Another point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that you don't have to destroy 100% of something to achieve success.
If Germans managed to sink 20 or 30% of British shipping in 1940/1941, that could've had major effects on the course of war. >>5947646
I know, and I didn't mean to imply Germans could've targeted shipping like that. >requires a massive increase in their successes
No doubt, we don't disagree on that.
What I'm arguing against is the claim that Germans had no way of impacting British supplies at any point of war...and that's just false.
The fact they actually managed to sink 10% of their shipping in 1941 is not a small feat, it's actually quite alarming, given the nature of submarines in that period, their limitations, as well as limited numbers Germans deployed.
Again, if they correctly predicted the effectiveness of submarines, if they developed better systems and techniques, and proper naval air arm, they could've severely impacted British war effort. That's my point.
They weren't close to doing it, but their campaign was a serious threat and required a lot of investment and effort to stop them.