Just How Bad Did Things Go For the German U-Boats in 1943

Sometimes I’ll do some thinking about a topic and try to apply some math to the problem. In this case, it was in regards to the losses suffered by the German U-Boat arm in World War II. A number of sources list the killed at about 75% and another 5% captured out of a total of something like 40,900 men.

The extensive uboat.net site has listed the top 50 German Submarine commanders of World War II. I thought I would do some analysis of the fates of those top 50 commanders and see how they fared in comparison to the general loss rate.

The following table counts the number of these commanders that for one reason or another ended their front line service in each year, from 1940 through to the end of the war. The result is interesting.

Fates of the top 50 U-Boat Commanders

The blank column counts those that were still active at or near the end of the war. The loss to death or capture ratio was 50%, much better than the often reported overall rate of 80%. I suspect the reason is that many of these commanders were transferred to staff or training positions before they were killed. A few points can be gleaned from these stats.

  1. Of the 30 sub commanders that were still in the front lines in January, 1943, 16 were killed and 2 captured by the end of that year. It appears that the U-Boats were badly beaten in 1943. No military force can sustain a loss rate like that and continue to operate effectively, at least without a period of rest and reorganization.
  2. Also, by the end of 1943, all but three of these commanders were no longer actively commanding submarines in war patrols. You must wonder if all of these transfers were an effort to rest fatigued commanders or an attempt to spread the expertise of these men around through the training and staff positions that they recieved.
  3. Of the three that still commanded front line boats after 1943, one was transferred to a training command in January, 1944 and the two others ended up operating in the Indian Ocean, presumably a much safer environment for U-Boats.

A follow on project might be to compare the fates of these top 50 commanders to the entire list of U-boat commanders, which I think, can be derived from the data on uboat.net.

Old Apple ][ Replica Poster Image

I just ran across this old image that was used to make a poster for the first VCF that I had an exhibit at. Based on the date on the files, it looks like the poster was designed in 2008.

Apple ][ replica poster
Apple ][ replica poster

The main thing that struck me is that I can’t believe what I was thinking, selling those kits for only $349! You can’t imagine how much effort it took to gather together all the parts and then assemble kits. Eventually I gave up on the kit idea and just sold bare boards. All told, I think I sold something like 16 boards and kits and kept a couple of boards for myself. I made a little money on the project, but if you counted up the hours and calculated an hourly pay rate, it had to be way below than minimum wage.

You don’t find many electronics kits manufacturers these days. I think the main reason is that it is now actually cheaper to build an electronic item than package a kit.

I am sometimes surprised at how little money that some people ask for bare reproduction PCBs. Sometimes, I see people asking less money than what I paid for those PCBs. I suppose if you really dig around, you may be able to find a fab house in Asia that will make a PCB for almost nothing, but my investigations always showed that for larger PCBs and small runs, the most popular offshore fab houses, really weren’t that much cheaper than domestic ones. Thus, I always have my PCBs made here in the USA.

MCM6571 Character Generator found for Digital Group Video Card

Quest Components had them and I was able to pick up a few for $8.00 each. I was able undo the work-around hack for the “A” part and the board works perfectly without mods with the non-A part. Quest has both the “A” part and a “P” part, so if you decide to order from them, be sure to order the “P” part.

Two Battles, Similar Results, Different Assessment

In this post, I’m going to briefly compare two Civil War battles. Both battles had very similar results. Both of these battles were surprise attacks on strongly entrenched defenders.

The Battle of the Crater

Union Attacker: 8,500 troops and suffered losses of 3798 men

Confederate Defender: 6,100 troops and lost 1491 men

Result: Attackers were thrown back around midday

The Battle of Fort Stedman

Confederate Attacker: 10,000 troops and lost 4000 men

Union Defender: 14898 troops and lost 1044 men

Result: Attackers were defeated by around 8:00AM

Detailed accounts of both battles reveal a pretty similar chain of events. At first a breakthrough, but confusion and strong counterattacks caused high casualties among the attackers. In both cases, it was particularly difficult for the attackers to find a way to return to friendly lines.

Both attacks involved surprise in order to initiate the breakthrough. The Union Army used a mine to blow a hole in the Confederate lines to start the Battle of the Crater, while the Confederates used men posing as deserters to surprise and overcome the initial defense of Fort Stedman. The Union had more men to engage in the defense of Fort Stedman, and were able to defeat the assault early in the morning. The Confederates had less men involved in the Battle of the Crater, and took longer to completely throw back the assault.

To me, one of the the most interesting things about these two battles is how the results were reported by the defeated army commanders.

The complete text of all of these messages can be found online in the Official Records, just follow the embedded links and you will find yourself on the right page. Scroll down to find the relevant messages.

The day after the Battle of the Crater, General Grant sent a telegram to his Chief of Staff, General Halleck, and classified the battle as a disaster. The next day, in another letter to Halleck, a court of inquiry was requested by General Grant. Generals Burnside and Ledlie lost their commands and a number of other Union Generals were censured by the inquiry. In contrast, Lee’s message to Secretary of War, Breckinridge, was in a more matter of fact style. He did under-report the losses as “not heavy”. Lee was very complimentary of his troops and their leaders.

I think that there are some questions that are worth asking about the reports of each commander.

  • Why was Grant so tough on his leaders? Did he believe that he needed a scapegoat, or did he feel that some of those leaders needed to be replaced?
  • Why was Lee so indifferent to a bad day? Remember that at the time of this battle, the Confederacy was on it’s last legs. Did he expect the attack to fail before it was launched or was he maintaining a somewhat positive outlook to keep moral up?

One last point. It is interesting to think about how each of the losing commanders initial reports has carried down through history to today. Even though the results of each battle was about the same, the modern historians perception of the management of the two battles largely mirrors the commanders initial reports.

More on the Dictator Mortar

Last year, during my research in the National Archives, I took many pictures of entries from a journal kept by the US Military Rail Road Construction Corps. One of these entries discusses the construction of a platform for the 13″ mortar. The weapon now known as the “Dictator.”

USMRR Construction Corps - diary entry 13" mortar platform
USMRR Construction Corps – diary entry 13″ mortar platform

Thursday, August 25th, 1864

Mills gang “Carpenters” Erecting platform up the railroad for large 13 inch Mortar intended to shell Petersburg. Browns gang laying side track to the same, which is in rear of Battery No. 5, in front of Petersburg 1 1/2 miles distance.

Though this entry notes that the intention was to shell Petersburg, the reality was different. The 13″ mortar was positioned with an intention to suppress Confederate artillery that were posted in a rather advantageous position that flanked the right of the Union lines. The artillery in this position troubled the Union troops from the Second Battle of Petersburg through to the end of the siege, as the Union troops never were able to effectively suppress it. The nature of this flanking position can be clearly seen in this map of the positions of the Union 1st Division of the 9th Corps on April 1st, 1865. I added the red arrows showing the field of fire of the flanking Confederate batteries.

Map-1st Div., Ninth Corp,April,1 1865
Map-1st Div., Ninth Corp,April,1 1865

More can be found out about this problem and the 13″ mortar’s role in it, in the book, “History of the First Connecticut Artillery.” This unit operated the Union siege artillery during the siege of Petersburg, including the 13″ mortar. This regimental history is put together much like the Official Records, and is largely a compilation of surviving documents concerning the regiment. There are some additional notes added by the editors. This particular note spans pages 68 and 69 and describes how the 13″ mortar was used.

13 Mortar from 1st Conn History
13″ Mortar from History of 1st Conn Artillery

Though I haven’t done an exhaustive search through this book, the earliest reference to the 13″ mortar is on July 8th, 1864. In this memo, it is clear that the 13″ mortar is already in position on a truck carriage.

Capt. Osborne Takes Charge of the Dictator
Capt. Osborne Takes Charge of the Dictator

This additional message seems to indicate that the 13 inch mortar is just being brought up into line on the 8th, so Captain Osborne must have been the first commander of this mortar.

13 inch mortar into position
13 inch mortar into position

Right now, that’s all I have time for. I’ll elaborate on why there are orders to build a platform for the 13 inch mortar on the 25th of August, more than two weeks after it was first put into service, in a follow up post.

hmm- what will we see next

Today Gizmoto reported on this iPhone enclosed in a case that is supposed to made from a piece of authentic Apple 1 circuit board

The biggest problem with this product is the likelihood that the circuit board fragment is from a reproduction. On that same site are images of what are unquestionably reproduction Apple 1 circuit boards. I’m quite sure about these images since no Apple 1 circuit boards have ever been found that weren’t populated with components.

Apple II Keyboard Enclosure

Quite a while ago, Wendell Sander sent me an example of his Apple 1/Apple ][ compatible keyboard design. Over the past couple of years, I’ve used it with my SCELBI as it can also be connected to a SCELBI keyboard interface. I didn’t have an enclosure, but had it mounted on a couple of blocks of wood.

For a long time, I’ve envisioned building a proper enclosure for it. Well, I finally got around to doing just that. I recycled some red oak that I had cut to a bit less than 3/8″ thick and had used for a while in another project that is now not needed.

Keyboard Enclosure
Keyboard Enclosure

I think it looks quite nice. There is no rear cover, but I suppose I could add a sheet metal cover , if I decided I really needed one.

keyboard enclosure, back
keyboard enclosure, back

For those that are interested in making their own Apple II compatible keyboard enclosure, the following drawing can be used to cut out the faceplate.

Keyboard Layout

Making Progress on SCELBI Hardware Manual

Back in 2017, I started on a hardware manual for the SCELBI computers. This originally was a digital copy of the original SCELBI 8B hardware assembly manual, which described construction and basic operation of the SCELBI 8B CPU. The original SCELBI 8B manual was 86 pages long and did not include any software or information on peripherals. Over the past couple of years, I have greatly expanded this manual. The draft now includes the following sections:

  • History
  • Printed wiring board assembly
  • Chassis assembly
  • Power supply
  • Installation and check out procedures
  • Peripherals
  • Schematics, parts lists and technical notes
  • Enhancements and modifications
  • System software and utilities

My goal, up to now, was to gather as much relevant content as possible and get it into a draft manuscript. At his point, I think I have added most of the content that I think is important into the draft and will now start work on doing a complete job of editing. The goal would be to put the manuscript into a reasonable condition where it could possibly be published. This will take a while, as the document is currently 274 pages long, and up to now, there has been almost no serious editing done.