Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
German Surface Fleet WWII
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
Why was the German Surface Fleet regarded as so potent? Even today the names 'Bismark' and 'Graf Spee', in particular, hold a certain aura. The resources used to destroy the 'Bismark' and 'Tirpitz' were phenomenal, and similarly the 'Scharnhorst' had multiple warships deployed to destroy her, whilst the 'Graf Spee' faced three cruisers (which if truth be told, probably came off worse). The combined surface units employed by the Kriegsmarine in the Battle of the Barents Sea were probably less effective that a single U-boat.
Was it simply prestige or political, rather than military, necessity? There seems to have been what might be termed a paranoia regarding the surface fleet - Tirpitz fired her guns in anger on only a few occasions, yet the mere rumour that she was at sea prompted the scattering - and resulting destruction - of Convoy PQ17.
Were they really that much of a threat? -
Message 2
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
You have hit the nail on the head. They were not that much of a threat, far less than the U-Boats or Condors roaming the Atlantic. It was probably backward thinking; after all Churchill and Dudley Pound were essentially Edwardian in thier outlook and probably believed the battleship to be the measure of all things. Also there has been a LOT of rubbish talked about the Bismarck since WW2, mainly I think to try and make the loss of the "mighty" Hood a bit easier to stomach. In fact they were both ships of WW1 conception.
-
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
A lot of people think that the resources put in to the surface big gun ships would have been better spent building u-boats. There were some successes for the surface fleet. They did get the army ashore in Norway, before getting a pounding.
The threat from the big gun ships was probably exaggerated, but neither the Royal Navy nor the Kriegsmarine operated with hindsight. From the British perspective, the defeat of these big ships did produce excellent propaganda, so was probably worth the effort (as well as preventing further attacks). By winning this battle the RN could concentrate on the sub war and maintain British prestige.
The German problem, I think, was that they had to out build the Royal Navy to make it worthwhile. This was never going to happen, but prestige was at stake. They were excellent ships in their own right, but air power was the real new force at sea. The big gun ships were out of date, but no one knew this in 1939. -
Message 4
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
I'm not sure they were very good ships by the way - but beutifully put together and with excellent fire control! Thier armour scheme was a bit out of date, according to stuff I have read. Leaving out the Yamato, I'd say the Iowas were the best big gun ships of the war and the Vangaurd the best battleship ever; for rather complicated reasons.......to do with fire control, seaworthiness and stuff.
Great propaganda for sure to sink em.
But the time of the aircraft was already there and all capital big gun ships were doomed, doomed I tell ye..... -
Message 5
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
Forgot to say Billy Mitchell knew they were out of date in 1939; and maybe a few Japanese and FAA pilots suspected it too.
But nobody listened to anyone under say...50. -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
The Hood was a flawed design A Battle Cruiser. Fire power of the Battle Ship speed of the cruiser. Armour cut down to gain speed. One shell boom, as happened to others of that type in the Great War. Graf Spey took on three cruisers, one heavy, two light. Her guns outranged all of them she should have stood off and sunk them one at a time before the R N got within range.
-
Message 7
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Friday, 20th January 2006
The Graf Spee was pretty flawed too; it was really a commerce raider not meant to fight even cruisers.....Not tough enough for a real fight but too prestigous to lose.
I find the whole battleship history really interesting, but I am no expert at all. I have forgotten more about aircraft than I know about ships! All book learning though; tis pre internet. -
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 20th January 2006
I remember a senior officer suggesting that at the out break of any conflict, ALL senior officers should be retired, as they will start fighting that war the way they fought the last, and men (And women) will die before they realise war had moved on
-
Message 9
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Friday, 20th January 2006
As i learnt in History today, the French fought the start of the first world war with tactics learnt in the Franco-Prussian war, which they lost in around the 1870's. correct me if im wrong,but they were taking on machine guns with cavalry and Bayonets. One of the generals, whose name eludes me, thought men marching in unison with perfect uniform, and bayonets fixed would terrify the enemy into fleeing. By the time they had perfected first world war tactics it was 1939, and the Nazis were using blitzgrieg. Anyway to ships it was the same thing, the battleship was perfected in world war two, examples are the Yamato, and Prince of Wales and many others, however they were essentially obselete for anything but convey protection against other ships, convoy attack, and shore bombardment with aircraft cover which is not what they were generally used for. In a proper pitched battle, aircraft are by far a better weapon. The Bismark was designed reasonably well, its 4 float planes could only be used for reconaisence but thats fine against enemy ships with no cover deep out in the atlantic. The planes find the enemy and the Bismark attacks sinking poorly armed merchant ships. The allies would then face starvation so they would move troops from the med into the atlantic, leaving the med undefended. Had the allies not engaged the Bismark as soon as possible with as many ships as possible the outcome could have been quite different. Britian would have starved or we would have the lost the batle fo the med, leaving us ubsupplied in north africa, and the german would have won, meaning more troops to Russia, Italy would never have surrendered meaning yet more troops in Russia meaning they couild win, and so D-Day would never have happened. even if they idn't succede in conquering Russia, D-Day would still never have happened as we would have been unable to get troops and equipment acrooss the Atlantic, and Germany could have defended itself and p4ace might have been negoiated leaving Russia and Germany as the superpowers not America and Russia. Just my view.
-
Message 10
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 20th January 2006
but neither the Royal Navy nor the Kriegsmarine operated with hindsight. Β
You are quite right, of course - as the saying goes "hindsight makes a great General" - or Admiral, in this case.
But it does seem obvious, somehow. A single Type IXB U-boat would cost a fraction of something like the Bismark - or even a Hipper-class Heavy Cruiser -, needed a fraction of the crew, fuel etc. It could carry 20-odd torpedoes, each of which was capable (duds aside) of blowing a hole the size of a double decker bus in a merchantman, and on top of that it had its deck guns.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.