- Jun 2012
- At present SD, USA
Possibly, though the results are purely speculative.Sure but it still would've been worthwhile for the Germans to focus on u-boat construction.
The naval arms race before WWI between Britain and Germany says otherwise. If given the incentive, democracies can be quick to militarize and be ready to go rapidly. Before WWI, the British saw Tirpitz's plans to build up the German navy as a threat to their own hegemony over the seas and they thus built battleships with the very intention of making sure they retained hegemony over the seas.First, democracies tend to be slow to build forces and meet challenges in peacetime (i.e. when construction could've begun on more u-boats instead of Bismarck, Tirpitz and other gunships).
And it's likely Britain's naval policy was responding to German action in history as it was. The only reason that it didn't result in an arms race as was the case before WWI is that Germany had been so disarmed after WWI that when the Nazis started up again, there wasn't as much of a perceived threat.
That depends on what Britain does with regard to anti-submarine warfare.Second the u-boats had the advantage of showing up en masse in any number of places whereas British defenses had to be spread out trying to anticipate where attacks would come. Even as late as the fall of '42, after three years of war i.e. three years in which to build ASW capability, U-boats were still slaughtering allied shipping in peripheral areas. What if many more u-boats had been available to do this?
Possibly, but in history, Britain did send destroyers to help improve America's coastal shipping. It'd stand to reason that they'd do the same in the hypothetical scenario.Third, even if Britain emphasized ASW assets earlier, the US could still have neglected its defenses, enabling an enlarged, hypothetical u-boat fleet to absolutely massacre US shipping, upon which Britain was highly dependent, beginning in early '42.