No Bismarck or Tirpitz

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.
Paul Lakowski
Supporter
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:56 am

Re: No Kgm. ?

Post by Paul Lakowski »

behblc wrote:Paul would Germany have had the industrial base and manpower (troop wise) to do all this betwen fall of France and Start of Barbarossa ?
Yes I believe a string of modifications to existing AFVs was doable but any real increase over the historic AFV/weapon production would not have kicked in until mid to late 1942. One could push the yearly production figures ahead by one year ...this would give an idea of the potential.
If the heer were only being allocated a fraction of truck production were was the rest going ?
Civilian economy, believe it or not. Germany as a country amassed ~ 4 million wheeled vehicles by 1939 and 75,000 tractors. By the end of the war this stock had dwindled to ~ 300,000 vehicles , so the germans did end up appropriating this stockpile.
To be able to do all this would Germany be able to do it all ?
Its unlikely that even if the resources to do this were to hand , the will to accomplish it was lacking. Hitler was discounting Red Army strengths , totally underestimating what he was taking on and against the background of these decisions its most unlikely that any mass production would have been given the go ahead.
".
No problem or argument, my premise was simply to ask....'had they taken the slavic threat seriously', what could they have done better to dramatically improve their chances of victory in the east.
User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Chances of Victory.

Post by behblc »

I would certainly agree Paul that the number of trucks lost to the Army on the basis of your figures is crazy , photos taken in 41 of troops advancing on foot and cars being used to move military makes the whole attempt look under resourced.
To have been on a war footing from day one would seem reasonable.
I still can't but feel that any long term industrial out put would kick in when Germany's (slender) chance had been and gone and given Hitler's influence the Army was in a no win situation.
Surface fleet was because of its limited development unable to make a great deal of impression and the events of the war left it further disadvantaged.
Resources with hindsight that could have been used better for both navy and other branches of armed forces.
" 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
Edelweiss.
Supporter
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: UK

Post by Edelweiss. »

It is difficult to answer, but on the whole, I would agree with the perception that more U-Boats would have meant more success, although Germany's surface ships weren't just nice-looking props. They did serve a purpose! And the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau served it very well indeed. For example, the Royal Navy were forced to divert substantial resources to deal with one pocket-battleship in the South Atlantic, the Graf Spee. Against poorly escorted shipping, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proved devatatingly effective.

However, Doenitz was entirely correct in pushing for a greater emphasis on the U-Boat arm. They were cheaper, quicker and easier to build. Imagine how many Type VIIs, Type IXs and even Type XXIs could be built in place of the Bismarck or the Tirpitz! Submarine technology could have been brought forward by a year or two, resulting in far more Type XXIs at sea.

A most interesting question.

Regards,
Edelweiss
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. Big battleships were still considered the boss in late 30's when these ships were begun. The Z plan insured that Germany would be lukewarm in all areas. It was a compromise. A better plan would have been to fit out several diguised raiders,(ready for action in 39), sea plane tenders, & of course mini carriers & loads of U-boats. Much more cost effective. But again knowing all the answers ahead of time is not so easy.

Hitlers obsession with the east killed off alternative plans including occupation of Azores & canaris Islands, raid on Gibralter etc.
User avatar
Florin
Supporter
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:41 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: No Bismarck or Tirpitz

Post by Florin »

As many of you know, when Bismark was hit by those torpedoes, it was during a maneuver the ship did to avoid the British biplanes and their torpedoes. Because of that, in the moment the ship lost its control over direction, it was facing toward the shore of Great Britain. Then, for hours, to the surprise of the British who in the beginning did not realized what is happening, the battleship was traveling toward Britain, doomed.

Few days ago I suddenly realized how Bismark could change direction toward France, even without steering control. (Maybe because I was learning for an engineering test.) The 4 big 380's from the 2 turrets in front of the ship should rotate 90 degrees to the left. The 4 big 380's from the 2 turrets located in the rear should rotate 90 degrees to the right. When the 8 great canons would start to fire, each salvo would create a torque able revolve the battleship with about 1 degree, or more (it is obvious performing some simple mathematics, and using some easy physics).
After 40...80 shots from all 8 big 380's, positioned as described above, the battleship would turn with 90 degrees.
Well, the guys had available only few hours to figure this, but there were hundreds of men with technical education there, and it seems the idea did not occur to no one.
Helmut Von Moltke

Post by Helmut Von Moltke »

without the Bismarck, there would be negative side effects for the Axis like the Meditteranen theater of war in 1941, large amounts of the Royal Navy were tied up hunting the Bismarck, thus allowing Rommel to dash forward in Africa and the Wehrmacht to get Crete and Greece without signinficant Royal Navy interference.
User avatar
Florin
Supporter
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:41 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Florin »

In support of the idea of my previous post:
The law of conservation of impulse says that for an action, an equal reaction in opposite direct will appear to keep the sum constant.

The shells of the 380's should be about one ton and a half each (1500 kg, total metal shell plus explosive) and they would leave the muzzle of the 380 with about 1000 m/s (at least). Every single shell fired would push for one meter in opposite direction a mass of 1500 tons. 4 shells would push for 20 cm a mass of 30,000 tons (a half of Bismark, with everything loaded on board, had 28,000 tons). The other 4 canons would push the other half for 20 cm. After you get the distance between the resultants of the two pairs of turrets, you'll obtain the angle - for one salvo. This will give the number of shots for a desired angle of revolution.

As secondary arguments, the other canons of the ship could try their little help, and because this was a floating body, once it gets an acceleration, it will continue to revolve a little, due to the inertia of the huge mass.
User avatar
Sam H.
Associate
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 7:39 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: No Bismarck or Tirpitz

Post by Sam H. »

Florin wrote:As many of you know, when Bismark was hit by those torpedoes, it was during a maneuver the ship did to avoid the British biplanes and their torpedoes. Because of that, in the moment the ship lost its control over direction, it was facing toward the shore of Great Britain. Then, for hours, to the surprise of the British who in the beginning did not realized what is happening, the battleship was traveling toward Britain, doomed.

Few days ago I suddenly realized how Bismark could change direction toward France, even without steering control. (Maybe because I was learning for an engineering test.) The 4 big 380's from the 2 turrets in front of the ship should rotate 90 degrees to the left. The 4 big 380's from the 2 turrets located in the rear should rotate 90 degrees to the right. When the 8 great canons would start to fire, each salvo would create a torque able revolve the battleship with about 1 degree, or more (it is obvious performing some simple mathematics, and using some easy physics).
After 40...80 shots from all 8 big 380's, positioned as described above, the battleship would turn with 90 degrees.
Well, the guys had available only few hours to figure this, but there were hundreds of men with technical education there, and it seems the idea did not occur to no one.
That's an interesting idea :up:
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Lets go back to the top of this.....

The presence of the Tirpitz in Norwegian waters kept the British Home flet pinned at Scapa Flow, especially in early 1944. It kept air reconnaisance squadrons in Scotland, fleet units patrolling in the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. It focused the resources of the Norwegian Reistance away from armed resistance to information gathering. It preoccupied the minds of the Admiralty. ONE ship.....

And if the Tirpitz hadnt been there, or the Bismarck earlier? Any history of the Royal Navy bemoans the fact that it couldnt organise cruiser-class convoy defences from the first day of the war due to the need to keep a balanced force in Home waters.

Pretty good trade-off so far.

On the matter of the numbers of vehicles available in Germany, and AFVs available to the Wehrmacht - someone remarked on the incedibly high "crazy" loss figures.... many years ago the investigative journalist Duncan Campbell calculated for his book on civil defence, "Beneath the City Streets", that looking at the destruction wrought in Germany across the six years of the war, in terms of GNP destroyed, houses destroyed or rendered unsafe for habitation, miles of track destroyed and railway rollingstock destroyed - and vehicles of all types destroyed....that Germany had in that six year period experienced the same levels of damage as it could from a major nuclear strike! War IS hell.

phylo
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Guys,

I would suggest that the German battleships were most valuable as a "fleet in being". They had no real prospect of defeating the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, but they did tie down important British capital ships away from the Mediterranean and Far East. Thus they were of strategic value to Italy and Japan.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Florin
Supporter
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:41 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Florin »

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Guys,

... the German battleships ....did tie down important British capital ships away from the Mediterranean and Far East. Thus they were of strategic value to Italy and Japan.

Cheers,

Sid.
I posted that "solution" with control of direction with salvos of canons, because it is well known that what really doomed Bismark was the losing of its steering control. In that moment it happen to head straight toward the British shore, during a dodging maneuver. If the ship would have the prow toward France, it could escape.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Florin,

What caused the Bismarck's fatal problems (which were slightly different to those you propose)? British naval air supremacy. Bismarck didn't passively "lose steering control". It was hit by a British air-delivered torpedo.

Unless the Germans could resolve the air superiority issue in their favour, all their battleships were ultimately doomed. They were therefore of more use as "ships in being" like the Tirpitz, than hazarded on operations of the sort that proved fatal to the Bismarck. The Tirpitz kept major Royal Navy units tied down at Scapa until 1944. By then the Bismarck had ceased to be a factor for three years.

Cheers,

Sid.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Sid, further confirmation of this is of course the RN resources that WERE mobilsed against the Bismarck to find her. Almost every other RN duty that required a ship if light cruiser class or above was stripped out for the sea chase.

Throughout the rest of the war too, the Scharnhorst until she was sunk and the Gneisenau did exactly the same, kept huge fleet resources tied down in home waters.

phylo
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi phylo,

Yup. It was only when Allied (well, British) bombing began to hit the remaining German capital ships in their bases that they ceased to be a factor. Tirpitz and, I think, Gneisenau suffered sinking or irreparable damage while in their own bases. Of the four German battleships, only the fate of Scharnhorst was not directly decided by British air power.

Cheers,

Sid.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

The Tirpitz tied down a LOT of resources, there were Fleet Air Arm attempts to torpedo it, RAF attempts - the famous Beaufighter footage - TWO attempts by 617 Sqn, and only the 2nd was successful. RN attempted TWO underwater sabotage attempts - one by chariot, one by the famous X-craft attack where Magennis won his VC - and it proccupied the Norwegian Resistance for years at SOE's request for constant information.

I think the Gneisenau took a hit in dock that just wasn't repaired.

The presence of the three and the Prinz Eugen also tied up constant photorecce resources

phylo
Post Reply