Can the U.K. be starved into submission?

[Simoleum]

As far as I know, the German wolf packs' threat towards Britain terrified Churchill; he later wrote that "...the only thing that ever frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril". Is it thereby possible to defeat the UK by wreaking total havoc on their trade over a certain time, thus "starving" them into submission? This provides an alternative to invasion, if you can't seem to get naval or air superiority.

EDIT: Will the AI give in and peace is my question. I assume you can wreak havoc on Britain, but in HoI3 they wouldnt cave in without important cities occupied

 

[Skjold89]

This is pure speculation, but i am gonna guess no.

 

[Shade205]

I don't see why not just not from U-Boats alone.

A mix of the Luftwaffe ruling the skies above southern England bombing the UK industry, and Interceptors cutting down anything that comes up to challenge you while simotaniously ruling the skies over the ocean outside of Britain with a mix of naval bombers to sink British convoys and sink British battleships along with and more Interceptors to stop any carriers from launching fighters to defend themselves ALONG with the U-Boats harassing convoys and larger ships and the UK would be in trouble of starvation.

To summerize, The UK will struggle with feeding the war effort if your Naval Bombers and U-Boats are operating together while you maintain air superiority. I see no reason why you can't choke the UK into submission with this method. It's my plan of attack I prefer it over either launching sea lion or ignoring them and going to the Soviets allowing them to keep poking at you.

 

[Skjold89]

I don't see why not just not from U-Boats alone.

A mix of the Luftwaffe ruling the skies above southern England bombing the UK industry, and Interceptors cutting down anything that comes up to challenge you while simotaniously ruling the skies over the ocean outside of Britain with a mix of naval bombers to sink British convoys and sink British battleships along with and more Interceptors to stop any carriers from launching fighters to defend themselves ALONG with the U-Boats harassing convoys and larger ships and the UK would be in trouble of starvation.

To summerize, The UK will struggle with feeding the war effort if your Naval Bombers and U-Boats are operating together while you maintain air superiority. I see no reason why you can't choke the UK into submission with this method. It's my plan of attack I prefer it over either launching sea lion or ignoring them and going to the Soviets allowing them to keep poking at you.

I agree, don't think thats what he meant though. I think what he meant was to starve out the civil populace to a surrender.

 

[Mabs]

surely the question is not "can GER starve UK with Uboats ?" to which the answer is clearly "yes" but "can GER starve UK with Uboats and not overspend resources they need to carry on the war elsewhere?" and would an essentially phyrric victory be worthwhile ?

 

[PhantomXtrike]

I think the games allow us to cut off supply of resources to hammer UK production rate for easy invasion, so starving the production, yes

 

[Shatterfury]

surely the question is not "can GER starve UK with Uboats ?" to which the answer is clearly "yes" but "can GER starve UK with Uboats and not overspend resources they need to carry on the war elsewhere?" and would an essentially phyrric victory be worthwhile ?

This and this again.

Theoretically if there is no war with the USSR the size of the U-boot fleet would be something to make one shiver.

 

[Simoleum]

I see how it is possible, but will the AI fold? That is my main question. If you achieve a total chokehold on Britain by seas, will they give in? (peace)

 

[fabius]

surely the question is not "can GER starve UK with Uboats ?" to which the answer is clearly "yes" but "can GER starve UK with Uboats and not overspend resources they need to carry on the war elsewhere?" and would an essentially phyrric victory be worthwhile ?

Great way of putting it.

I really like the strategic losses tab in Hoi3.

Another way to look at it is to compare it to Strategic bombing. Without the A bomb strat bombing wasn't going to win the war alone. But it was a cost effective war tool. Destroy more IC worth of resources (convoys and escorts) plus material resources of the enemy than it costs to make sunk U-boats.

 

[LordOfWar16]

you could even whitepeace or offer surrender as seen in WWW. I dont see why the AI wouldnt do that if they think they dont have a chance. If you cut them off from their colonies, destroy their lend lease and their trade their production will stop completly if they cant even substain one resource. The wolfpacks will of course probably hit their national unity again aswell.

With u-boats alone you dont win an war of course, neither do you with planes only. Intercepting enough convoys will give you an massive lead in plane production of course. With air superiority you could easiely start an large scale paratrooper operation if you dont manage to gain any naval supremacy at the sea.

 

[kviiri]

I don't know if starving to submission is a possibility in 4, but at least starving to weakness ought to be. After depleting UK resource supply through submarine operations, the Axis will have a far easier time to make their landing in GB.

 

[fabius]

I don't know if starving to submission is a possibility in 4, but at least starving to weakness ought to be. After depleting UK resource supply through submarine operations, the Axis will have a far easier time to make their landing in GB.

Yeah, but at a very significant U-boat investment from Germany. Donitz's 300 and all that....

So maybe efficient investment for war on UK- but question how many tanks could we get with that

 

[LordOfWar16]

Yeah, but at a very significant U-boat investment from Germany. Donitz's 300 and all that....

So maybe efficient investment for war on UK- but question how many tanks could we get with that

well it depends, with the variant system you could make your u-boats fast and stealthy for exampel, which makes them even more effective in convoyraiding and avoiding the enemy fleet. I dont think you nessesariely need hundreds of submarines to do significant damage to the enemies economy.

 

[Skjold89]

I like how the OP even clarified that my interpretation of the question was correct yet people still disagree.

 

[kviiri]

Yeah, but at a very significant U-boat investment from Germany. Donitz's 300 and all that....

Absolutely so. As with many things, I believe submarine effort will have diminishing returns. The first submarine will probably cost the Imperialist scum proportionally more than every subsequent one. The difference between one and ten subs is far more than the difference between 500 and 510. So it probably takes a ridiculous amount of effort to get truly devastating effects with plain submarine warfare.

 

[fabius]

Absolutely so. As with many things, I believe submarine effort will have diminishing returns. The first submarine will probably cost the Imperialist scum proportionally more than every subsequent one. The difference between one and ten subs is far more than the difference between 500 and 510. So it probably takes a ridiculous amount of effort to get truly devastating effects with plain submarine warfare.

Yeah good point. But then German player could do just enough to get the UK, USA spending research and production to counter the threat.

Diminishing returns when UK historical Intel and ASW tech too

 

[kviiri]

Yeah good point. But then German player could do just enough to get the UK, USA spending research and production to counter the threat.

Diminishing returns when UK historical Intel and ASW tech too

Absolutely. Even a modest sub effort will be enough to force the UK to deal with it or face severe losses - the cost of countermeasures complement the cost of lost cargo ships. In real life, the terror factor would account for a lot too - it doesn't matter if only 1/500 ships get attacked, it's enough to make people paranoid. It's a bit like asymmetric warfare on that specific field. But since subs are disadvantaged in ship to ship combat, if it comes to an arms race between Axis subs and Royal Navy, I believe RN will win.

 

[fabius]

Absolutely. Even a modest sub effort will be enough to force the UK to deal with it or face severe losses - the cost of countermeasures complement the cost of lost cargo ships. In real life, the terror factor would account for a lot too - it doesn't matter if only 1/500 ships get attacked, it's enough to make people paranoid. It's a bit like asymmetric warfare on that specific field. But since subs are disadvantaged in ship to ship combat, if it comes to an arms race between Axis subs and Royal Navy, I believe RN will win.

yeah definitely. Age old strategic situation for UK to have more focus on navy; while Germany can't afford to detract too much from land forces.

 

[Gort11]

The same question would apply equally to Japan. Can you use strategic bombing and naval starvation to make them surrender?

Likewise, say, Germany. If you use enough strategic bombing will they surrender without a land invasion?

 

[paulatreides0]

Well, historically, one of the biggest obstacles to Germany's submarine strategy was not just the lack of resources, but a lack of focus. Hitler randomly deciding that he wants to build battleships and cruisers and even, at one point, a carrier, held back the submarine building program quite a bit, and if they had instead focused those resources on building more submarines, Germany would have been much better off at sea.