No Bismarck or Tirpitz

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.
Tiornu
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:56 pm

ships

Post by Tiornu »

That's an arms race, all right.
It's hard to draw parallels between battleship construction and that for ASW vessels. I do not anticipate much acceleration in British DD building; there was already a severe bottleneck in destroyer gun production. But destroyers are not the sort of ships the British would be looking at. Their response to the U-boat threat was in frigates and corvettes. The latter are especially distinct from any battleship comparisons since they are built in teeny private yards.
German provocation might even have prompted the RN to look closely at its beloved asdic, which was highly overrated in the 1930's.
User avatar
KampfgruppeMeyer
Banned
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:06 pm
Location: Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Post by KampfgruppeMeyer »

agreed
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue...
User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Asdic.

Post by behblc »

Panacea for all submarines.
Again the lack of attention and priority given to this cinderalla of the service.
Only useful if the submarine is operating below the water.
"Jerry" did not play by that rule.
The urgency of the situation regarding lack of escorts being made by the mothballed destroyers loaned / given to the RN.
Coastal Command started the war with nothing suitable for the job in hand eithe by way of aircraft or tools , another "cinders" of the services.
When you look at what was developed really as a result of dire need , necessity was really the mother in invention.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Guys,

Another factor to consider is the deployment of British aircraft carriers. For example, would the absence of a German big-ship threat have resulted in at least one aircraft carrier being with Prince of Wales and Repulse at Singapore in December 1941? Could this have preserved them for long enough to attack the Japanese invasion fleets and bridgeheads in Malaya..........................

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Aircraft carrier.

Post by behblc »

Sid,
I think there was a plan to send a carier out with them but this came to nothing. ( Indomitable might have been the choice).
Might indeed have made a difference although ultimately they might have been overwhelmed.
Martin Middlebrook and Patrick Mahoney's book;
"Battleship- The loss of The Prince of Wales and the Repulse" (Allen Lane) in their closing analysis explore this possibility.
Its a few years since I read the book and although at fear of repeating myself I would recommend M.M. as an autor , researcher and a historian.
Its a good read Sid , a quick look through it suggests that the opportunity of interfering with the Japanese landings had been lost by the time the ships were sunk...seems that "we" were always playing catch up in terms of what the Japanese were doing.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).
User avatar
Rodger Herbst
Associate
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am

Post by Rodger Herbst »

I think the Germans should have stuck to Uboats,and small craft.BBs are part of a balanced fleet,carriers,destroyers,cruisers,etc.The Germans were building a carrier but to man it,supply aircraft,support system I think was way more than German industry and manpower could supply.The Germans always did get carried away with some nutty ideas in my estimation,WW1 the Paris gun,heavy body armor,think of the manpower and material it tied up.WW2,railway guns with limited use,proably everyone can think of some dud that should never have been built.
Paul Lakowski
Supporter
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:56 am

Post by Paul Lakowski »

I think that far too much german effort money and resources and personel was wasted on KRiegsmarine in general...should have been better spent on the HEER!

It doesn't take hindsite to recognize that two battleships [no matter how powerfull] and two Battle Cruisers plus a small fleet of destroyers , hadn't got a hope against the combined allied fleets and also cover the baltic north sea, atlantic and med....sheer idiocy!

In 1941 the kriegsmarine got 2/3 of the steel allocation and fuel allocation that the HEER got, just for surface ship building programe.

If that money and resources had been properly allocated to the HEER, the Germans might have knocked Russia out of the war in 41/42 :(
Tiornu
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:56 pm

sight

Post by Tiornu »

"It doesn't take hindsite to recognize that two battleships [no matter how powerfull] and two Battle Cruisers plus a small fleet of destroyers , hadn't got a hope against the combined allied fleets and also cover the baltic north sea, atlantic and med....sheer idiocy!"
In 1936 when Bismarck was laid down, it most certainly would take hindsight to even grasp the concept of a combined Allied fleet. Poland and France? Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands?
User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

1936

Post by behblc »

Rhineland just re-occupied...... , few would have been actually thinking about the possibility of war.
If Bismarck , Tirpitz , Scharnhorst , Graf Spee had not been built , outside the invasion of Norway and later operations in Baltic waters would their absence have really had much influence in Germanys Atlantic / Naval operations with the submarine force as it existed in 1939 ?

With no German surface fleet to "watch" the Home Fleet would have been elsewhere .
Where would Britain need a battleship force to use against Germany who could not defend over seas trade routes and who had no overseas bases.

The forward thinking which could see that the nature of the Capital ship would change so completely had yet to be fully realised and the lessons of 14-18 and the damage which unrestricted submarine warfare might inflict on G.B. had largely been lost.
Against this background capital ships were built.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).
Paul Lakowski
Supporter
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:56 am

Post by Paul Lakowski »

You both miss the point...the ship building programe that resulted in these high consumptions of bunker fuel and steel began in 1939-40. It had every thing to do with supporting the expanding fleet. It was a complete waste of resources at a time when resources were scares.
User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Laid Down dates.

Post by behblc »

Paul,
Tiornu's dates are right
Bismarck was laid down in 1936. Lauched in 1939.
Tirpitz was laid down in 1936 and lauched in 1939.
The ear marking of resources for them would have been made prior to 1936.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).
Paul Lakowski
Supporter
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:56 am

Re: Laid Down dates.

Post by Paul Lakowski »

behblc wrote:Paul,
Tiornu's dates are right
Bismarck was laid down in 1936. Lauched in 1939.
Tirpitz was laid down in 1936 and lauched in 1939.
The ear marking of resources for them would have been made prior to 1936.
I guess you guys don't understand what I'm talking about. I don't care about the ships its the manpower/fuel and support construction programs that where all apart of the whole fleet concept [steel for ports fuel bunkers , support ships etc etc]. ....this amount ended being about 2/3 of the same allocations to the HEER.

THe HEER spent most of the war chronically short of steel to massproduce the weapons and ammo it needed and short of fuel to propelle this warmachine. Increasing manpower for production and steel for fuel production ,weapons and ammo etc- by 67% over what historically was there in 1941 and 42 -could have gone along way to winning the war or at least knocking the soviets out of the war.
User avatar
Rodger Herbst
Associate
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am

Post by Rodger Herbst »

I think Paul is right,once you build these monsters you must maintain them,periotic dry dockings,everyday maintenance can be a drain on resources,etc.The Germans built some fine small craft,thier MTB's harrassed the hell out of the Brits in the channel,they were way ahead in sub. inovation,they should have stayed with what they did best.
User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Re-fits.

Post by behblc »

Paul,
I acknowledge your point about refits , care and a draw on resources, and would not disagree with them. Given the resources of the industrial base Germany was unable to met needs of all the services
Just the way your post was worded implied that the ships were laid down in '39 when by which time the hull had been built and they had been launched.
Planning and construction would have been well in hand before 1936 as part of an over all construction plan for the navy at that time , fortunately for the Allies it was not a submarine based construction...but if Germany was going to have a navy rebuilt capital ships would be part of that , "Z" was beyond what could be delivered.
By 1939-40 long term projects had been cancelled and only ship (capital ) being worked on was the carrier G.Z. , work in hand on large projects was stopped and they were scrapped in situ and resources diverted elsewhere.
Man power and fuel could have been better used , and increasingly was diverted towards the U-Boat arm.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).
Tiornu
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:56 pm

steel

Post by Tiornu »

I'd say there's a good chance that we don't understand what you're talking about. You say the KM got the lion's share of steel in 1941 for building surface ships. What does that have to do with the four capital ships and destroyers you mentioned? No capital ship construction took place after 1939, and very few destroyers were completed. Do you know where the KM's 1941 steel allocation went.
Post Reply