their best GSR experts, Dr . Greven,
and his staff, with a full complement o experimental
THE PROBLEM OF GERMAN SEARCH RECEIVERS
search receivers. The U-406 was sunk, and other experimental patrols also had short careers.
The drop in results of the Allied air effort at the
end of the summer of 1943, which is shown in both
Figure 2 and Figure 3, was only in small part due to
GSR developments . The U-boats simply adopted an
ultraconservative policy of maximum submergence
and rarely exposed themselves to air attack . In passing through the Bay of Biscay they crept along the
Spanish coast, in regions inaccessible from Britain,
and surfaced as little as they could. With such tactics
U-boat effectiveness was very low, but they gained
respite from air attack .
14 .2 .3
Naxos Search Receiver Covers

S-Band
Out of this confusion finally came the "Naxos" intercept receiver covering the 8-12-cm band. The first
models introduced in the fall of 1943 were crude
portable units mounted on a stick and carried up
through the conning tower upon surfacing. The
range was short, because of the crystal detector principle, the broad-band coverage, and the small, nondirectional antenna: estimates of range from prisoner-of-war reports were 8 to IO miles.
Allied reaction to intelligence reports about Naxos
as early as December 1943 brought the fear that
S-band radar was compromised. Even earlier than
this (November 1942) "disappearing contacts" had
led many to assume compromise long before 10-cm
search receivers were thought of by the Germans. A
serious morale problem developed among Allied
ASV flyers with this news and the drop in U-boat
contacts . Radar was turned off completely in several
squadrons where its use could only have resulted in
more numerous contacts . Tactics were improvised to
salvage some usefulness for the radars on the assumption that the GSR would outrange the radar (an
assumption that was largely false) . Some of them are
listed below.
1 . Prohibition of special radar procedure during
the approach, such as "searchlighting" the target,
sector scan, or change of scan rate, since such changes
would indicate to a GSR operator that radar contact
had been made, and the U-boat could then take
evasive action . (It was considered unlikely that
U-boats would dive immediately an receiving a signal on GSR.)
2. Attenuators, such as "Vixen," were initiated to
157
cause a slow and steady decrease in transmitted power

as range closed and so to confuse the GSR operator .
In order to use Vixen successfully, the contact must
be made at a range of 15 miles or greater and the
cycle started soon after. Since this is greater than the
average radar range under many conditions, it could
only be used for less than half the contacts . Production was slow and installation slower, with the result
that Vixen had no operational opportunity for justifying the effort spent in its development.
3. An interim tactic of "tilt-beam" approach was
proposed to reduce signal intensity as range was
closed by tilting the radar beam up off the target .
This requires unusual skill and cooperation between
pilot and radar operator to be effective, and its value
has never been adequately proved .
4. Almost in desperation the tactic of turning the
spinner aft (for the 360-degree scanning radars) and
approaching by dead reckoning was suggested. The
chances of a successful navigational approach are
small, however, as compared with radar homing on
the target, and this proposal was not very promising.
A serious error in some Allied thinking at this
phase consisted of overestimating the capabilities
and efficiency of the Naxos GSR. It was felt that such
a search receiver would completely nullify the effectiveness of S-band radar, but such did not prove to
be the case. The data presented in Table 3 show the
effectiveness of night flying during the period October 1943 to January 1944 in the Bay of Biscay (the
region in which use of GSR might be expected to
cause the largest reduction) .
If we consider that the discrepancy between expectation and results obtained is entirely due to
TABLE 3. Results of S-band radar night flying.
(Bay of Biscay, October 1943-January 1944 .)
Type of aircraft
and radar
Expected
contacts
on basis of
previous months
Wellingtons,
British Mk 111
Halifaxes>
British Nfk III
Liberators,
ASG, searchlights
Liberators,
ASG, no searchlights
Total
Sightings
Disappearing
contacts
probably
on U-boats
62
15
23
32
18
15
30
12
14
25
149
1'*
46
" This poor shoving probably due to lack of experience.
13
65
158
GSR, we would conclude that it enabled 25 per cent

of the U-boats that would normally have been contacted to escape detection altogether, 44 per cent to
dive after being contacted by radar but before being
sighted visually, leaving 31 per cent that were still
sighted, even with GSR. At the most, then, it can be
concluded that a reduction of 69 per cent was caused .
As an overall average, day and night, including other
areas, the reduction would be much less, possibly 25
to 50 per cent . Since the sweep rate in S-band radar
search is under most conditions several times that for
visual, the use of radar was still imperative .
Efforts were made, therefore, to revive the confidence in radar and keep it in operation. Contacts by
S-band radar continued to be made, and it became
evident that the Germans did not have much confidence in the effectiveness of their search receivers,
nor did they use them consistently . In the coming
months they were to become more and more committed to the use of Schnorchel rather than search
receivers to defeat Allied radar.
obtain full coverage, the antennas were rotated

manually at about 2 rpm. Allied tests on captured
specimens of this gear showed good performance
with a range of about 15 miles on an aircraft at 140
ft increasing to 40 miles or more at altitudes in excess
of 1000 ft . Ranges obtained in operational use were
undoubtedly somewhat shorter, but Tunis was apparently an effective search receiver.
The outstanding tactic proposed for Allied use
against Tunis was intermittent radar operation. A
schedule of two or three radar scans at intervals of 1
to 2 minutes for a narrow-beam radar will point the
beam on target for only a small fraction of the time .
Since the sweeping GSR beam is only occasionally
pointed at the aircraft, and since a coincidence of
these events is necessary for the GSR to achieve a
detection, the probability of detection by GSR can
be made rather small. Discussion of this procedure is
given in Volume 2B, Chapter 5. Since it was not used
to a significant extent in operations, it will not be
discussed further here .
14.2.4
14 .3
X-Sand Radar and Tunis GSR
Since an S-band search receiver could, in principle,

be highly effective, the use of radar o an even higher
frequency was an obvious next step as a countermeasure to Naxos. Development and allocations of Xband (3-cm) equipments even preceded the advent of
Naxos and were further stimulated by the problem
it presented . However, the Germans were not caught
napping this time . An H2X blind-bombing aircraft
was lost over Berlin in January 1944, and from the
damaged remains the Germans learned of the new
frequency band . It was assumed that this frequency
would also be applied to ASV radar, and the development of X-band intercept receivers was started before
use of the X-band radar by the Allies in U-boat
search had produced many results. A well-designed
receiver was developed, known as Tunis, which consisted of two antennas, the Mucke horn for X-band,
and the Cuba la (FIiege) dipole and parabolic reflector for S-band, and installations started in the late
spring of 1944 . Installations seem to have been completed during the period of inactivity following the
withdrawal to Norwegian and German bases, but the
operational use of Tunis was not great, because of the
reliance placed on Schnorchel from that time on .
The chief feature of Tunis was the directional antennas which gave increased sensitivity and range. To
USE OF SCHNORCHEL AND
CAMOUFLAGE
Apparently dissatisfied with search receivers as a

means of achieving immunity from radar detection,
the U-boat Command turned to more drastic measures during the last year of the war. The development of Schnorchel was carried out during the latter
months of 1943 and fitting of the equipment to
U-boats began early in 1944 . Using Schnorchel for
Diesel intake and exhaust, the U-boat could run at
periscope depth with only a small Schnorchel head
showing above the surface, yet accomplish the ventilation of the boat and recharge of batteries that previously had required surfaced operations . Starting in
the spring of 1944, U-boats spent very little time on
the surface, employing Schnorchel or electric propulsion almost exclusively .
Original Schnorchel gave reduced radar echoes
merely because of their small size . As a result the
average range of detection is reduced to about a
third of that on a surfaced U-boat . In addition, the
echo is frequently too small for detection until it has
entered the area of sea returns which mask it quite
effectively, and many potential Schnorchel contacts
are missed completely for this reason . Even without
camouflage, a Schnorchel is a difficult target to detect by radar. Not content with this state of affairs,
USE OF SCHNORCHEL AND CAMOUFLAGE
the Germans developed nonreflective coatings for application to Schnorchel which still further reduced
the echo from it . Fortunately this camouflage reached
operational use only a few months before the end of
World War II .
14.3 .1
Radar Detection of Schnorchel
In order to evaluate the performance of radar in

detecting Schnorchel numerous trials have been conducted with dummy or mockup Schnorchel targets .
It is not intended to present a summary of them here .
The values quoted in Table 4 are typical . The figures
TABLE 4 . Test results on Schnorchel detection .
(ASWDU trials.)
Type radar
AN/APS-15
Average range on surfaced sub (miles)
Average range on Schnorchel (miles)
% runs on which contact made on
Schnorchel
Sea states 1 and 2
Sea states 3 and 4
ASG
32
10 .5
19
4.1
82
55
67
32
show a serious reduction in both range and reliability

of detection as compared with that on a surfaced
U-boat. Depending on the radar set involved and the
sea state, the reduction in sweep rate varies from 75
per cent to 95 per cent, even though the position of
the Schnorchel was approximately known in these
trials, which would make detection unrealistically
easy.
Operational results have been even more discouraging. For the period November 1944 to March 1945
an analysis was made of a region near the British
Isles which contained about 0.25 U-boat per 1000
sq miles. Assuming that they had been Schnorcheling about a quarter of the time, the expected number
of sightings made by the 19,360 flying hours done in
the area would be :
Number of sightings = area swept X density
of Schnorchels
= 19,360' x Q x
= 1 .2Q.
4 x 0.25
1,000
The total number of sightings and disappearing

radar contacts made at night was 16, so that
Q - 16 _
13 sq miles per hour .
12 -
(1)
159
The sweep width is then about 110 of a mile, only

about 1 per cent of the value on a surfaced U-boat .
In operations, therefore, Schnorchel has been very
successful in countering radar detection . In the daytime, when visual sightings are also possible, its immunity from contact is not quite so great . The sweep
width has been estimated at 0 .6 mile .
14 .3.2
Countermeasures to Schnorchel
A number of countermeasures to Schnorchel have

been employed, among them the following.
I . Modifications in tactical doctrine to match the
decreased radar sweep width (see Volume 2B) . This is
not a universal scale factor, but must be analyzed for
each search plan . For example, the shorter aircraft
radar range is partially compensated for by the decreased submarine speed .
2. Radar modifications to improve the efficiency of
contact, such as sea return discriminator circuits.
3 . New radar developments of high-power, narrow-beam, short-pulse equipments designed to provide better resolution in search for small targets .
These have, however, by no means solved the problem, and Schnorchel remains a very difficult object to
detect . In the overall picture of ASW, surface craft
have played a very important part in combatting
Schnorchel operations . The decreased speed and mobility of a Schnorcheling submarine require it to
operate in relatively restricted waters and focal areas.
In such conditions search and counteroffensive operations by surface craft have good chances of success.
As mentioned in Chapter 13, the use of sono-buoys
for detection of Schnorchel has promise.
14.3 .3
German Camouflage Developments
The general problem of radar camouflage had

been under intensive study in Germany since June
1943, but the decision to apply absorptive coatings to
Schnorchels was not made until the fall of 1944 .
Plans were made and put into effect at this time to
provide microwave protection for all U-boats, and it
is estimated that 100 to 150 craft were actually fitted
with coated Schnorchels before the end of March
1945 .
Two types of coatings were employed, the Jaumann and tiVesch absorbers. The Jaumann absorber
was made up of spaced graduated layers of semicon-
160
ducting paper . The Wesch absorber was made up of

rubber mat containing a high percentage of iron
powder .
The Jaumann absorber was the more effective, and
German reports appear to be reliable in that the
range of detection on a Schnorchel coated with it was
only 15 per cent of the range on the uncoated Schnorchel . One o its disadvantages, however, was that it
had to be preformed and could be used only on flat
and cylindrical surfaces . The absorptive properties of
the Wesch absorber were not so good.
It may be concluded, therefore, that the use of such
absorbers would make Schnorchel practically safe
from detection by 10-cm (and also 3-cm) radar. The
Germans were concerned with the possibility of
danger from radar of longer wavelengths, but it is
doubtful that radar of this type would be very effective against such small targets. Use of a variety of
frequencies would counter the effectiveness of these
absorbers to some extent, until absorbers are developed to cover the whole microwave band.
19 .4
CONCLUSIONS
It can thus be seen that this succession of measures

and countermeasures, tactical and otherwise, represented, in the main, a series of concessions by the
U-boats to the effectiveness of radar-equipped aircraft. The result has been a great reduction in the
mobility and attack potential of the U-boats, which,
however, has gained them considerable immunity
from airborne radar search . This situation was recognized very clearly by the Germans, and their largescale program for the development and introduction
of new types of U-boats of increased underwater
speed and endurance was an attempt to overcome
these limitations. Whether future submarines, which
will probably be forced to operate almost totally submerged (or on a Schnorchel), can achieve the success
which submarines had in World War II is a problem
for speculative analysis beyond the scope of this discussion. New technical developments make it seem
quite possible, however.
Chapter 15
COUNTERMEASURES TO THE GERMAN

ACOUSTIC TORPEDO
15 .1
INTRODUCTION
URING THE LAST 24 months of World War II GerDman U-boats made operational use of acoustic
torpedoes, which were first employed in September

1943 . The general performance of the torpedo is as
follows: It is fired in the normal manner, that is,
under gyro control on a collision course . When the
torpedo comes sufficiently close to a noise source,
such as the ship's propellers, it hears the noise and
"homes" on it, i.e ., turns towards the source and attempts to keep headed towards it until a hit occurs .
The torpedo need merely come within homing
range of the ship to have a high probability of hitting . In effect it makes for itself a larger and more
circular target than that of an ordinary "straightrun" torpedo. The louder the ship (in the frequency
band received by the torpedo), the greater will be the
homing range and consequently the effectiveness of
the weapon .
'5.1.1
Types of Countermeasures
The simplest of the several possible countermeasures to such a torpedo-slowing the target-is suggested by the fact that a ship's sound output increases
rapidly with speed. A ship is so much quieter at 7
knots than at 15 knots that the homing range is only
about one-fifth that at the higher speed, and the effective target size is correspondingly reduced. Slowing
considerably increases vulnerability to torpedoes of
other types, however. Other means of quieting the
ship's propellers, such as masking them with bubbles,
have at best halved the homing range in tests to date.
Slowing the ship is an example of a tactical countermeasure since no new gear is required for its introduction . A materiel countermeasure, on the other
hand, is one which does involve the use of special
equipment. Another type of tactical countermeasure is possible if the target ship has sufficient warning as to when and where the torpedo is fired and if
the torpedo's homing range is not too great. A radical maneuver may be made which will keep the ship
out of listening range o the torpedo. This has been
called a "step-aside" when used by an antisubmarine

vessel attempting to approach the submarine for an
attack . It is useful only when contact has been made
at long range and hampers the ship considerably in
its attempt to get in to sonar contact .
The third tactical countermeasure is to maintain

a speed greater than that of the torpedo and is therefore unavailable to many ships. A torpedo homing on
a target faster than itself will usually be left behind .
Its listening sensitivity is limited by its own self
noise,a which in turn increases rapidly with its speed.
Thus some compromise is required between speed
and homing range, and an acoustic torpedo will usually be slower than its straight-running counterpart.
The ship speed required to outrun the German torpedo was initially considered to be about 20 knots;
this estimate was later raised to 25 knots, but final
information indicated that 20 knots was adequate
after all. Continual rumors of a 30-knot modification
of the torpedo cast doubts on these figures, however.
In addition to the above tactical countermeasures,
there are several possible materiel countermeasures.
These usually involve noisemakers [NM's], which are
small devices, yet several times louder than a ship at
the frequencies received by the torpedo. The NM's
must be placed so as to attract the torpedo on its
initial aproach and thereafter prevent its getting into
a position to home on the ship . By the end of 1943
escort vessels were equipped to tow one or two noisemakers about 200 yd astern . Equipment of this type
was the standard materiel countermeasure employed
during the remainder of World War II .
The evaluation of such countermeasures would be
much simplified and shipboard morale much improved if some indication were given when a torpedo has been successfully countered. Development
work was done on several devices to detonate the
torpedo before it reached the ship . These included
nets, rotating barriers, explosive streamers, and magnetic fields set up by trailing electric cables . They
a Noise generated by the torpedo itself, particularly its propellers, makes a substantial contribution to the background
noise heard by the acoustic mechanism. This contribution is
called self noise.
161
162
COUNTERMEASURES TO THE GERMAN ACOUSTIC TORPEDO
were simplest and most effective when used with

towed NM's . However, they were never issued because they were fragile, difficult to handle, uncertain
in effectiveness, and seriously impeded the ship's
maneuvering.
A towed NM alone interferes considerably with
the antisubmarine vessel's offensive. The towline
restricts the maneuverability of the ship, and the
sound generated interferes with sonar and gives the
submarine early hydrophone warning. To get around
these disadvantages consideration was given to expendable noisemakers projected from the ship or
dropped astern . By 1945 such noisemakers had been
produced for masking U . S. submarines from enemy
sound gear, and their practicability as a torpedo
countermeasure had been tested . As long as there is
danger of a torpedo being fired, an NM must be projected at least once every 90 sec. This expenditure is
feasible only when a submarine is known to be close.
It has long been envisaged that the ultimate countermeasure to acoustic torpedoes would incorporate a
detector which would give sufficient warning of an
approaching torpedo to investigate the successful use
of expendable NM's . Such a detector is not yet
available.
15 .1 .2
Scope of Further Discussion
The bulk of this chapter deals with the evaluation

of towed NM's, since this type of countermeasure was
of primary importance during World War II . The
effectiveness of such a countermeasure depends on
the mode of operation of the torpedo, and, therefore,
the discussion deals chronologically with the evaluation in the light of changing information concerning the nature of the torpedo .
The most important information to be gleaned
from operational data is also included . The data are
discouraging since in most cases only those torpedoes which hit ships are detected . In addition it is
difficult to decide which torpedoes were acoustically
controlled and this makes interpretation of the data
uncertain . It is hoped that these difficulties can eventually be overcome by analysis of German Admiralty
records, which should give further information on
the operational effectiveness of Allied noisemakers.
Expendable NM's did not see operational use and
will not be discussed further. They must be kept in
mind, however, as having possible future usefulness .
Detailed evaluation of tactical countermeasures is
also omitted. It is now felt that high speed is the only

tactical countermeasure likely to be very effective,
and it can rarely be used .
15.2
DEVELOPMENT OF TOWED
NOISEMAKERS
'5.2.1
German Introduction of Acoustic

Torpedoes
By early 1943 intelligence information indicated

that the Germans had an acoustic torpedo in production and that successful running tests had been made
the previous summer . Accordingly, the Allied study
of countermeasures, which had been following along
with the development of similar torpedoes, was put
on a high priority . Soon the different possibilities
mentioned in the Introduction had all been given
some consideration .
An excellent towed NM was already in use for
sweeping acoustic mines. This device consists of two
steel bars, clamped parallel close together, which are
pulled through the water in the direction perpendicular to the plane containing their axes . The water
flowing between them causes the bars to strike against
each other and give off much more acoustic energy
than does a ship at all frequencies greater than 1 kc .b
Both Great Britain and the United States proceeded
to modify noisemakers of this type so that they could
be towed at an adequate speed (at least 10 knots) and
produce good sound output for a life of several hours.
The parallel-bar type of noisemaker has subsequently
been in general use by both navies .
By May 1943 the British had information indicating that the German torpedo homed at 20 knots with
a minimum turning radius of about 100 yd and that
its homing range might be as great as 1000 yd . They
also suggested that the torpedo might be "forwardlistening," in other words, that the hydrophones
might be very insensitive to any sound approaching
from near the torpedo's stern (in order to reduce the
self noise from its propellers) .
From this information the British concluded that
two NM's should be towed 200 yd astern and separated by about 100 yd . As will be shown later, the
b An acoustic torpedo could not be sensitive to a lover frequency because a hydrophone system small enough to fit in a
torpedo would not be sufficiently directional, that is, could not
tell the side on which a noise was heard.
DEVELOPMENT OF TONED NOISEMAKERS
torpedo is very likely to overtake a towed noisemaker

from the rear at some time in its gyrations and to pass
over the NM and head toward the ship . With a forward-listening torpedo there might be considerable
danger that the torpedo would escape from a single
NM at this time, hearing and overtaking the ship
while keeping the NM in the insensitive arc astern .
If, however, as it left one NM behind, the torpedo
found another on its beam, this second NM could be
relied on to take control. The simplest way to get this
protection was to tow two noisemakers abreast, sufficiently separated to assure that whenever the ship
was ahead of the torpedo there was also an NM
within 110 degrees of the torpedo's bow. To provide
separation the British began developing a diverter
with the necessary rudders to tow an NM fastened
below it at the required distance out of the ship's
wake. They already had a parallel-pipe noisemaker
with a sound output 20 db over that of a ship and an
endurance of 25 hr at 12 knots. The name FOXER
was given to the complete set of this noisemaking
gear, including two NM's, two diverters, and the towing hawsers .
In the United States a parallel-bar noisemaker designated FXR was in production by July 1943 . Preliminary theoretical studies had been made of the behavior of an acoustic torpedo under the influence of
a ship and an FXR 500 ft astern . The tacit assumption was made that the torpedo could listen equally
well in all directions . It was concluded that one NM
could maintain control of the torpedo once the torpedo had reached it and that the only danger arose
from torpedoes fired from directly ahead which were
drawn in to, or very close to, the ship while homing
on the FXR
During the summer some prisoner of war informationd (later proved false) indicated that the hydrophones were along the torpedo's sides. This tended to
substantiate the all-around listening theory and the
belief in the adequacy of one noisemaker.
Prisoners of war also stated that the torpedo was
for use primarily against escort vessels, enabling the
U-boat to disrupt a convoy's defenses . This possibility had not occurred to the Allies, probably because
e Trajectories of this type are discussed on page 168 .
a Much of the early information concerning the German

acoustic torpedo was obtained from interrogation of prisoners
of war. Unfortunately they did not, in general, know anything
of its actual operation, so that it was necessary to deduce its
method of operation from fragmentary observations which they
had happened to make of its construction and use.
163
the screening vessels had never been a major target,e

and because it was considered unlikely that the self
noise could be reduced enough to allow a speed as
great as 20 knots. Escort vessels now seemed the most
logical targets for an acoustic torpedo, however.
Their speed, maneuverability, small size, and the
frequency with which they were bearing down on the
U-boat and thus presenting a very small bow aspect,
all tended to make escorts very poor targets for ordinary torpedoes . With a homing torpedo, however, all
these disadvantages were cancelled ; the higher speed
gave a louder, and therefore larger target, while bow
shots were possibly preferable to beam ones .
More effort was, therefore, expended on parallelbar NM's suitable for higher speeds . The British ran
into more difficulties with their cumbersome diverters, but the possibility of getting such gear used successfully seemed greater when it was to be handled by
naval crews than by merchant vessel crews.
Such was the situation when the Germans were first
ready to use their acoustic torpedo against the Allies .
It was introduced on September 20-22, 1943, during
the first full-scale North Atlantic operation since
May, namely the wolf-pack attack on Convoys ONS
18 and ON 202 . Three escorts and six merchant ships
were sunk and an escort damaged; acoustic torpedoes
accounted at least for the damaged escort and two of
the other escorts. In contrast a German War Order
claimed 12 escorts sunk, 3 damaged, and 9 merchant
ships sunk, which indicates a high expenditure of
torpedoes. Nevertheless, the torpedo proved itself a
threat which might have been much more effective
had the enemy been able to get more than two Uboats in contact with the convoy at one time. As it
was, the potentialities of the torpedo caused the
Allies extremely grave concern.
On September 23 the Admiralty issued a comprehensive appreciation of the use of the German acoustic torpedo. This included a review of the information available on the torpedo, a preliminary analysis
of the first attacks (1 and 2 days old), tactical countermeasures, and a status report on FOXER, which was
to be issued although it was hard to stream, short in
endurance, hampering to maneuvers, and difficult to
produce.
In the United States an extensive study of the
countermeasure problem was begun. On the one
hand reports on the torpedo's characteristics were
e Thirty-nine warships were sunk by U-boats between January 1942 and August 1943 in contrast to 1541 merchant ships.
164
collected and evaluated; on the other, development

of a variety o noisemaking gadgets was undertaken .
One of the early decisions was to discourage the development of impulsive noise sources with bursts
less frequent than about 20 per second ; these included rapid machine gun fire into the water and the
grenade noisemaker composed of a series of explosive
caps . It was felt that the torpedo probably would not
respond to such a source, whereas if it did, a relatively
steady source such as a ship would be able to override it even when providing a much weaker rms (or
average) signal . Such discrimination would occur
with the time constants which were most natural for
a torpedo's amplifying and control circuits . This
would not only be a good anticountermeasure device
but would also (and more important) discriminate
against the irregular peaks which are among the most
undesirable features of a torpedo's background noise .
It soon became apparent, however, that a reliable
evaluation of the performance of any particular
countermeasure required a detailed understanding
of just how the torpedo functioned . The two different assumptions which have been mentioned-forward-listening and all-around listening-lead to
quite different NM arrangements . A careful analysis
of the probable behavior of acoustic torpedoes was,
therefore, undertaken . Its salient features are outlined in the following sections .
15.2.2
Torpedo Trajectory Analysis
The primary aim of a study of torpedo behavior is

to determine the path which the torpedo followsits trajectory-under the conditions that are o interest . In order to do this a means must be developed
for rapidly predicting a torpedo's behavior in the
presence of a particular NM system and under a particular set of assumptions as to an unpleasantly large
number of torpedo characteristics, as will be apparent from the following discussion . Of obvious importance is the torpedo speed. It determines the ship
speed necessary to outrun the torpedo . The torpedo
trajectory can be expressed as a function of the ratio
of the ship's speed to that of the torpedo .
Under the influence of a single noise source the

torpedo can be assumed (for a first approximation) to
attempt always to steer towards the source . This results in a straight path when the target is stationary,
e.g., an expendable NM . With the target at constant
speed on a straight course the pursuit curve is a
TORPEDO PATH
TARGET COURSE
FIGURE 1. Typical tractrix . (A) In true space. (B) 1n

relative space.
tractrix . Except for an adjustment in scale any tractrix is like that shown in Figure 1 . With an (x,y) coordinate system centered on the target and the target
heading in the positive x direction, the relative trajectory is given by equation (1).
or more simply,
Ry Iz.~ y )-x~'
g i/x
y = Y0( tan
, x = y cot B
2)
where
k = ratio of target speed to torpedo speed,
y = distance at which the torpedo first passes

abeam of the target,
B = torpedo's bearing relative to the target .
In stationary coordinates whose origin is the target's

position at the time the torpedo is first abeam of is
(at distance y) the target's positions are given by
equation (2), the tractrix, by equation (3).
x=vt,
y=0.
x=2C 1 ~ k
Cylk---l+k~y)-,L',
l
When dealing with targets moving together, such as

a ship and towed noisemakers, it is simplest to draw
trajectories relative to this moving system . For each
B 0
A~
CYCLOID
R
SPEED RATIO =K=I/P
i
i
SHIP MOTION -- -=
FIGURE 2. Course of torpedo when circling. (A) Fixed

coordinates. (B) Relative coordinates (speed ratio - k
- ~/2; ship motion --->).
165
DEVELOPMENT OF TOWED NOISEMAKERS
-5
-10
-I
-15
-2
-20
-2
-25
---PORT PATTERN
STARBOARD PATTERN
t
TORPEDO
AXIS
TicuxE 3 . Typical sensitivity pattern .
value of Iz that it is desired to consider, a template

sheet can be prepared, covered with a family of
tractrices-calculated from equation (1)-so that by
interpolation a pursuit course can be drawn from
any point in to the center . For any specific problem
the trajectories can be traced from these templates.
A torpedo cannot always follow a tractrix, however, because its minimum turning radius may prevent it from making the sharp turn required. If the
torpedo turns as sharply as possible when trying to
get headed towards a noise source,' its path in relative
space will be a cycloid rather than a tractrix . A typif Information in the fall of 1943 continued to confirm the fact
that the enemy had enlarged the rudders of their G7e torpedo
to give the acoustic torpedo a minimum turning radius of 80 to
100 m.
cal cycloid is shown in Figure 2. Templates can be

drawn for cycloids in the same way as for tractrices as
an aid in drawing the relative diagrams .
The behavior of the torpedo depends upon acoustical and electronic features as well as speed and turning radius . In the fall of 1943 the exact characteristics
of the German torpedo were unknown, but it was
considered probable that a listening system was employed= and that the following general scheme of
operation was used in order to determine from which
side of the torpedo the sound arrived.
s A listening arrangement would be much simpler than one
involving echo ranging and less subject to failure. It would
probably have a greater homing distance . A torpedo would have
little use for range information. The enemy had had much more
experience with passive detection equipment . Most important,
none of the intelligence information suggested echo ranging.
166
The rudder is controlled by the ratio of the voltages in two electric channels . If a steady sound source
is moved about the torpedo at a constant range, the
voltage in the port channel is much greater when the
source is within some range of bearings on the torpedo's port side than when anywhere on the starboard side. Similarly, the starboard channel is most
sensitive to signals from the starboard side .
In determining a trajectory, it is necessary to find
out for each torpedo position just what are the relative voltages in each channel due to each noise source.
To facilitate this another set of templates are drawn,
one for each assumed sensitivity pattern. Each template is a transparent geographic plot to be centered
on the torpedo position with the torpedo axis
marked. By one curve it shows the locus o all points
at which a standard (arbitrary) noise source would
create a given voltage in the port channel and, by
another, the same for starboard channel. Parallel
lobes are drawn corresponding to sources each an
integer number of decibels louder or softer than the
standard . A typical sensitivity pattern of this sort is
shown in Figure 3 .
A standard noise source at point X in Figure 3
would give a signal of -12 db in the port channel and
+2 db in the starboard . If, at the same time, a source
10 db louder than the standard (for example) is present at point A, it would give a signal of 8 db in the
port channel, and -3 db in the starboard. In order
to obtain the total voltage in each channel with both
present, the square root of the sum of the squares of
the individual contributions is taken. This method
should be sufficiently accurate unless a source is very
intermittent, e.g., a grenade exploding only ten times
a second .
In constructing these templates it is assumed that
the sound pressure is inversely proportional to the
range from the source (6 db less per distance
doubled) . This is only an average value of the attenuation found in experiments, but the effects of considerable fluctuations can usually be shown to be
negligible . The ranges involved at critical times are
too small to allow the linear absorption of sound in
open water to become important. However, there is
evidence of considerable attenuation in the ship's
wake, about 2 db per foot at 24 kc .b
The simplest sensitivity pattern is a circular one.
h In the initial trajectory studies, an attenuation of 0.1 d6 per
foot vas taken as a conservative assumption, even at lower
frequencies.
STARBOARD
CHANNEL
PORT
I
STARBOARD
CHANNEL ^ r-, CHANNEL
FIGURE 4. Simplified sensitivity patterns. (A) Circular

pattern. (B) Modified circular pattern .
The template curves for each channel are semicircles

on each side of the torpedo axis, as shown in Figure
4A. Dead zones of no differential are assumed to be
present, but negligibly small, ahead and astern of the
torpedo .' To break away from all-around listening it
may be assumed that there is a wide angle of zero sensitivity astern, leaving the lobes as shown in Figure
4B .
A more realistic picture may be obtained by using
another mathematical approximation which recognizes that the response o any hydrophone system will
change smoothly with angle. If B is the angle off the
torpedo's bow, the contours of equal sensitivity can
be expressed by cos (NB) . The sensitivity will then
be a maximum ahead (except for a negligible dead
angle) and will decrease gradually as B increases, becoming zero for all B's greater than 7r/ 2N . A number
of such patterns are shown in Figure 5. For N = 2
there is some listening at all angles except dead
astern, whereas for N = 1 there is no response anywhere abaft the beam.
In an actual torpedo each channel may have its
own set of one or more hydrophones directed toward
one side . Alternatively the channels may be coni'This pattern is essentially that assumed in the earliest
United States studies mentioned in Section 15 .2 .1, this chapter .
COs 2
COS 4B
COs 8
FicuRE 5. Cos (NB) sensitivity patterns .
netted through phasing circuits to the same, or partially the same, group of hydrophones all facing forward . Either system would lead to the same kind of
pattern. It is reasonable to expect that if an effort is
made towards forward-listening, the maximum lobe
for each channel would probably be rather broad
and centered between 20 and 60 degrees off the bow.
It is difficult to secure a rear response of either channel less than about 30 db below the maximum, no
matter what the direction of the noise. There can be
a rather large angle astern where a loud source would
bring about approximately the same voltage in each
channel. Accordingly a template can be drawn for a
"practical" pattern having a maximum sensitivity 45
degrees off the bow and sensitivity 30 db lower in
both channels throughout a 100-degree arc astern.
This pattern is, in fact, shown in Figure 3. The
pattern could be made sharper and the fore-aft discrimination greater if the frequency of maximum
sensitivity were over 40 kc. This, however, would
reduce the homing range as a result of the absorption
of sound in open water, which becomes appreciable
at such frequencies.
The rudder position should depend on the decibel
differential between the two channels, that is, on the
ratio of their voltages . Any control involving the absolute magnitudes of the voltages could not handle
the widely different signal strengths to be expected .
By the use of the templates and a curve expressing in
decibel units the square root of the sum of the
squares relationship, the signals in the two channels
can be found in decibels above the same standard ;
these values can then be subtracted to give the differential.
The most plausible simple assumption as to the
way in which rudder postion depends on the differential is a "flip-flop" type of control in which the rudder
is thrown hard over whenever one channel has a
given excess (say 3 db or more) and stay's over until
the other channel has the required excess . This flipflop control appears necessary for a forward-listening
type of torpedo on the basis of the following
argument .
Most torpedoes approaching from forward angles
will miss a ship (with no noisemakers) on the first
pass because they cannot turn sharply enough to stay
on a tractrix and possibly because the principal tari A pattern of this sort was decided upon in the fall of 1943
on the basis of United States experience in the design of hydrophones and acoustic torpedoes.
167
get may actually be collapsing bubbles in the wake

somewhat astern of the propellers. Having passed the
ship's stern, many of these torpedoes will have the
ship in the sector on their own stern where they can
get no differential or even any signal over background. If, with no differential, the torpedo straightens out or returns to its original gyro course, it will
never hear the ship again and be lost astern . On the
other hand, with flip-flop control the missile will continue circling until it again hears the target . The
same would happen about a single NM towed astern .
Admittedly the torpedo would stay on its tractrix
with less weave if on loss of differential it straightened out or, preferably, had "graduated control,"
that is, if the amount of rudder depended on the
differential and thus on the bearing of the target off
the bow. However, even with flip-flop control the
weave should not be more than 10-20 degrees, and
improvement in this would not compensate for the
failure of so many bow shots .
The critical differential, designated by D, may

reasonably be assumed to be 3 db . With a lower value
there would be too much danger of undesirable rudder actuations . These might result from minor lobes
in the sensitivity pattern astern, from fluctuations in
the background noise, or from fluctuations in the
transmission of the ship's sound. With these limitations, D should be as small as possible, because the
larger D, the less the torpedo's homing range . As a
torpedo approaches a ship from a distance under gyro
control, background sound will initially predominate, causing approximately the same voltage in
each channel. If the bearing to the ship is near the
angle of maximum sensitivity for one channel, the
voltage in that channel will increase as the ship is approached. The torpedo will turn towards the ship
when the voltage in that channel due to the ship plus
background is D db greater than that in the other
channel, which is due to background plus a negligible contribution from the ship . If a greater D is
required, the torpedo must approach closer on gyro
before the ship noise can overcome background .
The maximum range at which a given ship flips
the rudder changes greatly with the bearing 8 of the
ship off the torpedo's bow. The range is zero with the
ship either dead ahead or (probably) .in a large sector
astern, that is, with B's at which the sensitivity patterns for the two channels differ by less than D db . At
other 8's the range depends chiefly upon the sensitivity patterns . For any choice of sensitivity pattern,
168
of D,k and of ship intensity over background, a socalled steering pattern can be drawn plotting the
rudder actuation range against B. Such curves are
useful only when no NM is present.

The maximum of either lobe of a steering pattern
gives the maximum range at which a ship can direct
the torpedo . The value of this range depends on the
noise output of the ship and on how well the torpedo's background noise has been suppressed . Neither
of these quantities can be determined very accurately .
Even for a given torpedo and a specific class and
speed of ship there would be enough variation in
ship output and in transmission conditions to make
the range uncertain within a factor of three . It would
obviously be unwise to base a countermeasure on an
arbitrary actuation range.'
It is now possible to consider briefly the trajectories
for which the torpedo was primarily designed,
namely those against an unsuspecting ship . Assuming
the torpedo to be a modification o the German electric G7e, the firing range was probably not over 6000
yd . Ranges between 1000 and 4000 yd would be the
most likely. The initial gyro course would be a collision course for the ship, possibly for the ship's stern,
in order to get the best chance of coming within homing range, When the torpedo reaches a point where
the ship's noise can overcome background noise (as
shown by the ship's stern reaching the appropriate
contour on the steering pattern centered on the torpedo), the missile turns toward the ship . If this happens at short enough range, the torpedo might hit
the ship before turning far enough to head at the
stern, as shown by trajectory A, Figure 6. Alternatively, assuming flip-flop control, the torpedo will
turn until the screws have passed through the dead
angle of small differential on its bow and have
reached the opposite lobe of the steering pattern
where the other channel has a D-db excess, causing
the rudder to flip . With a forward-listening pattern
and mechanical time constants of the order of 1/10
x It vas once thought that there vas a good chance that the
D required to take the torpedo off gyro would be greater than
that needed for the later steering, Using this "gate" would sacrifice some homing range in order to prevent a temporary peak in
ship noise from taking the torpedo off gyro course and leaving it
circling at such a distance that the normal snip noise could not
be heard. However, the gate was assumed not to exist since its
presence was found to be if anything an aid to countermeasure.
1 Various estimates were made of the actuation range of the
German torpedo, ranging from 100 to 1000 yd for a typical ship
target . Later tests suggest the higher figures to have been the
better .
Ticvxr G. Trajectories relative to slip .
sec, the course reversal should occur with the target

less than 10 degrees off the bow. By repetition of this
procedure the torpedo follows a tractrix towards the
screws with a small weave. Trajectories marked B in
Figure 6 are examples of such tractrices .
If the tractrix approaches from dead ahead, the
torpedo may hit the ship before coming abeam the
screws . If the tractrix is entered sufficiently far astern,
the torpedo will follow it all the way in, making a hit
on the ship's stern. In the intermediate cases, including most shots fired from forward of the beam, the
torpedo is not able to keep headed for the screws because the radius of curvature of the tractrix becomes
less than the torpedo's minimum turning radius . (In
the (x, y) coordinates of Figure I relative to the source
the loci of such points are two circles tangent to the
x-axis at the origin and of radius %2KR, where R is

the turning radius of the torpedo .) The torpedo is
forced to lose ground astern, usually missing the ship
on the first pass . Even though the ship may now be in
the dead zone astern of the torpedo, the flip-flop control will cause the missile to continue circling forward ., It may hit the ship's side before it has circled
far enough to be headed at the screws, as in trajectory
C, Figure 6. Otherwise it will make another pass at
the screws, usually on a rear tractrix leading to a stern
hit, as in trajectory D. In all cases a hit occurs on at
most the third pass, as in trajectory E. Any trajectory
can, like those of Figure 6, be drawn relative to the
ship by tracing from the appropriate tractrix and
cycloid templates.
15.2.3
Theoretical Trajectories and

Noisemakers
Next to be considered are the trajectories which

arise when a single noisemaker E db louder than the
ship is towed under the wake about 200 yd astern.
The submarine's firing procedure would be the same
as for the ship alone, but the torpedo would get on a
tractrix towards the noisemaker at ranges of a mile or
more, if E is 12 db or more . Thus any torpedo in
working order is drawn into the system . The ship's
sound cannot influence the torpedo except within
about 50 yd of the screws, as long as the NM is on its
forward bearing. Thus the paths to the NM are
similar to those to a ship by itself.
A direct hit occurs when the torpedo is drawn into
the ship while steering towards the NM . Such hits
result from tractrices which happen to go through the
ship. These hits are independent of the NM strength
or distance astern . To have a good chance of making
such a hit the firing submarine must be directly
ahead of the ship, not more than about 3 degrees off
the bow. Conversely, the ship can be made safe from
them by never heading directly at the submarine.If the NM is too weak or too far astern, a forwardlistening torpedo fired from about 14-20 degrees off
the ship's bow may snake an indirect hit. This occurs
when the tractrix comes close enough to the ship that
the torpedo is forced to circle out of the tractrix
across behind the ship's stern and then to pursue the
ship to a stern hit keeping the NM in the dead angle
m Allowing a margin of safety, a directive was issued specifying that when possible any submarine be kept more than 10 degrees off the bow of a ship towing FAR.
169
astern . Path A in Figure % shows a trajectory which

might lead to an indirect hit . For the following explanation assume that the torpedo is weaving towards the NM past the ship's port side . While turning to the left in the weave, the left channel may
receive a signal from the ship which is within D db
of that received in the right channel from the NM .
(This is determined by employing the sensitivity pattern template as described in Section 152 .2 .) If, as a
result of the proximity of the screws, this occurs even
when the NM is at the angle of maximum sensitivity
for the right channel, the differential D is never obtained, and the torpedo continues to circle left as
shown in Figure 7 . During the turn the NM's bearing
off the torpedo's bow increases steadily through
angles of decreasing sensitivity . Meanwhile in
dangerous cases the bearings to the screws (on
other side) increase less rapidly and the range to
ship decreases, all tending to keep the torpedo
the
the
the
circling. This condition continues if the torpedo has
space in which to turn sufficiently (about 90 degrees)
before crossing the wake . Eventually it will be heading towards the screws with the NM in its dead angle
astern and will be guided in to a stern hit . If the
PATH B
WAKE
PATH C
E OF TORPEDO
PATTERNS
i1
SCALE: O
(STERN
STERN CHASE HIT
WITH WEAK NM OR
9 PATTERN
100 YDS
Ticvxr i. Typical trajectories relative to a 12-kt ship with

single towed noisemaker.
170
tractrix is too close to the ship, however, as in Path A'

of Figure 7, the bearing to the ship increases rapidly
at about the time of crossing the wake and the NM
regains control .
Thus there may be a dangerous group of tractrices
close enough to the ship for the latter to deflect a torpedo but far enough away to allow it sufficient circling space. The danger of indirect hits can be eliminated by making the NM sufficiently loud to prevent
the torpedo leaving any tractrix which is far enough
from the ship to give circling room . Any reduction in
torpedo turning circle therefore obviously increases
the danger from such shots. For the cos (z2 B) patterns
or "practical" sensitivity patterns, the E required o
an NM 200 yd astern is about 10 db .
Torpedoes which have made neither direct nor indirect hits continue to the NM, as shown in Figure 7.
As with a ship alone, some approach the NM from
the rear, making a so-called stern chase. The others
pass astern of it, circling forward with minimum
turning radius . These shots circle across in front of
the NM and continue circling, falling way behind
the NM and entering a stern chase. All trajectories
lead to a stern chase after at the most four passes at
the NM . By employing various sensitivity patterns,
it can be shown that during this preliminary weaving
about the NM the ship cannot capture the torpedo
provided the NM is as much as 200 yd astern and is
able to hold the torpedo after a stern chase.
The success of a single noisemaker arrangement
thus depends on its ability to prevent a torpedo
which leas just passed over it on a stern chase from
continuing on to hit the ship . The most critical
factor is the torpedo's sensitivity pattern .n There is
no problem if the torpedo can hear about equally
well in all directions (as was assumed in the earliest
United States studies) since the NM, being louder
and closer, is certain to be heard over the ship and to
make the torpedo circle to the rear, where it would
start another futile stern chase . No matter how loud
the NM, it cannot be depended upon to counter a
"mathematical" pattern with a sector astern in which
the sensitivity is zero (no listening whatsoever), such
as that in Figure 4B . The NM is likely to fall into the
dead zone and stay there while the ship noise guides
the torpedo to a hit.
n Since accurate detailed knowledge of the German acoustic
torpedoes sensitivity pattern has not been available, there has
always been doubt on the subject of safety from stern chases .
This has, in fact, been the crux of the countermeasure problem.
The cos (~/2B) pattern, however, with the sensitivity greater than zero everywhere but right astern, is
countered by an NM louder than the ship by 10 db or
more . In this case attenuation of the ship's noise in
the wake is sometimes needed to cause the torpedo to
turn sufficiently for the NM to regain control. With
an estimated 0.1 db per foot for the attenuation there
is no chance that a torpedo in the wake and back
near the NM could hear the ship . This protection is
not diminished i the NM should happen to be to
one side of the wake rather than underneath it .
The more realistic practical sensitivity pattern
gives new assurance of the value of a single NM . Having passed over a sufficiently loud NM on a stern
chase, a torpedo with a practical pattern receives so
much signal in both channels from the NM that the
additional ship sound in one channel cannot provide
the necessary differential to flip the rudder . With flipflop control the torpedo stays in the circle it happened to be in as it crossed the NM until it falls way
behind. For an NM towed 570 ft astern an output of
12 db above the ship can be shown to be adequate .
The required output decreases slightly with increased ship speed because the torpedo's distance of
closest approach to the ship is increased.
On the basis of early recommendations FXR was
being prepared during the fall of 1943 with 200 yd of
cable. The cable sag resulted in a towing distance of
570 ft . The completed trajectory study, made following the above outline, revealed no reason for changing this . A longer tow would require a higher output
to prevent indirect hits and would increase the difficulties of handling the gear . A shorter tow would
require a higher output to prevent stern chase hits .
It would have been nice to tow the NM beyond the
homing radius of the torpedo on the ship . This was
precluded, however, by the uncertainty of this radius
and by the greater NM output required to prevent
indirect hits if, as is likely, the radius is over 200 yd .
The FXR had to be "depressed" below the bottom
of the wake so that its sound would not be muffled in
any direction. There was, however, no harm in its
towing somewhat to one side of the wake while still
maintaining its depth.
Consideration was given to a noisemaker fixed
with respect to the ship but on some bearing other
than astern . These other positions, which might have
been accomplished by concentrated machine gun
fire, seemed to be inferior. The chance of direct hits
increased since the ship cut across more tractrices :
SCALES 0
50
100 YDS
FccuxE 8. Typical trajectories relative to a 16- to 18-kt

ship with two towed noisemakers. Similar trajectories
from starboard side.
For safety from indirect hits it was necessary to keep

the NM within 300 yd of the screws. Most important,
the ship was in a better position to capture the torpedo as it circled back from the NM . Finally, the
sonar interference would be increased.
Trajectory analysis confirmed the conclusion that
two NM's towed abreast gave a more certain countermeasure than a single FXR. The advantage of the
British double FOXER lay in its elimination of practically all the ambiguity with regard to stern chases .
Even a torpedo with zero sensitivity abaft the beam
(e .g ., the cos B pattern in Figure 5) could be relied
upon, after it has passed over one NM, to be drawn
to the other before getting too close to the ship, as
shown in Figure 8. During the initial approach the
FOXER system is equivalent to one NM with the
same total output . The torpedo is either on a tractrix
toward one of the NM's or towards the "acoustic
center of gravity" between them . Thus the chance of
a direct or indirect hit is essentially the same for the
double FOXER as for a louder single FXR.
Highest priority was given to the development of
adequate diverters. However, as the British were
finding out, the production and handling difficulties
seemed to be extremely great with FOXER. Since
most of the evidence indicated the adequacy of a
single NM, the decision was made by the United
States to issue FXR. Emphasis was placed, however,
on the importance of examining each bit of new evidence to make sure that this decision was not invalidated.
15.2.4
171
mation was accumulated on the operation of the

German torpedo. In mid-October a detailed and apparently accurate description of the T-4 acoustic torpedo was obtained from a prisoner of war [P/W]
whose last cruise had started on July 20 with three
T-4's aboard . He also reported that an improved
model, the T-5, was expected for operational use in
August . The T-4 was a modification of the electric
G7e torpedo slowed to 20 knots and with larger rudders to give it a 90-m turning radius . A liquid-filled
plastic nose enclosed two forward-facing hydrophones . In a pre-installation test ("Spatz" test) the
rudder was seen to have three positions, hard over on
each side and occasionally central, as a noise source
was moved about the nose . A switch was to be set on
either "WS" or "NS" at the time of firing . This
switch had an undecipherable effect on the acoustic
rudder control, which did not become clear until
much later.
Another prisoner of war who had observed running tests of the torpedo in the Baltic confirmed the
general features of our trajectories, but added a
noticeable weave. This tended to confirm the belief
that flip-flop control was used .
With the prisoner of war's description of the T-4
nose as a starting point, arrangements were made to
reconstruct the hydrophones in order to obtain their
sensitivity pattern. By December preliminary results
indicated that the T-4 had velocity hydrophones
connected by phasing circuits and sensitive at about 5
kc . The sensitivity pattern would only be about 25
Detailed Intelligence Concerning

the German Torpedo
As the ideas described above were being worked

out in detail during the fall of 1943, further infor-
FicuicE 9 . Sensitivity pattern of reconstructed T-4 hydrophone system.
112
db down astern . All this was welcome news, tending

to confirm the practical pattern, though complete
measurements were not made until somewhat later.
All vas not rosy, however. Measurements were
made with equipment which immediately broke
down permanently; these tentatively indicated that
the ship's own sound was not attenuated in its wake
at frequencies below 10 kc . Thus the wake could not
be depended upon to turn the torpedo after a stern
chase. Full reliance had to be placed on the sensitivity's not being more than 30 db down astern .
Scattered information was indicating that the T-5
was in use and that it had a speed of 24%2 knots. This
increased the importance of trajectories involving
low-speed ratios and also increased interest in how
self noise had been reduced . One of the more fantastic reports claimed that for acoustic insulation and
extra explosive power much of the torpedo had been
stuffed with guncotton! There seemed to be two
models of T-5, one with a round plastic nose like the
T-4 and the other with a flat nose . Imbedded in this
flat metallic surface were four parallel laminated bars
10 by 21/2 cm, their long dimensions vertical . These
were thought to be the surfaces of four magnetostriction hydrophones. It seemed likely, however, that
there was a phasing system between the hydrophones.
Their spacing indicated a peak response at about
121/2 kc .
There was definite evidence of a magnetic attachment to the TA's pendulum-type inertia pistol . Several ships had reported explosions in their wakes
which were ascribed to malfunctioning of the inertia
pistol . Prisoners of war claimed that this had been
corrected. The magnetic feature increased slightly
the chance of a direct hit and, more important, allowed the depth setting to be as much as 10 ft below
the keel . This lower depth should have considerably
decreased both the chance of broaching and the self
o The British even proposed a complicated hypothetical rudder control for T-5 which would be able to make a stern chase
hit over one NM despite the 30-db restriction. The phasing system between the hydrophones vas sufficiently complicated to be
able to distinguish between loss o contact when the torpedo
passes over a noise source and loss of contact when the torpedo
passes beside the source . In the first case the rudder would
straighten until differential was again obtained, so that having
made a stern chase on an NM the torpedo continues toward the
ship without circling. In the second case the rudder locked over
in the direction of the source, thus assuring more than one pass
at a ship by a shot from ahead. This proposal seemed too complicated to be practical . In addition, the slight weave of the
torpedo on a stern chase would often cause it to pass somewhat
to one side of the NM, possibly causing the rudder to lock over.
noise. In addition, explosions beneath the ship's keel

would be much more damaging than at the side of
the hull . Thought was given to creating a magnetic
field about the FXR to detonate the torpedo.
In late January a complete experimental sensitivity pattern was obtained from the reconstructed T-4
nose . It seemed likely that the round-nosed T-5 possessed this same pattern. It conformed to the assumed
practical pattern in that each channel had its maximum sensitivity 25 degrees on its own side o the bow
and its sensitivity at no angle dropped more than 28
db below this maximum. However, each channel had
a prominent secondary lobe at about 60 degrees on
the opposite bow, which even with the best adjustment could not be brought more than 2 db below the
main lobe of the other channel. At all bearings
greater than 60 degrees the patterns for the two channels remained within 7 db of each other. They
crossed over each other in a quite random fashion, as
shown in Figure 9 . The differential D required for
steering would have to be 7 db to prevent false or
confused steering, e.g., turning to port when the
target was about 110 degrees off the starboard bow.
Nevertheless it was thought possible that in order to
get a greater homing range the enemy might have
chosen D = 3 db, counting on the low sensitivity
astern to prevent confusion by hiding the ship's noise
in the background . Whatever the D, only a source
between 5 degrees and 60 degrees off the bow could
be certain to flip the rudder in the correct direction.
This pattern improved the stern chase situation
but increased the danger of an indirect hit. The
lower fore-aft discrimination and the likelihood of a
greater D made it more difficult than with the practical pattern for the ship to take over the torpedo
after a stern chase. On the other hand, a louder NM
was required to prevent the ship from attracting a
torpedo out of a nearby tractrix . If this torpedo
circled far enough for the NM to be more than 60
degrees off its bow, it would continue circling no
matter how poorly it received the ship's sound. Usually when it got headed toward the screws it would
be in a position to go in for an indirect hit. A directive was issued to the effect that any U-boat should be
kept more than 20 degrees off the ship's bow. By
forcing the tractrices farther from the ship this procedure would eliminate most indirect hits as well as
all direct ones .
By January 1944 FXR Mk 2 (suitable for speeds
from 12 to 19 knots) was getting into general use

VE DAY
1943
1944
1945
FIGURE lo . Number of hits by German acoustic torpedoes, by months (escort vessels, solid; merchant ships,
crosshatched) .
aboard the larger escort vessels. For lower speeds

FXR Mk 3 was being issued to smaller craft. The
chief operational difficulties with FXR Mk 2 arose
from the limits imposed upon the antisubmarine vessel's speed and from the depressor (employed to keep
the NM below the wake). There were also conflicting
reports as to whether the production models had the
specified 12- to 15-db excess in output over the ship .
A safety factor of several decibels was certainly desirable. With much trial and error a 30-inch parallel
pipe NA? was developed which could be .towed at
any speed from 8 to 25 knots. It was depressed by a
90-1b weight called a "minnow." Its output was
steadier than that of FXR Mk 2 and was, at 5 kc, 20 to
25 db above the average destroyer escort [DE] ; this
compared favorably with the Canadian CAT gear
and the components of the British FOXER.
Meanwhile, care was taken to investigate all torpedoings in an effort to determine the part played by
T-5's. Figure 10 records for each month the number
of incidents which were designated as probable T-5
hits on the basis of intelligence available before the
German surrender. (Complete German records are
still not available.) The importance of towing NM's
in dangerous regions was emphasized by the high proportion of escort incidents (7 out of 14 through May
1944) in which the presence of the U-boat was unsuspected until the range was less than 2500 yd . In these
cases no other countermeasure could have been effective . The sudden burst of antisubmarine ships hit in
May 1944 included one case with FXR Mk 2 being
towed. The newly developed gear was soon issued
and was designated FXR Mk 4.
In the spring of 1944 a copy of a T-5 firing table
was recovered from a U-boat scuttled off India. By
substitution into firing triangle relationships the torpedo's speed was confirmed to be 24i2 knots, at least
on the initial gyro run. Investigation of the mini-
173
mum firing ranges (tabulated as a function of the

target's firing course and speed) revealed that the
torpedo had a 500-m enabling run, that is, it vas set
so that the hydrophones could not control the steering until 30 sec after firing . This was to help prevent
the torpedo from homing on the U-boat . The minimum firing range was specified so that after this 500
m the screws would still be at least 200 m ahead ; then
there was no chance of the forward-looking lobes not
hearing the ship .
Although information concerning the torpedo vas

thus growing steadily, it was still rather fragmentary
and unsatisfactory in the spring of 1944. This was
soon to be changed.
.
15 .2.5
Studies of Captured T-5's
On June 5, 1944, USS Guadalcanal and escorts captured U-545 with two round-nosed T-5's aboard . The
first examination of these torpedoes showed that inside each plastic nose there were not only two hydrophones and some liquid but also a rubber horn structure directing each hydrophone 30 degrees off the
bow. Each hydrophone governed a channel without
phasing. The maximum sensitivity of the whole system was at about 271/2 kc, considerably higher than
had been thought. This higher frequency was all for
the good since NM output had been found to drop
off less rapidly with increasing frequency than did
ship noise. Thus FXR Mk 4 was about 30 db over a
DE at 271/2 kc .
.;
FIGURE 11 . Measured sensitivity pattern for captured

round-nosed T-5, from U-505.
174
By August measurements of the sensitivity pattern

revealed a more unpleasant surprise. The response
astern was 42 db below the maximum! It followed
that there was some chance of stern hits with FXR
Mk 4, especially since D, the differential needed to
flip the rudder, seemed to be only 2 db . On the other
hand, the patterns for the two channels, shown in
Figure 11, were well separated (by about 12 db) between the angles of 20 degrees and 125 degrees off the
torpedo's bow. This together with the low D and
high NM excess eliminated the danger of indirect
hits. In fact there were no indirect hit trajectories
even with an NM 400 yd astern . Since the longer tow
gave better protection from stern chases, adding more
cable would have been recommended, had actual
running tests with the T-5's not been expected very
soon .
Such tests were particularly necessary because of a
new complication which was discovered. The torpedo was found to have a common amplifier into
which the two channels were switched alternately 108
times a second . If the signals were equal there would
be no 108-cycle component in the output . Otherwise
the phase of this component indicated which signal
predominated . Trouble arose from the fact that FXR
Mk 4 pipes struck together with a frequency from 90
to 115 cycles . What was the torpedo response to a
signal with this modulation? The answer was complicated by the effect of the automatic volume control [AVC].
Some questions were, however, definitely answered
by inspection of the torpedoes. The meaning of the
"WS" and "NS" settings had been pretty well deduced from prisoner-of-war information. Now there
was confirmation . WS was set on a torpedo being
fired from within 90 degrees of the target's bow; this
required that when differential was lost the torpedo
would continue in its minimum turning circle-that
is, flip-flop control. NS was used on rear shots and
made the torpedo return to its original gyro course
after receiving no differential for several seconds;
when differential D was again received the rudder
would again go over.
The reason fox having both settings seems to lie in
the fear that the torpedo, as it approaches a ship from
a distance, might start circling as a result of a temporary increase in noise level but before it could
receive a steady signal from the ship. This was acceptable on forward shots since the ship's motion
was likely to close the range to where homing could
start and since flip-flop control was needed if the torpedo should miss the stern on its first pass . On stern
shots the flip-flop was not needed because the torpedo
could stay on its tractrix . Resuming gyro control after
a temporary signal was likely to bring it into homing
range of the retreating ship, whereas circling would
leave it hopelessly behind.
A consequence of this control system was that even
if WS shots were successfully prevented from making
stern chase hits, there might be danger of such hits by
torpedoes fired on NS from within 30 degrees of the
ship's stern. These NS trajectories on passing over the
NM into a region of no differential would take up a
gyro course which would take them towards the ship
to a position from which the screws could guide them
in to hit. An NS torpedo fired from farther off the
stern would return to a gyro course from which it
could never hear the ship or, when it did, it would
turn far enough to stern to be recaptured by NM .
Preliminary running tests with the torpedoes revealed a turning radius of 80 yd and a speed o 22
knots on turns and confirmed 24i2 knots as the speed
on gyro control.
During October, one year after the first intensive
countermeasure studies, detailed observations were
made on 20 acoustic runs with the T-5's apparently
in proper operating condition. FXR Mk 4 provided
good protection . FXR Mk 2 proved equally effective
except on one run during which its output was erratic. The explanation of this good news lay in the
very large weave with which the torpedoes approached these NM's . The torpedo's beam was often
presented to the NM before the rudder flipped to
carry the missile into the next phase of the weave.
When the ship speed was 15 knots or over, the torpedo was not able to overtake the NM but weaved
back and forth behind it . With a slower target the
T-5 was able to circle in ahead of the NM occasionally, but always at such an angle that the NM continued to control it, at least until it had fallen behind
the NM again. There were no passes directly over the
NM. Most runs were on NS with the gyro course
parallel to the ship in order to have conditions most
favorable for a stern chase hit. Even this did not cause
trouble. The ship's wake was so narrow compared
with the weave amplitude that it had no effect. No
feature of the trajectories could be correlated with
the NM's striking frequency, although in one case
there were less than 2 cycles between the striking and
the torpedo-switching frequencies.
175
The large weave increased the angle off the target's nosed T-5's were found in France and sent to Engbow from which a torpedo might be fired and still land. As had been predicted the hydrophones were
make a direct hit. A torpedo fired 11 degrees off the combined by phasing circuits into two channels . The
bow made such a hit, but three shots from about 20 maximum sensitivity was at 271/2 kc . The amplifiers
degrees missed by 100 ft or more . It seemed that the were of a different type from those found in U-505's
existing doctrine (a precaution against the now non- round-nosed torpedoes. It was established, however,
existent indirect hits) of keeping the U-boat more that either the flat-nose or the round-nose hydrophone
than 20 degrees off the ship's bow allowed a sufficient could be used with either amplifier. Since the Germargin of safety against these direct hits . A statistical man firing instructions made no distinction between
analysis of the weaving paths verified the rule of 20 models, it seemed likely that there should be little
degrees. Because the weave amplitude increased as difference in their performance. With this informathe torpedo approached the NM, it was found that tion and encouraged by United States running tests
shortening the FXR towing distance from 200 yd the British in December authorized the use of Uniwould markedly increase the danger of direct hits . FOXER, a single-NM systexn.q However, since no exOn the other hand, using a 400-yd tow would only planation of the large weave was available and since
slightly improve matters.
it was thought that the large weave might not occur
Three runs were made against a 16-knot DE (33- with the newly discovered amplifier, the Unidb spectrum level above 0.0002 dyne per sq cm at FOXER was towed at 400 yd .
The large weave was not explained until after the
200 yd) without an NM. The weave on stern approaches was quite small, the ship seldom getting war, when an extensive study of the round-nose T-5
more than 20 degrees off the torpedo's bow. This was electronic system was completed. The differential D
enough, however, to reduce the speed made good to required to flip the rudder was found to depend on
about I9%2 knots, so that a ship making 20 knots or the type of noise source and upon its intensity. D vas
more should be safe from all but shots down the only 2-3 db with ship noise, which was essentially
throat.
thermal noise with a peak to rms ratio of about 14 db .
On one of these runs the torpedo turned toward D was considerably greater for parallel pipe noisethe ship leaving gyro control at a range of about 1500 makers, however, whose peak to rms ratio was about
yd . Whether or not this was a fluke, the homing range 20 db (in deep water) . This D rose to over 12 db when
was definitely over 600 yd, since the torpedo, on being the hydrophone output was in the high-voltage range
enabled at this range, steered directly for the ship. A corresponding to a signal 55 to 85 db above 0.0002
1500-yd homing range would make tactical counter- dynes per sq cm from the direction of maximum senmeasures at speeds of 10-18 knots (step-aside proce- sitivity. This corresponds to ranges of 800 to 30 yd
dures) extremely risky.
from a 15-knot FXR Mk 4. Since at no bearing were
On the basis of the performance o FXR Mk 2 in the sensitivity patterns of the two channels more than
the running tests, development was initiated on an 12 db apart, the rudder could not respond when the
NM with a steady output about that of a good FXR signal was so loud . Thus the torpedo kept turning
Mk 2, i.e., about 20 db over the ship. This gear was until the NM was so far off its bow that the hydroto be substituted for Mk 4 whenever the Tatter's in- phone output was reduced to where steering differenterference with sonar was a serious handicap . How- tial was obtained . This might not happen until the
ever, no satisfactory design was found.P
NM was on the torpedo's beam . Thus the large weave
During the fall the electronic parts of several flat- resulted . The response was found to be more erratic
when the NM striking frequency was close to the
switching frequency. The AVC, the switching cirp Sonar interference from Mk 4 was at times so troublesome
that a device was developed to turn it off completely when de- cuit, and the assorted time constants all contributed
sired, designated as Harp. The noise output of Harp can be
in such a complicated way that further analysis here
turned off or on by quick slackening of the towing cable. It
is not warranted.
should be kept in mind, however, that stopping the NM exposes
the ship not only to torpedoes fired during the quiet period but
also to torpedoes fired within 10 minutes prior to its stopping,
which may have been pursuing the NM . Most WS torpedoes
which had been trapped by the NM would then hear and attack
the ship.
9 The British double Foxer always had serious practical difficulties, but a simple light diverter (State) had been developed
in the United States by the end of World War II which should
make a two-NM scheme feasible,
176
Experiments with FXR noise equal in both channels and with ship noise superimposed in one (simulating the critical conditions after passing an NM on
a stern chase) showed that the ship could flip the rudder when its rms contribution was about equal to the
rms TXR level in both channels . This meant that
without the weave a D of 3 db could be counted on in
the stern chase; the earlier calculations based on a D
of 1-2 db were pessimistic. Study of the circuit diagram of the flat-nosed T-5 amplifier suggested that,
even if it did not give a weave, it quite possibly would
respond to peaks of FXR signal rather than to the
rms value. FXR Mk 4 should then have a good chance
o drowning out the ship on a stern chase .
With present information, were it not for the large
weave a quiet NM such as Mk 5 could not be advocated, and towing FXR Mk 4 at 400 rather than 200
yd would provide a desirable margin of safety . Had
World War II continued, running tests with the flatnose torpedoes would have been very much worthwhile, but the German surrender was in itself a completely adequate countermeasure .
15 .3
OPERATIONAL DATA
The success of our countermeasures could not be

judged accurately from our own operational data,
since they are largely restricted to cases in which the
torpedo hit. We have no record of most of the failures . Nevertheless certain data are of interest . By V-E
Day 51 torpedoings had been designated as probable
T-5 hits . Figure 10 gives the data on a monthly basis.
As the U-boat effort declined, the low but constant
contribution of T-5's became more important. In
the last months of the war serious consideration was
given to the problems of issuing NM gear to merchant vessels. Table 1 summarizes the available information on incidents thought to involve T-5's.
Of the seven ships hit while towing NM's, one had
FXR Mk 2, one FXR Mk 4, two British Uni-FOXER
(in poor condition), and three had Canadian CAT.
At least two of these cases were most likely to have

been direct hits.
The T-5's which made hits on antisubmarine ships
were not so successful as other torpedoes in sinking
their targets. This may probably be associated with
the high proportion of T-5's which struck near the
stern (63 per cent for antisubmarine ships, 53 per
cent for merchant vessels), since this often resulted in
only local damage which could be kept under control.
It is hoped that a much clearer picture of NM
effectiveness will be obtained from study of German
Admiralty IBM cards. These cards give facts pertinent to each torpedo expended (by U-boats which
got home to report). Interrogations have yielded a
wide variety of estimates of the number of T-5's fired
and their success. It is clear, however, that only a
small percentage of the torpedoes expended hit their
targets. There were probably many duds, as is likely
with such a new and complicated device . The enemy
must have attributed some failures to our noisemakers. It has been reported that orders were issued
that when an NM was near, T-5's should not be fired
unless the U-boat was almost in the target's wake . I
this order was followed, the NM's served their purpose in a very simple manner.
TABLE 1 . Use of German acoustic torpedo T-5.
(September 9, 1943-May 8, 1945 .)
Type of target
Antisubmarine
ship
Number of probable T-5 hits :
With a towed NM
With target speed under 9 kt
Probably without countermeasures
Total
Percentage
probable
Percentage
Percentage
sinking
Merchant
vessel
7
3
22
0
1
18
32
19
of all incidents that were

T-5 hits
40
of T-5 hits causing sinking 44
of other hits causing
84
7
79
82
EPILOGUE
OREGOING chapters have discussed the antisubmaF rine aspects of World War II in some detail, both
as a history and as an object lesson in rational naval
tactics. This would not have been done if it were not
feared that a future war might at some time present
similar problems . Yet the nature of any hypothetical
future submarine and antisubmarine operations is
now so uncertain that any discussion of them is
highly speculative in character.
It is evident that this volume on antisubmarine

warfare has been essentially historical in nature . It
has retailed facts and figures from experience collected in the 6 years prior to V-J Day and developed
theories to explain and interpret them . Its basis is
therefore a dual one, the characteristics and tactics of
the German U-boat on the one hand, and those of
Allied antisubmarine craft on the other . Had the contestants been different ones, the course of the war
would have been altered correspondingly .
The outstanding characteristics typical of the German U-boat throughout most of World War II were
related to the policy of surfaced operation. Their offensive tactics were predicated on the use of visual
detection and tracking on the surface with high speed
and maneuverability . Diving was resorted to only in
emergency to escape detection or attack. The large
wolf packs formed against North Atlantic convoys
were characteristic of their emphasis on coordination .
Their consequent heavy radio traffic provided important information to the Allies, and their weakness
in radar detection techniques gave the Allies a telling
advantage against the surfaced U-boat .
On the Allies' side, the overriding importance of
maintaining North Atlantic convoys to Britain did
more than anything else to determine the general
course of the antisubmarine war. This was the central
battle, with a great variety of diversionary forays and
skirmishes spread over the remainder of the oceans .
To defeat the U-boats, their weak points were exploited to the full, especially by radio direction finding position estimates and effective use of radar, both
surface and airborne.
The picture would no doubt be different in any
future war, for many important changes were in
progress during the closing period of World War II .
These trends are the most obvious indication of what
may be expected in the future .
After the defeat of the U-boats in the summer of
1943, the Germans initiated an extensive program of

research and development on methods of U-boat warfare . The high-submerged-speed submarine was probably the most striking result. The ultimate objective
was a submarine with turbine propulsion, burning
fuel oil with hydrogen peroxide as an oxygen source
(the Walter turbine) . This was to be the Type XXVI
U-boat with a maximum submerged speed of 25 knots
for 6 hours instead of 8 knots for 1 hour like the standard type of U-boat . The tactical value of such a speed
in attacking convoys and in avoiding search and
counterattack would obviously be very considerable .
Although the feasibility of Walter turbine propulsion had already been demonstrated at that time, no
Type XXVI U-boats were ever built because of production difficuIties .a Several smaller boats, Type
XVII, were built, however, for experimental purposes, and trials were in progress by V-E Day.
Less spectacular than the turbine drive U-boat vas
the high-speed electric drive Type XXI. They were
highly streamlined boats with powerful electric motors and high-capacity batteries. The resulting capabilities were a top speed of 15-18 knots submerged for
a brief period, and of 10 knots submerged for about
10 hours. U-boat construction was concentrated on
the Type XXI during 1944 and considerable numbers of them were ready to start operations in May
1945 . No war patrols had actually been made, however .
Both of these types were, of course, to be fitted with
Schnorchel, which should also be classified as a post1943 innovation . The idea was not a new one, but its
widespread introduction in the summer of 1944 drastically changed the complexion of the antisubmarine
war, as was pointed out in previous discussion .
Schnorchel must certainly be reckoned with in
estimating future trends, and future SchnorcheIs,
equipped with radar camouflage, may be expected to
be even more effective than those which the Germans
used.
Significant changes were being made at the end of
World War II not only in submarine design, but also
in weapons for submarine use. The acoustic torpedo
discussed in Chapter 15 is the most familiar example,
a The hydrogen peroxide required was expensive to produce
and the majority of the supply was used by the German Air
Force, especially 3n the V-bomb program.
177
178
EPILOGUE
but there were other developments as well . Longrange and zigzag torpedoes were introduced for use
against convoys, considerably increasing the probability of hit. Fortunately few U-boats had opportunities to fire them. The Ingolene torpedo, with the
Walter turbine propulsion giving long range and
high speed, was developed but not put into operational use. Such weapons may be expected to increase
the potential effectiveness of submarines in the
future .
On the Allied side end-of-war developments were
mostly of the nature of improvements to existing craft
and weapons, since they were operating with good
success. New types of sonar for improved detection
and attack were under consideration, in particular
scanning sonar which gave an instantaneous plan
position indicator plot of target position . More effective attack weapons were under development, and
the recently introduced Squid gave evidence of having a probability of success in attacks about ten times
that of ordinary depth charges.
Certain- more general developments will also undoubtedly have profound effects on future antisubmarine warfare, just as sonar, radar, and the aircraft
profoundly affected it during World War II . Atomic
explosives and power utilizing nuclear energy come
immediately to mind as the most revolutionary of recent introductions. It is impossible to estimate the
effects of such developments now ; all that can be
done is to point out that they are likely to be considerable . Somewhat less striking, but also of great importance, are the very extensive developments of
guided missiles . Homing torpedoes may be considered as a particular class of weapons of this type .
What, then, are we to conclude that the future of
submarine and antisubmarine operations will be
like . Some conclusion is in order even though we recognize that it can only be a wildly speculative one.
The whole state of naval warfare in the future is
uncertain, but it can surely be agreed that control of
the sea, including the depths beneath the surface and
the space above it, is of prime military importance,
and such control may rightly be considered as the objective of naval power. How such control may best be
accomplished is a question for future analysis and
planning to decide . The general means available are
naval craft and missiles ; for modern warfare, no
longer a matter of personal combat, is based on the
missile, the means of implanting a destructive agent
in the enemy's midst from long range. Naval craft-
ships, aircraft, and submarines-are fundamentally

missile-carriers whose aim is to launch missiles so that
they reach the proper place.
The characteristics of each type of craft are determined in part by the requirements of the missile
which it launches. In part, however, they are intrinsic
-speed, endurance, and maneuverability . Relative
ease of detecting the enemy and being detected by
him are also of great importance .
In the past submarines have been built around the
torpedo as missile. Improvements in torpedo design
and the possible introduction of submarine-launched
guided missiles may significantly alter its role in the
future . The great intrinsic advantage of the submarine is its invisibility, in which it still exceeds all
other types of craft. Means for overcoming this invisibility are likely to remain the chief concern of antisubmarine measures . Their detailed nature must,
however, be determined in terms of the use to which
submarines are put and of the type of submarines
involved.
A satisfactory estimate of the most probable enemy
use of submarines can hardly be made without first
deciding on the general tactical and strategical situation which is likely to exist. We should first determine who will be fighting whom, what bases and
facilities each will have, what supply lines or other
objectives are open to enemy submarine attack . Setting up such a complete problem is, however, beyond
the scope of this discussion, but we can still make
some predictions in general terms.
In the first place it is reasonable to expect that submarine tactics which proved to be highly effective in
World War II will be tried again in the future . In
particular the use of submarines to attack merchant
shipping is likely to be repeated by our enemies so
long as our strategy is dependent on such ships . In
any major war this is likely to be the case, since we
will use ships to supply bases outside the continental
United States and to import necessary materials of
war. Only if the enemy expected to win such a rapid
and crushing victory as to make destruction o our
shipping unnecessary would he be expected to ignore
the importance of a submarine campaign against
merchant ships.
The developments of the last period of World War
II support this point of view . The new types of German U-boats which were designed and constructed
after 1943 were intended for the same basic purpose
as the earlier ones-to attack merchant ships. No
EPILOGUE
major change was envisaged, but it was hoped that

the increased U-boat speed would restore their tactical advantage and permit them to resume effective
attacks against convoys, even when operating submerged to gain safety from aircraft .
The use of submarines for anti-shipping operations involves use of the torpedo as the primary
weapon . New developments suggest, however, that
different weapons, such as a guided missile of the
V-bomb type, might also be launched from submarines. If such a missile were designed to carry nuclear
explosives, the destructive power of the weapons
which even a relatively small submarine could carry
would be many times greater than that of a battleship
or carrier at present. Weapons might well be launched
with accuracy comparable to that of present gunnery
or bombing. Since the submarine is an all-but-
179
invisible craft, developments of this sort might be

expected to be extremely effective.
The detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of possible types of future submarine operations is beyond
the scope of this discussion and could not be made
now in any case. It is first necessary to determine the
fundamental capabilities of the craft and missiles
that may be involved, with all possible new developments and improvements . When this has been done
the tactical evaluation can be undertaken .
It does appear, however, that future developments
are not likely to eliminate the submarine's great
merit, its relative invisibility . At the same time the
striking power of submarines is likely to increase . We
may safely conclude that submarine and antisubmarine warfare will be highly important phases of
any future naval conflict .
APPENDIX I
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ALLIED ASSESSMENTS OF ATTACKS ON
U-BOATS AND THE RESULTS REVEALED

AT SURRENDER
AT THE END o World War I it was found that the
number of U-boats which had actually been

sunk was rather less than the number presumed sunk
according to the assessment list . At the start of World
War II it was intended that the assessment policy be
a little more realistic, and more convincing evidence
was demanded to secure an assessment of "sunk" (A)
or "probably sunk" (B) .
The Italian surrender was followed by the publication of a list of the Italian U-boats which did not return to base prior to the armistice. When compared
with the Allied assessments for attacks thought to
have been made on Italian U-boats the agreement
was excellent. There were %2 A and 7 B assessments,
a total of 79 Italian U-boats sunk or probably sunk,
whereas the Taranto list showed 80 submarines to be
missing. Furthermore intelligence had provided the
names of 67 of them before the armistice, and these
names all checked.
The German surrender provided a list of the
U-boats lost with the name of the commander and
date and position of the sinking. A comparison of the
A and B assessments and the losses shown in the German list follows :
Allied assessments compared with German list
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Total
German
list
Sept. 39-June 40
July 40-Mar. 41
ANr. 41-Dec . 41
Jan. 42-Sept.42
Oct. 42-June 43
July 43-May 44
June 44-May 45
24
13
2G
27
79
117
105
0
7
1
23
49
79
54
24
20
27
50
128
19G
159
24
13
27
50
144
206
179
Sept . 39-May 45
391
213
604
643
" These data are based on information available at V-E Day . Neither
Allied nor German information is complete for the last periods . Hence
the figures given here do not agree in detail with those presented in
Chapter 8, based on more complete records available several months
later. Nevertheless the agreement of Allied and German estimates
proves the overall accuracy of the assessments made during World
war u .
It is clear that the Germans lost more U-boats as a

result of Allied action at sea than the combination of
A and B assessments would indicate . This is to be expected as losses due to mines, or perhaps ordinary
hazards of the sea, would not be known to the Allies.
In only one of the periods did the total A and B assessments exceed the losses given in the German list . For
this period, Jury 1940-March 1941, there were 7 B
assessments which have never been confirmed as sinkings though intelligence has completed the story of
the sinkings for this particular period . The percentage of B assessments which actually corresponded to
sinkings is problematical, but those cases which do
not represent sinkings are compensated for by lower
assessments which actually represented sinkings
though they were not credited as such.
A survey of the attacks on Japanese U-boats shows
38 assessments of A and 62 B assessments, a total of
100 A and B. The individual losses from Japanese
lists add up to 123, of which two were from mines and
two by running aground. The agreement is not as
good as with the Italian and German lists, but it
is still satisfactory, particularly when the greater
difficulty of obtaining intelligence is considered .
The A and B assessments for the losses by the three
Axis powers are given below and a significant difference is obvious.
Italian
German
Japanese
Total
Enemy Loss
Lists
72
391
38
7
213
G2
79
G44
100
84
643
123
501
283
783
84G
The ratio of A to B assessments is very high for

Italians, intermediate for Germans, and low for the
Japanese. This relationship would seem to be due to
at least three main factors :
1. The Italians gave up easily, surfaced, and surrendered, thus giving sure proof of destruction,
whereas the Japanese seldom surfaced when the game
was up .
2. Intelligence information was easier to obtain
from European sources than from Japanese .
3. Antisubmarine forces in the Pacific had less opportunity to remain in the vicinity to search for evidence of destruction because of other fleet duties .
The complete picture for World War II allows the
conclusion that the summation of A and B assessments for attacks on Axis U-boats gives a total which
181
182
APPENDIX
is close to that of the actual losses and useful for practicai purposes . Attempts to correlate B attacks with
the loss of individual U-boats were not always suc-
cessful and showed that the validity of any particular

B assessment as evidence of the destruction of a
U-boat is questionable.
GLOSSARY
ACES. U-boat commanders of outstanding records, credited
with sinking large amounts of Allied shipping .
ACOUSTIC TORPEDO .
A torpedo which detects [he target ship by
means of sound and is controlled by this sound so as to steer

towards the ship and eventually hit it.
ADMIRALTY. The headquarters staff of the British Navy . Also

used in the same sense for German Navy as "German Admiralty."
AHEAD-THROWN . (A) Weapon : an antisubmarine weapon used
by surface craft which is projected ahead of the ship, usually
to a distance of about 300 yd; (1i) attack: an attack employing
an ahead-thrown weapon .
ATTACK ERROR. Distance between mean point of explosion of

weapons and center of submarine . See AIMING ERROR, EVASION
ERROR, APPROACH ERROR .
ATTncx TEACHER. A mechanical device for simulating the conditions of a surface craft attack on a submarine, used primarily for training personnel on shore.
AVC.
Automatic volume control in an electronic amplifier.
BALANCED FORCE. A force capable of an equally effective offensive at all times, in particular, both day and night.
BARRAGE. A number of depth charges or contact charges released as a group in a surface craft attack .
AIMING ERRORS . Errors in aircraft attack arising from inaccuracies in dropping bombs, or firing rockets, i.e ., errors in
aiming the weapon .
BDI. Bearing deviation indicator, a modification to standard

sonar gear giving more accurate bearings by use of lobe
comparison .
A.N.D . Admiralty Net Defense; a net suspended along the

sides of a ship to catch torpedoes .
IIIBER. A midget submarine with crew of one, developed by the

Germans and used during 1944-45.
APPROACH ERROR. Error in surface craft antisubmarine attack

which would exist without submarine evasion. See ATTACK
ERROR and EVASION ERROR.
BLIND Tint. The time from loss of contact with the submarine
(or release of weapons) until weapons reach U-boat depth.
ANTISUBMARINE ATTACK PLOTTER [ASAP] . An electronic device

for plotting positions of own ship and submarine during
attack . Sonar echoes are plotted automatically on a large
cathode-ray tube of long persistence.
ANTISUBMARINE SHIP . Any naval ship used for attacking submarines, i.e., destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates, sloops,
corvettes, trawlers, patrol craft [PC], sub chasers [SC], suitably
equipped minesweepers, etc.
ASDEVLnNZ. Anti-Submarine Development Detachment, Atlantic Fleet; an organization set up to test and develop antisubmarine equipment and tactics for its use.
Aspic. British echo-ranging sound gear, equivalent to United
States sonar. Name is derived from Anti-Submarine Detection
Internal Committee, which pioneered the development of
such equipment.
ASG (RADAR) . United States Navy airborne S-band (10-cm)

search radar, introduced early in 1943 .
ASSESSMENT. An estimate of the damage done to a U-boat resulting from an attack by an antisubmarine craft. This estimate is made by a special committee on the basis of all
available evidence . Assessments range from "A"-U-boat
known to be sunk, to "I"-attack not on a U-boat.
ASV. Air-to-surface-vessel radar, that is, airborne radar for
searching for surface ship targets .
ASWORG .
Anti-Submarine Warfare Operations Research
Group . A group of civilian scientists attached to Tenth Fleet
Headquarters . Later known as ORG when transferred to
COMINCH Headquarters .
ATTACK . Release of one or more weapons against a U-boat in
a barrage or stick. Several attacks made in succession on the
same U-boat (i .e., within a few hours of each other) are called
an incident, but the term attack is sometimes used loosely as
synonymous with "incident ."
BoRxua2. A German radar search receiver of crystal detector

type covering the 75- to 300-cm band .
BRAWN[NG SHOT . A torpedo shot fired into a convoy without
being aimed at any particular ship .
CAMOUFLAGE (RADAR) . Any device for reducing the range at
which an object can be detected by radar, for example, nonreflecting coatings for reducing echoes.
CAM Sxirs .
aircraft .
Merchant ships fitted with catapults for launching
CATALINA [A/C] . Twin-engined seaplane (or amphibian) built

by Consolidated Aircraft . Long range, but slow, with moderate bomb load .
Class A ATTACK. An aircraft attack on a submarine in which
bombs are dropped not more than 15 sec after the submarine
submerges.
COASTAL COMMAND. The branch of the British Royal Air force
responsible for ocean patrol and attacks on naval targets .
COMMANDED VOLUME. The locus of points about an exploding
charge or bomb (or about its trajectory) that have the property that a submarine with center at any of the points will be
sunk .
COMMODORE (OF CONVOY). A senior naval officer (or occasionally merchant captain) responsible for the navigation, signalling, and other such activities of the convoy. The escort commander, on the other hand, is responsible for its defense
against the enemy and has ultimate authority.
CONTACT. An instance of detection of an enemy unit. For example, when a U-boat sights a convoy it is a contact on a convoy, as when an aircraft receives a radar blip from a submarine, it is a contact on a submarine.
CONTACT Fuze . A device in a bomb, rocket, or other projectile
for causing it to explode on hitting the target.
183
GLOSSARY
184
CONVOY . A group of merchant ships sailing together, usually

defended by naval ships acting as escorts .
COORDINATED ATTACK OR INCIDENT . An attack or incident in
which two or more ships and aircraft (or both ships and aircraft) take part. See ATTACK and INCIDENT . Those involving
both ships and aircraft are sometimes termed joint attacks (or
incidents) .
ESCORT . A naval ship or aircraft used to protect a merchant

ship or group of ships. Antisubmarine ships are sometimes
termed escorts even When engaged in offensive operations.
ESCORT CARRIER [CVE]. A small aircraft carrier usually built on
a merchant vessel hull and designed to fly antisubmarine
planes. Escort carriers were actually used mostly in offensive
operations, only infrequently on escort duties .
CORVETTE. A small antisubmarine ship, usually capable only of

rather slow speed.
ESCORT COMMANDER . Naval officer in command of forces assigned for defense of convoys.
Commander Operational Training Command,

COTCLnNT.
Atlantic Fleet, in charge of training for the Atlantic Fleet .
ESCORT GROUP. A group of antisubmarine ships which are

operated as a unit .
COUNTERATTACK . An attack on a submarine Which has attacked

friendly ships or is threatening to do so .
EVASION ERROR. Error in antisubmarine attacks introduced by

evasive maneuvers on the part of the submarine .
COUNTERMEASURE . Any action or device designed to reduce the

effectiveness of sonic enemy action or device. Tactical countermeasures involve changes in tactics or operational procedures. Material countermeasures involve new equipment .
These terms are used most frequently with respect to radar
EvnsivE RovTtxc. Routing to avoid known submarine positions.
and homing torpedoes.
CNO. Chief of Naval Operations-the naval officer (and subordinate staff in charge of the U .S. Navy Department .
CREEPING Annex. A coordinate attack by surface craft aimed
at surprising the submarine. An "assisting ship" maintains
sonar contact and directs [he "attacking ship," which proceeds at slow quiet speed over the submarine without echo
ranging and drops charges.
CUBA IA . Antenna used with the German Tunis search receiver
for S-band reception, made up of dipole and parabolic reflector .
CURLY.
A torpedo which follows a zigzag course.
nB. Decibel. A unit of sound intensity. See any textbook of

general physics or acoustics.
D-DAY .
Day of invasion of Normandy-June G, 1944.
DENSITY .
Number of objects per unit area. For example,
U-boat density might be expressed as the number of U-boats
per million square miles of ocean.
DEPTH FUZE. A device for detonating a bomb or other weapon
at a preset depth.
DESTROYER ESCORT [DE] . A large antisubmarine ship (about
1,800 tons) of fairly high speed, about 18-24 knots.
DF . Radio direction finding by intercepting enemy radio transmissions and obtaining their bearings with directional receivers, thereby estimating the enemy position . See HFDF .
DIRECT HIT (by torpedo) . A direct hit is made by an acoustic
torpedo on a ship using a noisemaker if the torpedo, while
steering toward the noisemaker, hits the ship .
EXCHANGE RATE. Ratio of merchant vessels sunk by submarines

to submarines sunk by antisubmarine vessels .
FAT. German designation for a torpedo which runs a zigzag
course, with nature of a zigzag not adjustable . See LUT.
FERRET . An aircraft equipped with receivers for monitoring
enemy radar transmissions.
FLEET AIR ARM.
British carrier and ship-based aircraft .
FLEET AIR WING 7. This air wing was based in Britain until
the end of World War II .
FLIEGE . German code name for S-band antenna of Tunis GSR.
See CUBA IA .
Fear-FLOr CONTROL.
Rudder control for a homing weapon
which can be only in central position or hard over port or
starboard.
FLYING FORTRESS. A four-engine Boeing bomber used to a small
extent for antisubmarine patrol .
FOLLOW-UP (of contacts) .

(fort co lain contact with a submarine whose position was accurately known at an earlier
time by virtue of a previous contact.
FOURTH FLEET. United States naval forces which were based in
the South Atlantic ; a subdivision of the Atlantic Fleet.
FOXER. British towed noisemaker gear for decoying German
acoustic torpedoes, consisting of two parallel bar noisemakers
and diverters. Near the end of the war U1VI-FOXER, a single
noisemaker, was employed . See FXR.
FRIGATE. A large British antisubmarine ship (about 2,000 tons)
of long endurance but moderate speed, 15-18 knots.
FXR. United States single towed noisemaker of parallel bar
type (See FOXER) .
DISPERSION (of bombs) . The variation that would exist in the

explosion points of a large number of bombs of a given type
if they were all dropped under the same conditions (in so far
as conditions could lie controlled) .
GAMBIT . An aircraft search for follow-up of contacts in which

the aircraft leaves the most probable initial submarine position and flies at some distance from it for some time, in the
hope that the submarine will return to the surface where it
can be sighted when the aircraft returns to the area.
DIVERTER . A device for causing a towed noisemaker to tow at

one side of the ship's wake rather than directly astern .
GAP, MID-OCEAN . The mid-ocean area which could not be

patrolled by land-based aircraft .
German code name for a system of radio Uea-
GLIDER BOMB. German radio-controlled glider bomb which :s

guided to target by parent aircraft .
ELECTRASONNE .
cons used as navigational aids .
GLOSSARY
GNAT. German Navy acoustic torpedo which homes automatitally on noise from target ship,
Gross TON. A measure of ship size based on volume. The tonnage is the entire internal cubic capacity of the ship expressed
in tons of 100 cubic feet to the ton, except certain spaces which
are exempted, such as peak and other tanks for water ballast,
open forecastle bridge and poop, anchor gear, steering gear,
wheel house, galley, and cabins for passengers,
GSR. German search receiver, i. e., German radar receiver for
detecting transmissions by Allied search radar.
GU . Designation for convoys from Mediterranean and GiUraltar to the United States GUS for slow convoys, GUF for fast .
GUIDED MISSILES . A missile whose course can be adjusted after
launching (or firing) so as to hit the target . The adjustment
may be made by an operator in the launching craft or may be
automatic . Acoustic torpedoes are examples of the latter type .
HALIFAX.
A British four-motored heavy bomber built by
Handley-Page .
HsncE[ioc. An ahead-thrown weapon with mortar projected
barrage of 24 contact charges, trainable to about 20 degrees off
the bow of the ship .
HFDF . High-frequency DF (see DF). Frequencies of about 10
megacycles are involved.
185
JAUMAN V ABSOR[3ER. A nonreflecting covering which is effective

against S- and X-band radars, made up of spaced layers of
semiconducting paper. See WESCx ABSORBER.
LATERAL RaNCE CURVE. A curve which gives the probability of
detection of an object by a searcher (who is proceeding on a
straight course) as a function of distance of direct approach .
LEIGH LIGHT. British aircraft searchlight used for night attacks.
LETHAL AREA . The area on the ocean surface centered above
an exploding depth bomb which has the following property :
In a Class A attack any submarine whose center lies below the
lethal area may be considered sunk, and no others .
LETHAL RADIUS . The lethal radius of a given explosive charge
is the maximum distance from the pressure hull at which it
may be expected to do lethal damage .
LIBERATOR. Four-motored heavy bomber built by Consolidated
Aircraft frequently modified for use in antisubmarine patrol
because of its long range and large bomb load.
LIFE (LIFETIME) OF A U-BOAT. At any time the average life of
a U-boat is the number of U-boats at sea divided by the rate
at which U-boats are sunk per month .
LIMITING APPROACH LINES. The boundary of the region from

which a submarine can approach a ship or formation, drawn
relative to the ship or formation.
HG . Designation for convoys from Gibraltar to the United

Kingdom .
LINE ERROR. The component perpendicular to the course of

attacking aircraft of the distance between center of stick and
center of submarine .
HOLD-DOWN HUNT.
A search of sufficient intensity to insure the
submarine's being sighted if it surfaces .
LOCALIZATION .
sonar.
Determination of exact submarine position by
HOMING. Guiding to a source of signals. A U-boat in contact

with a convoy unit's signals, thereby homing other U-boats to
the scene. An acoustic torpedo steers towards the sound from
a ship's propellers, thereby homing on the target .
LOST CONTACT (RANGE) . Range at which sonar contact with

submarine is lost because submarine is below sonar beam .
HZS. High resolution radar of S-band frequency for use in

blind bombing.
MAC SHIPS .
HUDSON .
Twin-engine Lockheed bomber .
HUNTER-KILLER OPERATIONS.
Offensive operations aimed at
finding and destroying U-boats, usually involving groups of
surface craft and sometimes coordinated with aircraft .
HX. Designation for convoys from Halifax or New York to

Britain.
HZX. High resolution radar of X-band frequency for use in

blind bombing .
HYDROPHONE .
A receiver of underwater sound .
LUT. German designation for a torpedo which runs a preset

zigzag course . See TAT.
See CAM SHIPS .
MAD. Magnetic anomaly detector (or magnetic airborne detector), an aircraft instrument for detecting distortion of the
earth's magnetic field due to the presence of a submarine.
MAXIMUM SUBMERGENCE. Submarine tactics which involve remaining submerged as much as possible . Normally about 2 to
4 hours a day must be spent surfaced or at Schnorkel depth .
MEAN RADIAL ERROR.
center of barrage .
METOX.
1942 .
Average distance from center of target to
Early GSR for long wavelength radar, introduced in
MK II RADAR.
aircraft.
British long wavelength search radar used on
INDIRECT HIT. A hit made by an acoustic torpedo which is attracted to the target ship out of a trajectory leading to a
noisemaker.
Mx III RADAR.
British airborne S-band search radar.
INFLUENCE (fuze or pistol) . A fuze activated by the change in

earth's magnetic field due to the submarine's presence, which
is designed to detonate the charge whenever it is close enough
to the submarine to be effective .
MOSQUITO . British twin-engined fighter-bomber built by DeHaviland .
INCIDENT.
See ATTACK and COORDINATED INCIDENT .
INTERCEPT RECEIVER .
Radar search receiver (.see GSR) .
Mx 8 DEPTH CHARGE.
charge .
United States influence-fuzed depth
MOUSETRAP. United States ahead-thrown weapon with rocket

propected barrage of 8 or 16 contact charges. Used in small
ships.
GLOSSARY
186
MPI.
Mean point of impact of a group of bombs.
MvcxE.
MV.
Horn antenna for X-band reception with Tunis GSR.
Merchant vessel .
Nnxos.
(1) Early nondirectional GSR effective in S-band;
(2) Amplifier used in Tunis GSR.
NM .
Noisemaker .
NOISEMAKER . An artificial source of underwater noise used to

conceal the noise made by a ship or submarine or to interfere
with the operation of, or to decoy, acoustic devices such as
acoustic torpedoes.
NORTH RUSSIAN CONVOYS. Convoys from Britain around the
north of Norway to Murmansk, Archangel, or other North
Russian ports, and returning convoys.
0B . Designation used in early years of war for convoys outward bound from Britain for America and Africa.
OBSERVANT . A search plan used by surface craft, consisting of
going to point of last contact with submarine and then steam-
ing around a square centered at that point with 2-mile sides.
OG.
Designation for convoys from Britain to Gibraltar .
ON . Designation for convoys from Britain to America . During

latter part of World War II ON was reserved for 9-knot convoys, ONS being used for 7-knot .
ORG.
Operations Research Group. See ASWORG .
ORS. Operations Research Section, title of British operations

research organizations. Most frequently used in ORS/CC
Operations Research Section, Coastal Command.
OS . Convoy designation for convoys from Britain southbound
to Sierra Leone.
PATROL CRAFT. Small antisubmarine craft, normally not over
about 200 feet in length .
PQ.
Designation for convoys front Britain to Archangel . (See
NORTH RUSSIAN CONVOYS .
PRACTICE ATTACKS.
Simulated attacks carried out either on the
attack teacher or in exercises with a friendly ("tame") submarine.
PROXIMITY FUZE . A fuze designed to detonate a bomb, charge,

or projectile, when within a certain distance of the target .
(See INFLUENCE FUZE .)
P/ W .
Prisoner of war.
ATTACHMENT. British auxiliary sound gear with beam directed below the main Asdic beam for maintaining contact
with deep U-boats at short ranges.
R600 .
Same as METOX .
RANGE ERRORS. The component parallel to the source of attacking aircraft of the distance between center of stick and
center of submarine.
RDF-Type 286, Type 271. British surface craft search radar.
Type 286 had fixed aerials and operated on long wavelength .
Type 271 was S-band gear with rotating beam and PPI presentation .
REZico-BoMas. Contact bombs used by aircraft in conjunction

with MAD. Bombs are propelled backwards by rocket motors
so as to drop vertically from aircraft .
REVERBERATION. The totality of small false echoes received on
sonar from objects in the ocean, its surface, and the bottom .
ROCKET . Used alone the word implies forward-firing rockets of
about 3-in. diameter used by aircraft . (See MOUSETRAP, for
comparison .)
RUNDDIPOL. Submersible GSR aerial used for long wavelength
radar reception.
S-BAND . Radar operating band for wavelengths of about 10 cm .
SBT. Submarine bubble target . A German decoy used to produce false echoes from a cloud of bubbles.
SG.
Designation for 7-knot convoys from America to Britain.
SCHNORIiEL . U-boat combination air intake and Diesel exhaust,

permitting operation on Diesels when at periscope depth.
Introduced in 1944 .
SCR-517 .
United States Army S-band airborne search radar .
SCR-717 .
Improved version of SCR-5I7 .
SD RADAR.
United States Navy X-band airborne search radar .
SEA RETURN .
surface.
The totality of false radar echoes from ocean
SEARCH RECEIVER . A radar receiver for intercepting signals

from enemy search radar and thereby being warned of his
approach .
SENSITIVITY PATTERN. The sensitivity of an acoustic torpedo is
a diagram showing the range and bearing at which a given
sound source will produce a given signal at the torpedo control mechanism .
SG . United States Navy surface craft S-band search radar (see
RDF, Type 271) .
SHADOWING. A U-boat shadowing a convoy kept in contact with
it and reported information about it without attacking.
SINKING RATE. The effectiveness of a U-boat in sinking ships.
The sinking rate is equal to the U-boat's sweep rate times the
fraction of ships contacted that are sunk .
SL . (1) Convoy designation for convoys from Sierra Leone to
Britain; (2) radar designation for United States Navy radar
similar to SG but lighter in weight .
Stoop Large antisubmarine ship of moderate speed, similar
.
to frigate.
SONAR. The United States Navy term for underwater sound
equipment and its use. British use "Asdic" in similar way.
SoxoavoY, EJCPPIVDABLE RADIO. A small buoy capable of transmitting sounds heard in the ocean to an observer by radio.
Used primarily by aircraft .
SORTIE .
An aircraft flight.
SQutn. An ahead-thrown depth charge and associated depthdetermining sound gear by means of which the submarine's
actual depth is automatically set into the depth charge fuze.
187
GLOSSARY
STEP-ASIDE . A radical zigzag designed to permit a ship to approach a U-boat with minimum danger from acoustic forpedoes .
STERN CHASE . An attack or pursuit course which overtakes the
target from its stern.
STICK.
A number of bombs or depth charges dropped in a row.
STRAGGLER. A ship which left a convoy because unable to maintain proper speed.
SUBMERGED APPROACH ZONE . The area around a convoy from
which a submarine can make a submerged approach to it.
SUNDERLAND.
British four-motored seaplane .
SUPPLY U-BOAT . A U-boat fitted to refuel and supply other

U-boats without attacking any ships itself .
SUPPORT GROUP (i .e., 2nd Support Group) . A number of antisubmarine ships kept together permanently as a group to
hunt U-boats and provide extra defense to convoys threatened
by attack .
SWEEP RATE. The number of contacts made per hour per unit
of target density by a searching craft. It is expressed in square
miles per hour and is the measure of searching craft's effectiveness of covering area .
SwEEe WIDTH.
Sweep rate divided by speed (approximately).
T-5 . German acoustic torpedo (earliest models were designated

T-4) .
T$Nrx FLEET. United States Navy Headquarters assigned tasks
of conducting war on submarines and protecting merchant
shipping.
TORPEDO DANCER ZONE. Area around a ship or convoy from
which a submarine has a good chance of hitting with a salvo
of torpedoes .
ToaeEx . Recently developed explosive superior to TNT in destructive power.
Toss BOMBING (or ROCKGT[NC) . A method of glide-bombing (or
rocket-firing) in which weapons are released as the plane pulls
out of the glide.
TRACKING . Maintaining contact with an enemy unit so as to
determine its course and speed.
TRAC'IRIX. The curve of pursuit followed by always proceeding
towards an object which is itself moving with constant course
and speed.
TRANSIT, TRANSIT AREA .
Passage of a submarine from base to
its operating area is termed a transit and the area between

base and the operating area is the transit area.
Tunis. Directional GSR for interception of S-band and X-band

radar. (See Nnxos, MUCKS, and Fc.tECE.)
TYPE XVII-B U-BOAT. Small experimental U-boats with oilH=02 turbine drive for submerged operations having speeds
up to 24 knots.
TYPE XXI U-BOAT . New type U-boat with powerful electric
motors, and extra batteries permitting high submerged speed
operation (up to 15 knots) .
TYPE XXIII U-BOAT .
coastal operations.
Similar to Type XXI, but smaller, for
TYPE XXVI U-BOAT. Proposed ocean-going U-boat with turbine drive as in Type VII.
TYPE 147B Asntc. British sound gear used for determining submarine depth daring an attack.
TYPE 271 RADAR,
U-BOAT.
British shipborne 10-cm search radar.
Any enemy submarine of 240 tons or larger.
UG. Designation for convoys from United States to Gibraltar

and Mediterranean ; UGS for slow convoys, UGF for fast .
U-KREUZER.
Large long-range U-boat.
V-1. German "buzz-bomb" or jet-propelled pilotless aircraft of

moderate range.
VLR AIRCRAFT .
Very long-range aircraft .
VIXEN. An attenuator for use with airborne radar to reduce the

output as range to the target is closed, thereby confusing the
GSR operator .
WANZ G-1 .
Long wavelength GSR, an improvement on Metox .
WEAPON LETHALITY .
The effectiveness of a weapon in produc-
ing damage, without regard to the accuracy with which it can

be placed .
WELLINGTON A/C.
British two-motored bomber and patrol
plane built by Vickers.
WFSCx ABSORBER.
A rubber-like coating for reducing radar
echoes . See JAUMANN ABSORBER .
WHITLEY.
British two-motored bomber and patrol plane.
WOLF PACKS .
Groups of U-boats operating together as a unit.
X-BAND. Band of radar frequencies with wavelength approximately 3 cm .

ZIGZAG . Frequent course changes to make attack by submarines
more difficult.
INDEX
The subject indexes of all STR volumes are combined in a master index printed in a separate volume .
For access co the index volume consult the Army or Navy Agency listed on the reverse of the half-title page.
Acoustic torpedo, German
countermeasures, 93-99> 1G1-17G
flip-flop rudder control, 167
Geier, 75
T-4;171-172
T-5;56,172-176
trajectory analysis, 164-171
Admiralty net defense, torpedo countermeasure, 30, 41, 98-99
Aircraft as convoy protection against

U-boats, 39,109
Aircraft attack on submarines, 127-188
attack errors, 128-130
bombing errors, I37-138
characteristics of bombs, 133
depth bombs, 136-137
effect of altitude on success, 141
factors determining success, 127-13G
probability of success, 132-136
use of rockets, 138
variation of individual missiles, 133

weapon lethality, 130-132
Aircraft equipment for use against
U-boats
Leigh searchlight, 80
magnetic airborne detector, 30
plan position indicator, 29
radar,13,30
Aircraft patrol, effect on submarine submergence, 95-98

Aircraft tactics against U-boats
advantages over surface craft, 12

against Schnorchel-equipped U-boats,
78-74
depth bombs, l$6-137
depth charges for air use, 12-13
rocket attacks, 56, 138
search for surfaced submarines, 139141,151-152

sweep widths for visual search, 140
work of seasearch-attack development

unit, 29
Aircraft types, for use against U-boats
carrier-based aircraft, 55
civilian air patrol, 29
merchant aircraft carriers, 36-37
"scarecrows," 6
very long range aircraft, 85-36

Aircraft warning radar, enemy, 153
Air-surface vessel (AS'() radar, 14
AN/APB-2 (ASG) radar, 89
AND (admiralty net defense), antitorpedo device, 30, 41, 98-99
Antisubmarine equipment
antitorpedo nets, 30, 41, 98-99
Asdic equipment, 8, 16, GO
Uearin- deviation indicator, 590
British Squid, 60
depth charges, 9> 12-13, 59-GQ 74-75

expendable radio sono-buoy, 41
Hedgehog, 21, 30, 52
high frequency direction finding, 13,

17,27,41
Leigh searchlight, 30, 40
magnetic airborne detector, 30-31
,'mousetrap" projector, 30-31
PPI scopes, 29
Q attachment (depth-angle sonar) , 41
radar, 14, 30, 40-41
towed noisemakers, 1G2-171
Antisubmarine measures, 89-91

convoy escorts, 90-91
evasive routing of convoys, 90
high ship speed, 95-97
objective of antisubmarine warfare, 89
safety of independent shipping, 93-99
submarine operations, 89-90

Antisubmarine warfare, erect of end-ofwar and future developments,
178-179
Antisubmarine warfare, history, prewar

to September 1939 ; 1-2
convoys, 1
lack of satisfactory countermeasures, I

need for scientific and technical advice, 2
submarines in World War I, 1
Antisubmarine warfare, history, September 1939-June 1940 ; 3-7
aircraft, 5-6
convoys, 4-5
sinking of U-boats, 6
surface craft, 6
Antisubmarine warfare, history, July
1940-March 1941 ; 8-15
aircraft, 12-18
convoys, 11-12
surface craft, 14
Antisubmarine warfare, history, April
1941-December 1941 ; 16-24
aircraft, 20-21
convoys, 20
sinking of U-boats, 22-23

surface craft, 17
Antisubmarine warfare, history, January

1942-September 1942 ; 25-33
aircraft, 29-30
convoys, 28-29
sinking of U-boats, 30-31
surface craft, 22
Antisubmarine warfare, history, October
1942-June 1943; 34-43
aircraft, 39-40
convoys, 38-39
surface craft, 40
Antisubmarine warfare,
history, July
1943-May 1944; 44-63
aircraft, 54-56
convoys, 53-54
sinking of U-boats, GO
Antisubmarine warfare, history, June
1944-August 1945; 64-79
aircraft, 73-74
convoys, 72-73
sinkings of U-boats, 77-78

Antisubmarine warfare, summary, 80-87
Antitorpedo nets, 30-31, 41, 98-99
Asdic, British sonar equipment
depth predictor, 50, 60
in minesweepers, 16
limitations, 8
ASV (air-surface vessel) radar, 14
Attack against submarines, theoretical
analysis
attack errors, 114-119

by aircraft, 127-138
by surface craft, 110-126

factors determining success, 114-115
search and interception, 139-t52
weapon lethality, 119-120
Attack errors
aiming errors, 129-130
aircraft attacks, 128-130

blind time, 114-115, 128
estimation of submarine position,
i28-129
factors influencing errors, 122-124
sonar errors, 114-119
surface craft attacks, 114--119
variation in behavior of weapons, 128129
BDI (bearing deviation indicator), 59-60

Blind bombing aid, 57
Blind time, antisubmarine attacks, 114-
115, 128
Bombing errors, aircraft attacks, 137-138
Bombs, jet-propelled, German, 45
Borkum, German search receiver, 57, 156
191
192
British antisubmarine equipment
Asciic, 8,16,60
depth charges, 137
POXER, 48, 55,163
radar, 14, 21-22
Squid, GO
strapped magnetron, 40-41
Camouflage on U-boats, 159-1G0
CAP (Civilian Air Patrol), 29
Convoy defense, 100-112
against Schnorchel-equipped U-boats,

72-73
air-escorted convoys, 39, 109
effect of convoy size, 106-107, 103-I11
effect of convoy speed, 104-106
end-to-end escort of convoys, 20
gain in safety, 100-104
limitations, 111-112
radar equipped, l l
surface escorts, 107-109

Countermeasures to the acoustic torpedo, 161-17G
autitorpedo nets, 98-99
towed noisemakers, 1G2-176
types, 161-162
Countermeasures to the U-boat
see Antisubmarine equipment
Damage from U-boats

see Antisubmarine warfare, history
Depth charges
air use, 12-13
comparison of British and U. S., 137
depth setting, 21, 136-137
Mark 8; 59-60
Mark 9; 60
Mark 14; 74-75
torpex-filled, 30
Depth predictor, Asdic, 50,60
Direction finding, high frequency, 13,
17,41
DMS-1000, microwave radar, 39
electric driven U-boats, 177
ERSB (expendable radio sono-buoy), 41

Past time constant (FTC) circuit, 74
FAT, German torpedo gear, 56
Poxer, British noisemaker, 48, 55, 163
r1R, U. S. noisemaker, 48, 56
effectiveness, 163,172-173
German
acoustic torpedo, 43, 161-176
electric driven U-boats, 177
Geier, homing torpedo, 75
Gnat, acoustic torpedo, 173-176
Hohentwiel, aircraft warning radar,
153
human torpedoes, 52
INDEX
jcL-pt-opelled glider bomb, 95
Kurier, high speed communication, 75
I.UT, torpedo gear, 75
Pill enwerfer, submarine bubble target, 30
radar countermeasures, 151-160
search receivers, 30, 55, 154-158
turbine driven U-boats, 177
U-boat tactics, 177
German U-boat losses in World War II,

181
Glider bomb, jet-propelled, 45
Gnat, German acoustic torpedo, 173-Ii6

description, 172-1'14
effectiveness, IiG
speed,56
Guided missiles, effect on antisubmarine
warfare, 178
H_S, blind bombing aid, 57
Hedgehog, multi-spigot mortar
design, 21
effectiveness, 52
torpex-filled, 30
HF/DF (high frequency direction finding), 13, 17, 27, 41
Hohent`viel, German aircraft warning
radar, 153
Homing torpedo, German
see Acoustic torpedo, German
Human torpedo, German, 52
Italian submarine losses in World War
II, 181
Japanese submarine losses in World War
II, 181
Jet-propelled glider bomb, 45
Kurier, German high speed communication, 75
Leigh searchlight, 30, 40
LUT, German torpedo gear, 75
MAD (magnetic airborne detector), 31,
551
Magnetron, strapped, 40-41
Mark II radar, 21, 30, 39
Mark III radar, 40
Mark 8 depth charge, 59-60
Mark 9 depth charge, 60
Mark 14 depth charge, 74-75
Metox, German search receiver, 40-41,

154-155
"Mousetrap" projector, 30
Naxos, German search receiver, 55, 57,

157-158
NM (towed noisemaker), 162-171
description, 162
disadvantages, 1G1-162
effect on trajectory of torpedo, lfi9-171
FOXER, 48, 55, 163
FXR, 48, 56, 163, 172-173
Operation Torch, 34-35
I'illemverfer (submarine bubble target),
30
Plan position indicator, 29
Projector, sonar, 41
Q attachment, sonar depth-angle projector, 41

Radar, enema countermeasures to, 1511G0
aircraft warning radar, 153
camouflage, 159-1G0
decoys for radar, 154
Schnorchel, 153-160
search receivers, 30, 55, 15l-158
submer-ence of submarine, 153

Radar detection of U-boats
airborne radar, 13, 151
detection of Schnorchel, 159, I%G
effectiveness, 151-157
enemy countermeasures, 57, 151-160
fast time constant circuit, 74
Mark II radar, 21, 30, 39
Mark III radar, 40
SCR-517 radar, 39
shipUorne radar, 27
type 271 ; 21-22
type 286M, 14
Vixen attenuator, 157
Radio sono-buoy, 41
Radio-controlled jet-propelled glider
bomb, 45
RD/T 286 M radar (radio direction-finding), 14
Rocket projectiles, 56
effectiveness in aircraft attacks, 138
SADU (seasearch-attack development
unit), 29
SBT (submarine bubble target), 30
Scarecrows, aircraft used against U-Uoats,
6
Schnorchel on U-boats, 58-59, G4-78,
158-1G0, 177
countermeasures to, 159, 176
SCR-517 radar, 39
Search receivers, German, 30, 154-158
Borkum, 57, 156
Metox, 40-41, 154-155
Naxos receiver, 55, 57, 15i-158
Tunis receiver, 75-76, 158
Wanz G1, 57, 156 ,
Seasearch-attack development unit, 29
INDEX
Shipping safety mcasw'cs, 93-99
reduction in subuiarine's ability to approach ships, 95-98
reduction in submarine's ability to

contact ships, 93-94
Sonar gear, limitations, 114-116
Sonar projector, depth-angle, 41
Sono-buoy, dropped from aircraft, 41
Squid, projection of depth charges, GO

Submarine, countermeasures to
Submarine attacks, enemy
Submarine bubble target, 30
Submarine search and interception, 139-
152
aircraft search for surfaced submarines, 139-141
estimation of submarine position, 128-
129
follow-up of contacts, 147-152
interception of transits, 143-147
radar versus visual search, 140
surface craft search, 141-143
Surface craft attack on submarines, 110126
attack errors, 114-119, 122-124
barrage lethality, 120-121
calculation of probability of success,
121-122
coordinated versus independent ,Ittacks, 125

effect of sonar conditions, 123
effectiveness of attacks, 122-12G
factors determining success, 114-122
listening and echo-ranging attacks,
123
weapon lethality, 119-120, 122-126

Surface craft search for submerged submarines, 141-143,148-151
T-4 acoustic torpedo, 171-172
T-5 acoustic torpedo, 173-1i6
description, 172-174
effectiveness, 176
speed,5G
Torpedo, acoustic, German
sec Acoustic torpedo, German
Torpedo trajectory analysis, 164-171

effect of noisemaker, 169-171
flip-flop rudder control, 167
sensitivity pattern template, IGG
Torpedoes, human, 52
Torpex-filled projectiles, 30
Towed noisemakers, 1G2-171
description, 162
disadvantages, 1G1-162
effect on trajectory of torpedo, 1G9-171

Toxer, 48, 55, 163
FYR, 48, 56, 163, 172-173
193
Tunis, German starch receiver, 75-ili,
158
Turbine driven U-boats, 177
U-boat countermeasures
U-boat losses in World War II
German, 181
Italian, 181
Japanese, 181
U-boat warfare
U-boat weapons
acoustic torpedo, 56, 98-99,161-176
aircraft warning radar, 153
PAT, torpedo gear, 56
Kurier, high speed communication, 75
LUT, torpedo gear, 75
I'illenwerfer, 30
radar decoys, 154
Schnorchel, 58-59, G4-i8, 158-1G0
search receivers, 30,55,57,i54-158
Vixen attenuator, radar, 157

VLR aircraft (very long range), 35-3G
Walter turbine propulsion for submar-
ine, 177
Wanz G1, German search receiver, 57,
156
Weapon lethality, 119-120, 130-132

History of Antisubmarine Operations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Antisubmarine Operations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Antisubmarine Operations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

:'I -ooad .

Copyright CNA Corporation/Scanned September 2002

OPERATIONS EVALUATION GROUP

Copyright CNA Corporation /Scanned October 2003

b. The evaluation of specific phases of operations

c . The evaluation and analysis of tactical problems

e . The technical aspect of strategic planning .

f. The liaison for the Fleets with the development

Director, Operations Evaluation Group

ably, however, from the typical characteristics which

c. Scientific and technical

scribed in any detail. The indirect effects of factors

hard and fast one.

HISTORY OF ANTISUBMARINE OPERATIONS

First Period-Submerged Daylight Attacks on Independents, September 1939-June 1940

Third Period-Start of Wolf Packs ; End-to-End Escort of

Fourth Period-Heavy Sinkings on East Coast of United

Seventh Period -Schnorchel U-Boats Operate in British

Safety of Independent Shipping .

Convoying and Escort of Shipping .

Employment of Search Radar in Relation to Enemy

Countermeasures to the German Acoustic Torpedo .

Ocean Areas Referred to in the Text

Caribbean Sea FrontierWest

North Sea Area

countermeasures, of which the convoy system was the

HISTORY OF ANTISUBMARINE OPERATIONS

That the Germans themselves still thought the

SUBMERGED DAYLIGHT ATTACKS ON INDEPENDENTS

voyed during the month without the loss of a single

At the beginning of September, these instructions

During September, while the convoy system was

The September U-boat campaign was followed by

SUBMERGED DAYLIGHT ATTACKS ON INDEPENDENTS

month 28 ships of 136,000 gross tons had been sunk

During November and December the main effort

spite the large concentration of U-boats, the damage

The convoy system was by far the most effective

COUNTERMEASURES TO THE U-BOAT

Outward bound from England to America

tions formed at sea, as arranged, at about 41 north

SUBMERGED DAYLIGHT ATTACKS ON INDEPENDENTS

The main value of this flying was in causing the

Scientific and Technical

attempting to pass through the Dover Barrage in

From the U-boat Point of View

From the Allies' Point of View

At the end of June 1940 England was left alone in

nations were about 280,000 gross tons monthly as

been the main factor in keeping the shipping losses

HE SECOND PHASE of the U-boat war was marked

mans, having discovered as a result of their high rate

Some Italian U-boats had also started operation in

It should be kept in mind that during these months

convoy and new plans were developed for searching

NIGHT SURFACED ATTACKS ON CONVOYS

beyond the point which could be reached by the

losses to U-boats in January dropped to 21 ships of

U-boats, and special searching patrols . The days of

sunk while one plane was shot down . The U-boat