Alternate u-boat/submarine strategy in ww2

[mattep74]

What if the head of allied submarine in ww2 decided in 1942 to avoid the transports and instead go after the escorts or warships in general. Would it change anything? I think Japan would run out of warships before Leyte.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

If you sink the merchant vessels then the occupying forces are cut off. Either the remaining vessels need to be escorted so you can pick off the warships a bit at a time or the warships have to act as transports, which creates problems of its own and again allows them to be picked off.
The allied goal was victory rather than just sinking the fleet, and prioritising military targets would probably have hindered liberation of territories needed to both weaken the Japanese army and navy and to provide allied bases.

 

[jsb]

What if the head of allied submarine in ww2 decided in 1942 to avoid the transports and instead go after the escorts or warships in general. Would it change anything? I think Japan would run out of warships before Leyte.

Is the main issue not that sinking warship is much harder.... ie they are fast and fight back?

 

[YYJ]

I have heard the Japanese submarine service’s focus on work with the fleet, doing exactly what you suggest, as being one of the reasons why Japan lost the war. Of course, another reason is that the US productive capacity was 10x Japan’s.

The US in World War Two succeeded in doing vs. Japan what Germany tried and failed to do to Britain: choking off the industry of their island nation enemy.

So no. The US doing what you suggest would be worse than what they did.