What do you think?
Rate this book
Atlantic Nightmare: The longest military campaign in World War II
The battle that Germany should have won? No other battle of the Second World War lasted longer than the 2,075 days of the Battle of the Atlantic. It raged from the opening day of the war in September 1939 until it ended almost six years later with Germany’s surrender in May 1945. Vital supplies of food, fuel and the raw materials needed by the Allies to wage war had to be transported in merchant ships in escorted convoys across the Atlantic Ocean where they were at the mercy of German U-boats and warships. At first, many were lost. The fall of France in June 1940 gave the U-boats bases on the Atlantic coast, and U-boat production increased allowing the Germans to now hunt in ‘wolf packs’. How seriously did each side take the battle? How far were they able to innovate their way out of problems they encountered? Who made the crucial decisions on how the battle should be fought? How was the crucial battle for intelligence won? Atlantic Nightmare identifies seven pivotal areas of the conflict to answer these questions. Praise for Richard ‘… especially rewarding for those whose historical interests straddle political and military history' - Nathan Albright, Naval Historical Foundation Richard Freeman graduated in mathematics before following a career in distance education. He now writes on naval history. His other books include Midway, Pearl Harbor and Coral Sea 1942.
392 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 31, 2019
1466 people are currently reading
671 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
April 19, 2019
Winston Churchill said of the Battle of the Atlantic: “The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.”
Churchill was right to be worried. If Germany's U-boats had stopped merchant ships taking provisions, raw materials, troops and military equipment from the USA to Britain, the outcome of World War Two could have been very different. If it had been more successful, the U-boat fleet might even have prevented the D-Day landings.
In a well written, well researched history of the longest battle of World War II, Naval historian Richard Freeman has written a detailed account of the struggle between Britain's navies - aided by Canada and later the USA - and The Kriegsmarine (Germany's navy). As well as accounts of individual U-boat attacks on Allied convoys and details of Germany's surface raiders part in the war at sea, there are portraits of major figures involved in this titanic struggle.
Thankfully, due to the tireless work of various British, Canadian and American sailors and air crews, allied to innovative new technology, especially radar, the Allies triumphed over the submarine menace. The code-breakers at Bletchley Park and intelligence gathered from various parts of the world also played its part in the ultimate Allied victory.
Richard Freeman also points up 7 mistakes made by the U-boats' overall commander, Admiral Karl Dönitz, which he believes led to Nazi Germany's failure to win this most vital sea battle. During the Battle of the Atlantic between 75,000 and 85,000 Allied seamen were killed, while about 28,000 - out of 41,000 - U-boat crew were killed during the whole of World War Two - two-thirds of these dying during the course of the Battle of the Atlantic.
If the U-boats had prevailed, the western Allies could have failed in the war against Germany. This book is a fine tribute to the Allied sailors and airmen who won the hard fought victory over the U-boats.
Churchill was right to be worried. If Germany's U-boats had stopped merchant ships taking provisions, raw materials, troops and military equipment from the USA to Britain, the outcome of World War Two could have been very different. If it had been more successful, the U-boat fleet might even have prevented the D-Day landings.
In a well written, well researched history of the longest battle of World War II, Naval historian Richard Freeman has written a detailed account of the struggle between Britain's navies - aided by Canada and later the USA - and The Kriegsmarine (Germany's navy). As well as accounts of individual U-boat attacks on Allied convoys and details of Germany's surface raiders part in the war at sea, there are portraits of major figures involved in this titanic struggle.
Thankfully, due to the tireless work of various British, Canadian and American sailors and air crews, allied to innovative new technology, especially radar, the Allies triumphed over the submarine menace. The code-breakers at Bletchley Park and intelligence gathered from various parts of the world also played its part in the ultimate Allied victory.
Richard Freeman also points up 7 mistakes made by the U-boats' overall commander, Admiral Karl Dönitz, which he believes led to Nazi Germany's failure to win this most vital sea battle. During the Battle of the Atlantic between 75,000 and 85,000 Allied seamen were killed, while about 28,000 - out of 41,000 - U-boat crew were killed during the whole of World War Two - two-thirds of these dying during the course of the Battle of the Atlantic.
If the U-boats had prevailed, the western Allies could have failed in the war against Germany. This book is a fine tribute to the Allied sailors and airmen who won the hard fought victory over the U-boats.
April 5, 2019
A well-researched book that deserves its high ranking in this category. It's easy to think you know a lot about this campaign until reading Richard Freeman's book. Framing the story within the failing strategies of the Nazi war machine, providing detailed campaign arithmetic and telling a cascade of heart rending tales of the human experience gave me a new understanding of this important historical moment.
Over 70,000 souls perished at sea in both the Merchant Marine and the navies. Ironically it was the strategic differences on airpower that altered things at the end. The book lets us see how much the battle was a 'close run thing'. All these years on - I still said 'Phew!' at the final page. Highly recommended.
Over 70,000 souls perished at sea in both the Merchant Marine and the navies. Ironically it was the strategic differences on airpower that altered things at the end. The book lets us see how much the battle was a 'close run thing'. All these years on - I still said 'Phew!' at the final page. Highly recommended.
March 27, 2020
A good book, providing a chronological history of the Battle of the Atlantic over the whole course of WWII. Though not as deeply analytic as other books on the topic (Black May remains my preferred in-depth analysis of the Atlantic Campaign), the enthusiastic story telling and wide range of operations gives this book an interesting warmth and made every page enjoyable. The main characters in the Battle, from senior leaders to tactical commanders, are the center of the story; the author presents the conflict as a very human endeavor. I especially enjoyed the stories from the shore support units, the unsung heroes (or villains, depending on which side referred to) of the Battle. The book helped me gain a better appreciation for the massive scale of the Battle and the wide array of people and places involved. Though there was occasionally too much individual story telling at the expense of a clearer picture, the overall effort to keep the book rooted as a human history is to be commended. I did appreciate how the author presented a concise analysis at the end, showing how, for all of the personnel involved, it was a relatively small number of participants who actually sunk ships or U-Boats, many of them on a repetitive basis. The importance of experience and time at sea is, again, proven as the most important factor. For the Allies, the Escort Forces may not have been as glamorous as other units, “but it required the best.” Highly recommended for those wanting to learn more about the longest naval campaign in modern history.
December 7, 2020
Atlantic Nightmare is a frustratingly flawed history of the long Battle of the Atlantic during WW2. For over 2000 days, Nazi U-boats faced off against Allied convoy escorts, sinking 3500 ships at the cost of near total destructions. The Battle of the Atlantic was one of the few things that made Churchill nervous, and if it had gone the other way, Britain might have been starved of precious raw materials, the Soviet Union's lend-lease equipment would be at the bottom of the sea, and the Nazis might have won.
Freeman centers his narrative on U-boat commander Admiral Karl Donitz, which is a good choice, as Donitz drove the battle. From the start, the Nazi effort was hampered by the usual weaknesses of fascism. Hitler had told Admiral Raeder, his Naval leader, that war would come in 1947. When it started in 1939, the fleet was half-constructed. U-boats were a tertiary concern behind prestige projects like Bismarck class battleships and Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers. There were only a few dozen U-boats. They rapidly racked up an impressive list of kills, but their numbers were too low to cripple British shipping.
At the same time, British escorts were sadly insufficient in numbers and quality. There simply were not enough destroyers and frigates to cover every ship, and U-boat attacks mounted a devastating toll through 1942.
Spring 1943 was the decisive moment of the war. Admiral Max Horton had taken over command of British convoy escorts. Horton finally had sufficient ships, along with new technologies like centimeter radar and long range patrol planes. But the real advance was in training and morale. Horton formed permanent hunter-killer groups of ships trained to work together, stopped promoting successful officers out of convoy escort, and directed his ships to seek out and destroy the enemy rather than protecting merchant ships. The months of battle ripped the heart of Donitz's U-boat fleet, and they had a peripheral role for the rest of the war.
In Freeman's view, the Allies triumphed because they adapted faster and more successfully. Convoy escort was a priority from Churchill on down. New technologies, like centimeter radar, hedgehog mortar depth charges, the Leigh light, and ULTRA codebreaking, in combination with doctrinal advances in tactics and operations research, meant that the Allies were able to develop a decisive advantage in attrition and win the battle. Conversely, while Donitz was a skilled fighting admiral, he had a parochial view that the goal was tonnage sunk, and relied on a handful of skilled aces. As these experts were killed in combat, the U boat fleet suffered a fatal decline in efficiency. U-boats were only prioritized too late, after showpiece surface raids, the Battle of Britain, and then all-encompassing maw of the Eastern Front. And while Allied interservice rivalries were a problem, with heavy bombers diverted to the strategic bomber offensive rather than coastal patrols, it was far better than the Luftwaffe, which refused to support the German Navy as a matter of Goering's pride.
Good history is hard, and Atlantic Nightmare assumes you already know a fair bit about weapons and tactics in the period. The best example of a clear description of how the battle worked is an aside on operations research, where studies revealed that convoy defense was a matter of density of destroyers on the perimeter. Since the number of ships in a convoy is a matter of area, this meant that paradoxically, bigger convoys were easier to defend. A 100 ship convoy required 66% of the escorts of two 50 ship convoys. At the same time, it skips over figures who deserve more recognition. Dontiz is famous (partially because he was Hitler's successor and finally ended the Nazi regime), but I'd never heard of Admiral Horton, or a Captain Frederic John Walker, who developed tactics of the Western Approaches command, and while they're mentioned these Allied commanders deserve more space and consideration. These flaws, in combination with enough typos to be bothersome, drop this book down to three stars.
Freeman centers his narrative on U-boat commander Admiral Karl Donitz, which is a good choice, as Donitz drove the battle. From the start, the Nazi effort was hampered by the usual weaknesses of fascism. Hitler had told Admiral Raeder, his Naval leader, that war would come in 1947. When it started in 1939, the fleet was half-constructed. U-boats were a tertiary concern behind prestige projects like Bismarck class battleships and Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers. There were only a few dozen U-boats. They rapidly racked up an impressive list of kills, but their numbers were too low to cripple British shipping.
At the same time, British escorts were sadly insufficient in numbers and quality. There simply were not enough destroyers and frigates to cover every ship, and U-boat attacks mounted a devastating toll through 1942.
Spring 1943 was the decisive moment of the war. Admiral Max Horton had taken over command of British convoy escorts. Horton finally had sufficient ships, along with new technologies like centimeter radar and long range patrol planes. But the real advance was in training and morale. Horton formed permanent hunter-killer groups of ships trained to work together, stopped promoting successful officers out of convoy escort, and directed his ships to seek out and destroy the enemy rather than protecting merchant ships. The months of battle ripped the heart of Donitz's U-boat fleet, and they had a peripheral role for the rest of the war.
In Freeman's view, the Allies triumphed because they adapted faster and more successfully. Convoy escort was a priority from Churchill on down. New technologies, like centimeter radar, hedgehog mortar depth charges, the Leigh light, and ULTRA codebreaking, in combination with doctrinal advances in tactics and operations research, meant that the Allies were able to develop a decisive advantage in attrition and win the battle. Conversely, while Donitz was a skilled fighting admiral, he had a parochial view that the goal was tonnage sunk, and relied on a handful of skilled aces. As these experts were killed in combat, the U boat fleet suffered a fatal decline in efficiency. U-boats were only prioritized too late, after showpiece surface raids, the Battle of Britain, and then all-encompassing maw of the Eastern Front. And while Allied interservice rivalries were a problem, with heavy bombers diverted to the strategic bomber offensive rather than coastal patrols, it was far better than the Luftwaffe, which refused to support the German Navy as a matter of Goering's pride.
Good history is hard, and Atlantic Nightmare assumes you already know a fair bit about weapons and tactics in the period. The best example of a clear description of how the battle worked is an aside on operations research, where studies revealed that convoy defense was a matter of density of destroyers on the perimeter. Since the number of ships in a convoy is a matter of area, this meant that paradoxically, bigger convoys were easier to defend. A 100 ship convoy required 66% of the escorts of two 50 ship convoys. At the same time, it skips over figures who deserve more recognition. Dontiz is famous (partially because he was Hitler's successor and finally ended the Nazi regime), but I'd never heard of Admiral Horton, or a Captain Frederic John Walker, who developed tactics of the Western Approaches command, and while they're mentioned these Allied commanders deserve more space and consideration. These flaws, in combination with enough typos to be bothersome, drop this book down to three stars.
January 23, 2020
Well researched, if you want to view the war through a narrow lens of a British reader. As a WWII Merchant Mariner, I was dumbfounded to note that the contribution of the United States Merchant Marine and it's mariners was completely left out of the "Battle of that Atlantic". No mention of the 250,000 Merchant Mariners and their courage and staggering losses. Over 300 ships just off the East Coast. Total mariners killed, about 9,000! What about the amazing feat of supplying Liberty ships at a faster rate than Hitler could sink them! All in all, too much missing to consider the book a credible summary of the battle of the Atlantic.
May 13, 2020
Battle of the Atlantic in detail
This is a rather quick read but it is quite detailed, with names and dates of most of the events that made the control of the transatlantic sea traffic in doubt and the technical innovations that affected tactics through the nearly 6 years of conflict between Great Britain and Nazi Germany. It gives credit where it’s due and gives valuable insights into some of the personalities that influenced the tactics on both sides. The author even tries to psychoanalyze Adm. Donitz, commander of the U-boats, as well as explaining the seven mistakes made by Germany that set the stage for an Allied victory. Some of the author’s conclusions could be disputed but I think he has the story largely exact. The only reason I’m not giving this history book 5 stars is that I found the wording pedestrian compared, say, to Winston Churchill’s much more lengthy 6 volume memoir. But the writing is clear and easily understood, just doesn’t have the heroic tone that is justified by the stakes of all humans in the outcome.
This is a rather quick read but it is quite detailed, with names and dates of most of the events that made the control of the transatlantic sea traffic in doubt and the technical innovations that affected tactics through the nearly 6 years of conflict between Great Britain and Nazi Germany. It gives credit where it’s due and gives valuable insights into some of the personalities that influenced the tactics on both sides. The author even tries to psychoanalyze Adm. Donitz, commander of the U-boats, as well as explaining the seven mistakes made by Germany that set the stage for an Allied victory. Some of the author’s conclusions could be disputed but I think he has the story largely exact. The only reason I’m not giving this history book 5 stars is that I found the wording pedestrian compared, say, to Winston Churchill’s much more lengthy 6 volume memoir. But the writing is clear and easily understood, just doesn’t have the heroic tone that is justified by the stakes of all humans in the outcome.
May 5, 2019
Excellent book on the Battle of the Atlantic
Germany's research and analysis are meticulous and detailed. His conclusions and well thought out. His presentation of the material is coherent and enjoyable.
The only significant fault is in the uneven quality of the book's editing. The final chapter of the book is the worst example of this. There are a very large number of errors in sentence structure and semantics. More time and effort should have been devoted to proofreading and editing.
Germany's research and analysis are meticulous and detailed. His conclusions and well thought out. His presentation of the material is coherent and enjoyable.
The only significant fault is in the uneven quality of the book's editing. The final chapter of the book is the worst example of this. There are a very large number of errors in sentence structure and semantics. More time and effort should have been devoted to proofreading and editing.
February 26, 2020
This book really surprised me. I expected the all to familiar rehash of information I was already aware of. I've read my share of books on the subject. I've watched my share documentaries, always with the same result: a limited digestion of new knowledge. From the first page to the last I was sucked into the story of this eventful period. So much information I was not aware of. Richard Freeman is in my top three authors for World War II history.
August 29, 2019
This is a excellent history of the Atlantic maritime war from both the German and Allies viewpoints. I learned a lot, especially about the German strategy (or lack thereof) and the conflict between the air war (Goering) and the submarine war. It turns out the German submarine war was not as successful as I thought. I highly recommend it for WWII history buffs.
December 10, 2019
Detailed, Informative, Hard To Put Down
A really good book that covers the most important battle of the second wife war.
Well written it chronicles the battle from both the German and Allied persons with a wealth of information, facts and figures.
Must be one of the best books on the subject.
A really good book that covers the most important battle of the second wife war.
Well written it chronicles the battle from both the German and Allied persons with a wealth of information, facts and figures.
Must be one of the best books on the subject.
February 5, 2022
Freeman's book on the Battle of the Atlantic falls flat in two key ways: writing and historical rigor. I give it two stars for the breadth of information that it contains about one of the lesser-known campaigns of World War II, and the fact that it was a relatively quick read.
To begin with, this is the first of Freeman's books that I've read, so I have no idea if the writing issues that I found in Atlantic Nightmare are indicative of his writing, his editor's skills, or the accuracy of whatever process produced the Kindle version of the book. Either way, it doesn't matter, as the errors and problems were so constant and widespread that they quite literally angered me. I mean, I paid for this book, and THIS is what I get?? Lest anyone think that I'm quibbling over a few little typos, here's a brief selection of some of the issues that I noted:
P. 23: "Donitz acidly noted 'in spite of F.O. U/B's urging the matter for nearly four years'." Even having finished the book, I have no idea what "F.O U/B's" means.
P. 38: "His second patrol ended on 9 May 1941 when, damaged by depth-charging . The sinking was to yield a rich harvest for the Allies as we shall in Chapter 17." There are at least a few words missing from these sentences.
P. 48: "even a loan U-boat". Should be "lone," not "loan."
P. 114: "When Rogers. surveyed his charges, nothing seemed right." Misplaced period creating two incomplete sentences.
P. 115: "Rogers. had presided over a disastrous 24 hours." Further down on 115, "Rogers. relaxed a little since it was clear that..." Same as the last.
P. 123: "Bomber pilot Fist Lieutenant Bernhard Jope..." Should be "First," not "Fist."
P. 134: "The intention was to use them primarily for intercepting foreign merchant shipsthat might be bound for German ports ." Run-on word ("shipsthat") and an extra space added between the final word of the sentence and the period.
P. 181-182: "When the first sighing was made..." Should be "sighting," not "sighing."
P. 212: "Success was just 'a matter of bringing out the (new) boats form the Baltic as fast as possible'." Is "form" a misspelling in the original material (should be noted by sic.), or is it Freeman's error?
P. 236: "under the command Commander G N Brewer." Missing the word "of" between "command" and "Commader."
P. 285: "The failure to clarify this puzzle identifies it as strategic error number 7six." So was it number 7, or number six? Come on, man.
P. 318-320: Numerous instances of "gnat" in reference to the German acoustic torpedoes were not capitalized, though some instances were. Consistency would be helpful.
P. 322: "two BV 222 flying boat were sent out..." "Boat" should be plural.
P. 325-326: "Having lost the Battle of the Atlantic. Donitz now had to fight..." Misplaced period creating an incomplete sentence.
P. 366: "In the second half of the war, air power was the deciding in every theatre." Missing the word "factor" after "air power."
I could go on, but you probably get the point. These kinds of errors made this book a chore to read.
More seriously, perhaps, is Freeman's treatment of historical facts and evidence. Though he's not a historian himself, he chose to write a history book, and so should not be surprised when his historical methods are examined. I'll just mention three interpretive issues and factual errors here.
First, on page 135, he cites HMS Crispin as "a typical case" of how the Germans would treat the crews of "ocean boarding vessels" harshly ("ocean boarding vessels," as the glossary helpfully notes, were "Requisitioned merchant ships, armed and used for intercepting foreign ships on the high seas."). The ship was indeed sunk by a U-boat, but Freeman himself says of the crew, "Their ordeal was soon over. At 6.00 am the destroyer HMS Harvester appeared. One hundred and twenty-one men were hauled up from the [life] boats. Twenty had died on Crispin." How on earth does this episode support the assertion that the Germans treated the crews of such vessels "harshly"?
Second, on page 264, Freeman wrongly asserts that the Battle of Taranto "was the first battle in which both sides used aircraft to attack capital ships." Taranto was a British ambush of the Italian fleet in harbor at Taranto. The Italians did not launch any kind of counterattack on the British fleet in that action, let alone an air attack.
Final example: on page 253, he describes a convoy that only lost one ship, and asserts that "Only the superior training and greater experience of this escort can explain how much better Convoy ONS-165 fared than did SC-118." However, one page earlier he notes that there were a number of intelligence issues that led to Convoy SC-118 being attacked by numerous U-boats, and does not mention any such intelligence related to Convoy ONS-165. In other words, his treatment of the evidence is uneven and shoddy.
I was interested in this book as an introduction to a specific topic of World War II that I haven't studied very much, but now I'm wishing that I'd picked something else.
To begin with, this is the first of Freeman's books that I've read, so I have no idea if the writing issues that I found in Atlantic Nightmare are indicative of his writing, his editor's skills, or the accuracy of whatever process produced the Kindle version of the book. Either way, it doesn't matter, as the errors and problems were so constant and widespread that they quite literally angered me. I mean, I paid for this book, and THIS is what I get?? Lest anyone think that I'm quibbling over a few little typos, here's a brief selection of some of the issues that I noted:
P. 23: "Donitz acidly noted 'in spite of F.O. U/B's urging the matter for nearly four years'." Even having finished the book, I have no idea what "F.O U/B's" means.
P. 38: "His second patrol ended on 9 May 1941 when, damaged by depth-charging . The sinking was to yield a rich harvest for the Allies as we shall in Chapter 17." There are at least a few words missing from these sentences.
P. 48: "even a loan U-boat". Should be "lone," not "loan."
P. 114: "When Rogers. surveyed his charges, nothing seemed right." Misplaced period creating two incomplete sentences.
P. 115: "Rogers. had presided over a disastrous 24 hours." Further down on 115, "Rogers. relaxed a little since it was clear that..." Same as the last.
P. 123: "Bomber pilot Fist Lieutenant Bernhard Jope..." Should be "First," not "Fist."
P. 134: "The intention was to use them primarily for intercepting foreign merchant shipsthat might be bound for German ports ." Run-on word ("shipsthat") and an extra space added between the final word of the sentence and the period.
P. 181-182: "When the first sighing was made..." Should be "sighting," not "sighing."
P. 212: "Success was just 'a matter of bringing out the (new) boats form the Baltic as fast as possible'." Is "form" a misspelling in the original material (should be noted by sic.), or is it Freeman's error?
P. 236: "under the command Commander G N Brewer." Missing the word "of" between "command" and "Commader."
P. 285: "The failure to clarify this puzzle identifies it as strategic error number 7six." So was it number 7, or number six? Come on, man.
P. 318-320: Numerous instances of "gnat" in reference to the German acoustic torpedoes were not capitalized, though some instances were. Consistency would be helpful.
P. 322: "two BV 222 flying boat were sent out..." "Boat" should be plural.
P. 325-326: "Having lost the Battle of the Atlantic. Donitz now had to fight..." Misplaced period creating an incomplete sentence.
P. 366: "In the second half of the war, air power was the deciding in every theatre." Missing the word "factor" after "air power."
I could go on, but you probably get the point. These kinds of errors made this book a chore to read.
More seriously, perhaps, is Freeman's treatment of historical facts and evidence. Though he's not a historian himself, he chose to write a history book, and so should not be surprised when his historical methods are examined. I'll just mention three interpretive issues and factual errors here.
First, on page 135, he cites HMS Crispin as "a typical case" of how the Germans would treat the crews of "ocean boarding vessels" harshly ("ocean boarding vessels," as the glossary helpfully notes, were "Requisitioned merchant ships, armed and used for intercepting foreign ships on the high seas."). The ship was indeed sunk by a U-boat, but Freeman himself says of the crew, "Their ordeal was soon over. At 6.00 am the destroyer HMS Harvester appeared. One hundred and twenty-one men were hauled up from the [life] boats. Twenty had died on Crispin." How on earth does this episode support the assertion that the Germans treated the crews of such vessels "harshly"?
Second, on page 264, Freeman wrongly asserts that the Battle of Taranto "was the first battle in which both sides used aircraft to attack capital ships." Taranto was a British ambush of the Italian fleet in harbor at Taranto. The Italians did not launch any kind of counterattack on the British fleet in that action, let alone an air attack.
Final example: on page 253, he describes a convoy that only lost one ship, and asserts that "Only the superior training and greater experience of this escort can explain how much better Convoy ONS-165 fared than did SC-118." However, one page earlier he notes that there were a number of intelligence issues that led to Convoy SC-118 being attacked by numerous U-boats, and does not mention any such intelligence related to Convoy ONS-165. In other words, his treatment of the evidence is uneven and shoddy.
I was interested in this book as an introduction to a specific topic of World War II that I haven't studied very much, but now I'm wishing that I'd picked something else.
June 7, 2020
An interesting and detailed treatment of the war against the U-boat in WW II, but suffering from some serious flaws. The most important shortcoming is an apparent misunderstanding the of the weapons and technologies developed during the campaign. Example: “As long as a boat was using its snorkel, it was stuck at its low submerged speed.” Well, yes, since the point of the schnorkel was to be able to operate submerged. There were too many of these shortcomings to ignore.
The second major flaw was the concentration almost exclusively on RN (and RCN) operations to the exclusion of all others, including the US Navy. Certainly the RN deserves the spotlight for the length and intensity of its operations during the campaign, but very few US Navy operations are covered even when strategically significant. Example: the sinking of the USS Reuben James when on neutrality patrol is not addressed. Overall, the US Navy sank around 1/3 of all U-Boats during the campaign and its virtual absence here is puzzling.
Finally, the author purports to have discerned a number of strategic errors made by the German commanders during the war. The list is less than compelling, consisting mainly of the obvious (air power was key) to the arguably incorrect (Doenitz should have had his U-Boats Target RN escorts rather than the merchant ships in the convoy. This ignores the fact that attacking an escort ship is a decidedly easier operation!)
Overall, the volume is useful for its detail, but would not recommend it to anyone looking for a balanced and technically accurate assessment of the campaign.
NOTE This reviewer is not quite old enough for WWII but did serve in the the US Navy during the Cold War, conducting airborne anti submarine operations and so is reasonably familiar with this warfare arena.
The second major flaw was the concentration almost exclusively on RN (and RCN) operations to the exclusion of all others, including the US Navy. Certainly the RN deserves the spotlight for the length and intensity of its operations during the campaign, but very few US Navy operations are covered even when strategically significant. Example: the sinking of the USS Reuben James when on neutrality patrol is not addressed. Overall, the US Navy sank around 1/3 of all U-Boats during the campaign and its virtual absence here is puzzling.
Finally, the author purports to have discerned a number of strategic errors made by the German commanders during the war. The list is less than compelling, consisting mainly of the obvious (air power was key) to the arguably incorrect (Doenitz should have had his U-Boats Target RN escorts rather than the merchant ships in the convoy. This ignores the fact that attacking an escort ship is a decidedly easier operation!)
Overall, the volume is useful for its detail, but would not recommend it to anyone looking for a balanced and technically accurate assessment of the campaign.
NOTE This reviewer is not quite old enough for WWII but did serve in the the US Navy during the Cold War, conducting airborne anti submarine operations and so is reasonably familiar with this warfare arena.
January 2, 2020
(See all of my Book Reviews) - "Atlantic Nightmare: The longest military campaign in World War II " eBook was published in 2019 and was written by Richard Freeman. Mr. Freeman has published more than a dozen books.
I received an ARC of this book from the publisher in return for a fair and honest review. I categorize this novel as ‘G’. The is the story of the battle for the Atlantic that was waged between the Allies and Axis powers during WWII.
This is a detailed look of the principal actions in the Atlantic. This does not talk much about specific people, but gives a high-level view of each battle. The time period stretches from the beginning of the war in September 1939 until the surrender in May of 1945. More than 2000 days. A lot of focus is placed on the German U-Boats and their role.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 8.5+ hours I spent reading this 382-page WWII history. While many of the battles I had read about before, I think that this book gives a very good overview of the important sea battles of the European Theater. I like the selected cover art. I give this novel a 4 out of 5.
Further book reviews I have written can be accessed at https://johnpurvis.wordpress.com/blog/.
I received an ARC of this book from the publisher in return for a fair and honest review. I categorize this novel as ‘G’. The is the story of the battle for the Atlantic that was waged between the Allies and Axis powers during WWII.
This is a detailed look of the principal actions in the Atlantic. This does not talk much about specific people, but gives a high-level view of each battle. The time period stretches from the beginning of the war in September 1939 until the surrender in May of 1945. More than 2000 days. A lot of focus is placed on the German U-Boats and their role.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 8.5+ hours I spent reading this 382-page WWII history. While many of the battles I had read about before, I think that this book gives a very good overview of the important sea battles of the European Theater. I like the selected cover art. I give this novel a 4 out of 5.
Further book reviews I have written can be accessed at https://johnpurvis.wordpress.com/blog/.
January 30, 2020
Learned a lot about British resources applied to The Battle of the Atlantic. Text seemed to show that British made continuous improvement in code breaking, escort crew training, escort group tactics, weapons, U-Boat detection and air support. Germans improved torpedo detonators and sped up production of U-Boats with few other improvements. Specific attacks on convoys were described to illustrate status of many elements at various stages of the overall battle. Maps would have been helpful and were not available in the Kindle edition.
Freeman did a good job showing 7 specific errors made by the Germans over the entire Battle of the Atlantic. My overall impression was that the errors resulted from poor leadership by Hitler and the top naval officer. The demand on German resources made by its Russian front crippled the German navy which was rendered ineffective by 1943.
Freeman did a good job showing 7 specific errors made by the Germans over the entire Battle of the Atlantic. My overall impression was that the errors resulted from poor leadership by Hitler and the top naval officer. The demand on German resources made by its Russian front crippled the German navy which was rendered ineffective by 1943.
February 13, 2021
Comprehensive unbiased history of Atlantic campaign
Detailed picture of the Atlantic campaign showing and analysing the strategies and personalities of the opposing principals in this long and terrible campaign. my only reservation of a most clear and unbiased look at this often overlooked part of ww2 is the authors scant regard for the many thousands of casualties and deaths that occurred. Whilst we have been told of the many tons of shipping that was destroyed as well as the number of uboats sunk there is little mention of the many human casualties that occurred. Perhaps I'm imposing my 21st century values on a time when human life had less value than today. Such is the tragedy of war.
Detailed picture of the Atlantic campaign showing and analysing the strategies and personalities of the opposing principals in this long and terrible campaign. my only reservation of a most clear and unbiased look at this often overlooked part of ww2 is the authors scant regard for the many thousands of casualties and deaths that occurred. Whilst we have been told of the many tons of shipping that was destroyed as well as the number of uboats sunk there is little mention of the many human casualties that occurred. Perhaps I'm imposing my 21st century values on a time when human life had less value than today. Such is the tragedy of war.
November 15, 2020
A good history of Britain's Atlantic War
This book provides detailed look into the leadership and events of the Battle of the Atlantic. The British experience in the war before US intervention involved important research and analysis that made victory possible. The ability to analyze what was happening and to implement changes was possible through a unique organizational model rewarding innovation and adaptability. That made things better when America arrived. The lack of a similar approach on the part of the Germans left them unable to cope with technical advances based on the allied interpretation of events.
This book provides detailed look into the leadership and events of the Battle of the Atlantic. The British experience in the war before US intervention involved important research and analysis that made victory possible. The ability to analyze what was happening and to implement changes was possible through a unique organizational model rewarding innovation and adaptability. That made things better when America arrived. The lack of a similar approach on the part of the Germans left them unable to cope with technical advances based on the allied interpretation of events.
December 12, 2020
"But Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s comment on the attack was a more prescient summary of that morning’s devastation: ‘I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.’"
"Of all the branches of the German forces, the U-boats had the highest mortality rate at 75 per cent; 793 U-boats had been sunk, and 28,000 men had died at sea."
"The Battle of the Atlantic lasted for 2075 days. During that time 3500 Allied merchant vessels were sunk, taking with them 36,000 merchant seamen; 175 escort vessels were sunk, along with 36,200 naval personnel."
Not bad.
"Of all the branches of the German forces, the U-boats had the highest mortality rate at 75 per cent; 793 U-boats had been sunk, and 28,000 men had died at sea."
"The Battle of the Atlantic lasted for 2075 days. During that time 3500 Allied merchant vessels were sunk, taking with them 36,000 merchant seamen; 175 escort vessels were sunk, along with 36,200 naval personnel."
Not bad.
September 11, 2024
WHOEVER LOSES THIS BATTLE LOSES THE WAR
Having a little knowledge of the Battle of the Atlantic I found this book answered any questions I may have had as well as telling the story of the battle in a way that was not only readable but also informative. A vast amount of research and effort has produced the definitive book of the battle. It was not a slog, it was not an easy read when one considers the grim life of both Allied and German sailors and their even grimmer death in awful circumstances. However, it is a must read for students of the second world war. Lose the battle, lose the war. Simple as that. Good technical description and very readable throughout.
Having a little knowledge of the Battle of the Atlantic I found this book answered any questions I may have had as well as telling the story of the battle in a way that was not only readable but also informative. A vast amount of research and effort has produced the definitive book of the battle. It was not a slog, it was not an easy read when one considers the grim life of both Allied and German sailors and their even grimmer death in awful circumstances. However, it is a must read for students of the second world war. Lose the battle, lose the war. Simple as that. Good technical description and very readable throughout.
December 7, 2020
Comprehensive account of the U-boat war. Well researched and because of the short chapters, a fast paced and engaging read. I learned much about this phase of the war. I agreed with 6 of the 7 strategic conclusions at the end, only differing in that once Britain engaged in Norway It's invasion was a necessity to protect vital supply lines, and the ships lost by the German fleet was a necessary cost to permit U-boats to access the Atlantic before the fall of France. A couple of times the narrative got a bit clunky, but this is a small thing in such an otherwise well crafted book.
August 28, 2024
Numbers and statistics
Having read a number of books on WWII, this was one of two by British authors. Would have to claim that Freeman had a myopic vision that the USA provided manpower, not brain power. The brain power implied belonged solely too the Brit's. Not a single American was listed in the postscript. We yank's did more than give our blood. On a positive note, the details of dealing with the submarine challenge was well presented. Details were well laid out with all the numbers and statistics.
Having read a number of books on WWII, this was one of two by British authors. Would have to claim that Freeman had a myopic vision that the USA provided manpower, not brain power. The brain power implied belonged solely too the Brit's. Not a single American was listed in the postscript. We yank's did more than give our blood. On a positive note, the details of dealing with the submarine challenge was well presented. Details were well laid out with all the numbers and statistics.
Read
August 5, 2019A detailed explanation of how the hunter-killers won out over the U boats of World War Two. Not only the improvements in radar but the aggressive tactics of attacking the enemy proved more rewarding in winning the battle of the Atlantic compared to the declining number of sub commanders on the German side. A good expose of Hitler's ignorance of sea warfare and his handling of his staff of warriors in charge and their ideas of winning the war.
August 8, 2019
A very good book, but not at the right level. It delves into some of the technological advances that turned the battle in favor of the Allies, but not far enough. This would be OK if it went deep into other areas - but it doesn't. Probably good to get a feel for the battle and then move on to look at the details, but if you've already studied how things went in the Atlantic you're not going to be impressed.
March 23, 2020
An incredibly detailed account of the WWII battle for dominance, both from the German perspective as well as that of the British.
Albeit, almost too much detail and at times somewhat confusing (assumes I know certain military terminology in various cases), and the narrative wanders a bit but covers every aspect of the strategies and detailed battles between the German U-boats, American and British/Canadian conveys and air support.
Albeit, almost too much detail and at times somewhat confusing (assumes I know certain military terminology in various cases), and the narrative wanders a bit but covers every aspect of the strategies and detailed battles between the German U-boats, American and British/Canadian conveys and air support.
December 28, 2020
This book looks at the battle between German submarines and Allied convoys throughout the war. It does a good job of discussing strategies, tactics, logistics, technological developments, and the bravery of individual ship commanders. In today's day and age, it is hard to imagine what it was like to be in the North Atlantic on either side of the fight. But this book does a good job of describing what it was like.
July 7, 2019
Great Book
I have read several BOA books and this one hits a lot of topics but his analysis of way one side won or list is one of the best analysis of the BOA. The author weak side was his analysis of ON-154, which many felt was the turning point of the BOA, he should given more ink.
I have read several BOA books and this one hits a lot of topics but his analysis of way one side won or list is one of the best analysis of the BOA. The author weak side was his analysis of ON-154, which many felt was the turning point of the BOA, he should given more ink.
October 18, 2019
Naval history of WW2 from both sides
Very well written and researched. Rather long but not hard to read. Sometimes confusing in dates and occurrences. Would have been nice to have a map of the region to follow where the action was taking place. I often google mapped the locations. Recommend reading.
Very well written and researched. Rather long but not hard to read. Sometimes confusing in dates and occurrences. Would have been nice to have a map of the region to follow where the action was taking place. I often google mapped the locations. Recommend reading.
November 9, 2020
Comprehensive Review of U-boats in WWII
It's a well written, thorough and documented. The players the technology and war theatre are explained well. The reader might find it a bit dry and too detailed. For those with a moderate interest in military history, there are other accounts that cover the topic in a more compelling way.
It's a well written, thorough and documented. The players the technology and war theatre are explained well. The reader might find it a bit dry and too detailed. For those with a moderate interest in military history, there are other accounts that cover the topic in a more compelling way.
November 11, 2022
good history book
Good book on the battle of the Atlantic but the author fails to give Donitz credit for what he was able to do with the resources given him. The authors personal opinions dominate the book and the sad thing is he doesn’t bother to back up his personal opinions with facts
Good book on the battle of the Atlantic but the author fails to give Donitz credit for what he was able to do with the resources given him. The authors personal opinions dominate the book and the sad thing is he doesn’t bother to back up his personal opinions with facts
June 17, 2019
Very readable
Written extremely well, this book is very fast paced and reads like a work of fiction the author writes in a way that makes you want to turn the page, a very exciting and interesting book.
Written extremely well, this book is very fast paced and reads like a work of fiction the author writes in a way that makes you want to turn the page, a very exciting and interesting book.
July 18, 2019
A well researched overview of the battle of the Atlantic in World War II
A well researched overview of the battle of Atlantic and World War II from the British perspective. Very good reference list.
A well researched overview of the battle of Atlantic and World War II from the British perspective. Very good reference list.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews