Hi Clive, saw your post and because of marked similarities to in my own life to the piece's author, wanted to respond to this:
"Far from being sitting ducks for giant bombers soaring overhead, as I had thought, the U-boats were often armed with batteries of heavy anti-aircraft guns that could easily destroy a lumbering B-24 coming in for a low-level bombing pass.
That is, if the horrid weather or mechanical malfunctions hundreds of miles from shore didn't get you first. Even if you did survive going down in the frigid North Atlantic, you'd probably freeze to death before anyone found you."
Quite true, this. Many U-boats had deck armament that ranged from fully-flexible mountings of twin cal. 7.92mm MG-34 machine guns, through 20mm automatic cannon (very much alike to US Naval mountings), up to 37mm rapid-fire cannon. In daylight conditions, a B-24 would indeed have a difficult time facing this defensive array from a surfaced U-boat.
The similarities in my own life are thus - I had an uncle who, as a US Navy Ensign during WWII, served as a navigator in the land-based anti-submarine patrol/bombing aircraft of the time; this was basically the B-24, but fitted out to Navy specs for the mission specialization, and designated PB4Y-1. His particular squadron, as one of a group of squadrons in England from Fleet Air Wing Seven (FAW 7), flew missions alongside Coastal Command. His squadron's aircraft were fitted with an extendable Air to Surface Vessel (ASV) radome, mounted in the position that a belly turret would have been. In addition, there was an immensely powerful searchlight mounted out on the starboard wing. Various kinds of droppable anti-submarine ordnance were carried, as well as ammunition issues for the .50 cal. turrets and gun positions.
Patrol operations were carried out at night, which in most of the Atlantic at that time, was the only time that a U-boat could have a chance of safely surfacing and spending enough time to run its diesel engines and recharge its batteries. By denying this to the U-boats, the night patrols were believed to be an element that would render the U-boats totally ineffective. In practice, the PB4Y-1 would fly a designated patrol route with its radar active. When a promising contact was achieved, the searchlight, which could be slaved to the radar, was so aimed and suddenly turned on. If the beam revealed a U-boat, the bomber would (theoretically ) be able to make an attack before the U-boat could either safely dive or mount an effective defense from the bomber. In both Atlantic and Pacific operations, this worked out well. Operations were also carried out against surface ships of nighttime enemy supply convoys.
My uncle, who passed away some years ago, spent many an hour on night patrol for U-boats. His flight crew made some attacks, which results were inconclusive. His squadron, and others on the airfield, had some confirmed U-boat and shipping kills. There was also some combat with enemy fighter aircraft, and some of the wing's aircraft went out on missions and never returned - quite possibly as a result of the aforementioned mechanical malfunctions. One thing that the original piece's author did not mention is that the B-24 was an aircraft which, ironically, did not have a high survival rate from ditching at sea. The large central bomb bay, through which the main wing spar passed, was usually where the fuselage, in all but the gentlest of ditchings on a calm sea (not very common in the Atlantic!), would break into two pieces, which would then lose buoyance very rapidly. Any aircrew which had not managed to exit the aircraft at that point were pretty much goners then. Not a very pleasant prospect, that.
Thanks for your post, Clive. Given the 60th anniversary of D-Day, I am grateful for your posting.
God bless President Ronald Reagan, and his family.