Skip to main content
History

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 8
    Note that while a 4% casualty rate was high for the American military services, the casualty rates where much higher for the European and the Russian military. I seem to remember rates in the range of 1/4 to 1/3 for both Russia and Germany. Commented 2 days ago
  • 4
    @quarague Famously it was at 75%, mostly MIA/KIA, not wounded for U-Boat crews. And still 20% for the US submariners nps.gov/articles/000/submarines-in-world-war-ii.htm Commented yesterday
  • 4
    It’s also far from obvious that hugging Greenland would even have reduced overall risk at all. At best, that portion of the route would have had reduced risk from Axis attacks. But the added length and worse weather conditions carry their own non-negligible extra risks in return, and the rest of the route would still have been under Axis harrassment threat. Commented yesterday
  • 1
    It seems possible that there would be dangers from this route of the more mundane kind too: Icebergs. At some point you'd get more ships taken out by those than by subs. Commented yesterday