Marschall instead of Lutjens

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by wadinga »

RNfanDan,

You may have had "A History of Bilgewater" in mind. This is a series of long, rambling and largely irrelevant dissertations- it does not concern us here.

Ufo,
Thanks for the point, but I haven't finished yet. Have you read The Elusive Sisters by Richard Garrett? He quotes from Raeder's 23rd May order. "In the great struggle for Germany's destiny, the navy can only fulfil its task by showing an uncompromising spirit and a resolve to inflict damage on the enemy at whatever risk to itself." Diversion tactics?? In strategic principle maybe, in this case a very specific rescue mission for the failing German invasion of North Norway.

And again from Garrett" Saalwachter at Navy Group West was more specific. ""The first and main objective", he told Marschall, "is a surprise penetration of the Andfjord and Vaagsfjord {the approaches to the Allied base at Harstad} and the destruction of enemy warships and transports there encountered, as well as of his beachhead installations."

Garrett had mentioned an earlier plan ( even barmier ) to send the virtually unescorted liners Bremen and Europa on a suicide mission to Narvik to bring reinforcements for Dietl.

Hitler and the top brass had obviously been much impressed by Warspite and her squadron steaming into Ofotfjord/ Narvik, smashing Bonte's destroyers to pulp and bombarding Dietl out of the town and fancied Marschall should do the same at Harstad. He plainly thought the idea was balmy, crammed in constrained waters with the overwhelming Home Fleet somewhere in the vicinity, and told his subordinates so. Luckily, according to Garrett, U-Boat sightings indicated transports at sea, and Marschall went after them. Even after Oil Pioneer, Juniper and Orama had been sunk, Navy Group West reminded him about Harstad. "Convoy attack to be delegated to Hipper and destroyers. Further target Trondheim. Main objective remains Harstad."

He covered the Trondheim requirement by detaching Hipper and the low on fuel detroyers, and headed up north with the battlecruisers. According to B-Dienst appreciation night of 6-7th June he might have to face at least Valiant, Glorious, Ark Royal, Southampton, Devonshire, Coventry and up to 15 destroyers.
Yet when he would have needed them for scouting and screening he had send them away on a secondary mission. Questionable at least.
He was only obeying orders when he sent them to Trondheim.
The torpedo hit on Scharnhorst is simply not understandable. A battleship should not receive a torpedo on 130 hm from a single destroyer.
Hey, when you go out to hurt people and break things sometimes Sh*t Happens! There might have been a few torpedoes flying about in Andfjord and Vaagsfjord if he had obeyed his daft orders and much less chance to dodge.
Why on earth did Marschall turn home? Scharnhorst was well capable of looking after herself. Marschall had a heavy cruiser, a battleship and destroyers at his command and all he managed is to get home safely ?!?
Having stirred up a mighty Hornet's Nest (so no Atlantic foray), and with the original mission obsolete, ie no targets, what on earth would be the point of risking his remaining ships further? There was nothing to attack. Dietl was already saved, the Allies were gone. Norway was theirs, Glorious was sunk, mission accomplished, home in time for tea and Schnitzels. Oops, Gniesenau blunders into a sub and more sh*t happens.

Besides, in the "f**k the mission and getting home safely stakes"
Luetjens in turn fully embraced Raeders (questionable!) strategy.
Marschall was no match for the Master of Getting Lost. Lutjen's abandonment of Bonte's destroyers and his "Run away to Iceland Very Fast Indeed" approach to protecting the Norwegian invasion was a classic. Not so much distant cover as extremely remote cover indeed. Bonte needed a diversion in Norway to get away, not somewhere off Iceland.

If the clear minded, incisive Marschall had been in command at Denmark Straits he would have known a wounded bird in the hand was far preferable to simply getting lost in the bush! Thank God he was beached! :pray:

All the Best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by lwd »

RNfanDan wrote:
RNfanDan wrote:Next week:

A History of Seawater.
Apologies, I posted this in the wrong thread, please disregard! :oops:
And I thought it was a bit of sarcasm that I didn't quite get....:)
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RNfanDan »

lwd wrote:
RNfanDan wrote:
RNfanDan wrote:Next week:

A History of Seawater.
Apologies, I posted this in the wrong thread, please disregard! :oops:
And I thought it was a bit of sarcasm that I didn't quite get....:)
No, it was intended to be posted at another thread concerning Bismarck's speed. Specifically, I intended to explain a future post about how seawater density variances between the Baltic and North Atlantic (and other oceans), can affect a ship's speed. The Baltic's low salinity is one by-product of its natural history.

I generally compose my posts in advance and temporarily file them, to save on-line time and avoid slowing down other computers that share this connection. When I have them ready, I generally click-and-dump one, then move onto the next, repeating the process for up to five forums I lurk at. I just happened to get this one misdirected, that's all. :stubborn:

But sarcasm is among my most coveted of internet tools... :quiet:
Image
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RF »

wadinga wrote:
IMarschall absolutely had no choice but to attack--his bosses didn't understand that. Luckily for Freedom and Liberty the Nazis sacked a very able commander

wadinga
I agree with this absolutely. The second sentence basically why I initiated this thread, now a long while ago.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RF »

Vic Dale wrote:
Hitler was a complete dilletante, he boasted of his nation's military strength when he should have kept it quiet and if he was bent on war as some seem to think, he did a very poor job preparing for it. His performance at best was mediocre and like all other statesmen at the time was driven by events and was not the calculator which some have been led to believe. His territorial conquests smack of outright opportunism and when it came to decisive military action he was an unrivalled wet-pants. He cancelled the attack on France and the lowlands no less than 26 times before he finally let it go ahead. As his army acheived success he became over confident and bludered into campaigns with minimal preparation. He was an appalling military leader and the title; GRÖFAZ - Größter Feldherr Aller Zeiten (Greatest Military Leader of All Time) was entirely appropriate, as an ironical swipe at this inflated windbag.

Vic
I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall if a staff officer had said this out aloud in front of the Fuhrer at one of his bunker conferences.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by tommy303 »

IMarschall absolutely had no choice but to attack--his bosses didn't understand that. Luckily for Freedom and Liberty the Nazis sacked a very able commander
Hi Wadinga,

Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
ufo
Supporter
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Rhu, Scotland

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by ufo »

wadinga wrote:
Ufo,
Thanks for the point, but I haven't finished yet. Have you read The Elusive Sisters by Richard Garrett? He quotes from Raeder's 23rd May order. "In the great struggle for Germany's destiny, the navy can only fulfil its task by showing an uncompromising spirit and a resolve to inflict damage on the enemy at whatever risk to itself." Diversion tactics??
...

All the Best
wadinga
@ Wadinga

Sorry – not that I am ignoring you. It is just lack of time. For to afford all this wonderful and addictive naval literature it needs this day job … :?

But I shall have a look at Raeders rant of 23. May and especially 16. July – I think they very much bring the main points in Raeders difficulties with Marschall's (and Luetjens') conduct.
But it would not make much sense to just pick three sentences and be through with it.

But I shall prepare the keyboard and sharpen the rapier … en garde :dance:

Greetings to Merry Old Kent :D


@ RF

From the very beginning of the tread I do not quite understand why on earth Marschall?

Why the guy who managed to get Germany's only two battleships blasted into the shipyards for the meagre price of sinking a carrier? And he did that when he should have either bin inside a Norwegian fjord or on a sustained diversion and raiding campaign (in fact anywhere but picking fights with skilled destroyer captains).

The successful skippers of Scheer's or Deutschland's sorties I would have understood.

But why expect someone to be better at a sustained raiding campaign who had shown three times (withdrawals after encounters with HMS Ravalpindi, HMS Renown, HMS Glorious) that he had not the guts to soldier on in the face of opposition?

That someone but Luetjens might have been preferable is well possible (though the German naval officers corps was stretched thin!).

But someone who so obviously disliked Raeders whole concept of raiding campaigns :?:




By the way – though I do not agree with your choice of replacement – I do think this makes for a fine thread. :clap:

There is enough literature on Bismarck to fold a full scale origami version of her. I think there a few books that stick out for the one or the other reason. Graham Rhys-Jones made a wonderful work in pointing out that Luetjens' conduct at 'Rheinuebung' could not be understood without looking at his experiences from 'Berlin'.

I think Luetjens conduct at 'Rheinuebung' (and to some extend 'Berlin') can not be fully understood without looking into his experiences at 'Juno' (Raeder gave him quite a kick!) and him looking on when his colleague Marschall was kind of scrapped by Raeder.

Ufo
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RF »

ufo,

My selection of Marschall was based on this officers belief that the field commander was in the best position to judge what was going on and therefore should be able to interpret general orders into specific actions based on that judgement.
As I see it Marschall received intelligence that he interpreted as a full British evacuation of Norway and that the original mission to raid Norwegian fjords had been overtaken by events. Better to attack the evacuation shipping where he expected to find it - at sea, not in fjords where they no longer were.

As for being blasted back into the repair yards - this is streching it a bit. When Glorious was sunk it was Scharnhorst that was torpedoed as her captain misjudged combing torpedo tracks - Marschall was not even on board! And having said that Kapitan Hoffmann on Scharnhorst was also a very highly rated officer (particulary by the crew).

As for the skippers of Deutschland and Scheer - well Admiral Wenneker after his promotion (and the fiasco over the City of Flint) was packed off to Japan as naval attache, while Theodor Krancke was relegated to desk jobs and had the impossible task of oppossing the D Day landings with a naval force of just four ships - and these vessels were sent out to engage....

No the point I was raising was of whether Marschall, with his own idea of orders, might have been a better choice as fleet commander than Lutjens, who was far more pessimistic and inclined to follow orders to the letter. In terms of actual outcome - Bismarck being sunk - he couldn't have done much worse. I am inclined to think that if he were allowed to use his own initiative he could have done much better.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
ufo
Supporter
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Rhu, Scotland

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by ufo »

@RF

Well – for the torpedo holes in the bellies of his ships Marschall must carry some blame:

Most of all for the hole in Gneisenau. He drove her into a tight spot. Getting her stuffed at her exit was like fishing in a barrel for the Royal Navy. Gneisenau should have been out and about on a mission not going into a parking bay when it was clear that she would have to venture out again in time just short enough to deploy a RN submarine to the exit.

The hit on Scharnhorst … as a fleet commander he has some duty to have an idea what his crews were capable of and what not. May be a more coordinated approach to the battle would have helped?
The world is unfair – but then – she was his to command and she got herself torpedoed under – well – questionable circumstances.

It is like football – in the end the score counts and he got Germany's only battleships into the yard for sinking a carrier.




As for Marschall acting outside the box where Luetjens did not … hmmmm … not so sure!

As for acting outside the box: Luetjens kept the Prinz with him in the battleline against standing German orders. As a flimsy cruiser she had no business with the battleships exchanging niceties and should have been kept well to leeward the fire. Luetjens decided her contribution although nominally useless against battleship armour would be worth it and did not order her out of line. The committee of the Kriegsmarine afterwards judged that to be risky and unorthodox but vindicated by the result. And I think her contribution in splitting the British fire and in setting HMS Hood ablaze was worth it. But let's face it: had HMS Hood landed a hit Luetjens probably would have had to abandon the cruiser to its fate.

And now the world would complain how a more cautious commander …


Would have Marschall dared to keep the Prinz in line? Would he have dared to keep the relatively lightly armoured and short legged ship with him after being spotted in the first place? Would he not have send it away hours earlier long before Holland was there? Since the RN cruisers would have had to go round Bismarck in a wide arch she would have had not too much trouble in covering Prinz Eugen's disappearance.

Would Marschall not have fought Denmark Straight in Bismarck all on his own?


As Marschall did not take the hint of his oilers waiting for him at 'Juno' there is little hope that he would have topped tanks up in places where Luetjens did not. No gain there then.



One of the suggestions how Bismarck might have made good her escape is to head for the open Atlantic and wait. But Marschall had set course back home three times right after an encounter with British forces. One might argue that he would have seen the writing on the wall even an hour or two earlier than may be Luetjens had. But would that have gained much? Anything? From his earlier conduct I would suggest that Marschall (as Luetjens did) would have tried to sail home rather than lying low somewhere in the Atlantic with his damaged ship. No gain there as well, I would say.

That is a point where may be Panzership experience would have helped. They ventured further and took longer periods of lying idle. But I think Marschall would have run just as Luetjens did and where it comes to torpedoes hitting ships he seems as unlucky as Luetjens.


As for achieving much in damaged ships with green crews I think neither of them has much to show for. Marschall does not come across as a commander who inspired his men. Luetjens seems have managed to get his men going at least during 'Berlin'. That was cheating in a way – there he had (slightly) more experienced and weathered crews. But for young men out on their first trip neither Marschall nor Luetjens seemed to have found the right words.


Hm – no! – I still do not see why Marschall!

I think up to Denmark Straight he is rather more likely ho have made things worse by sending the Prinz away.
And from then on I see little he is likely to have made substantially different.

Ufo
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RF »

ufo wrote:May be a more coordinated approach to the battle would have helped?
How? In what way? Glorious could have been alerted by any delay in attack.....
ufo wrote:One of the suggestions how Bismarck might have made good her escape is to head for the open Atlantic and wait. But Marschall had set course back home three times right after an encounter with British forces. One might argue that he would have seen the writing on the wall even an hour or two earlier than may be Luetjens had. But would that have gained much? Anything? From his earlier conduct I would suggest that Marschall (as Luetjens did) would have tried to sail home rather than lying low somewhere in the Atlantic with his damaged ship. No gain there as well, I would say.

That is a point where may be Panzership experience would have helped. They ventured further and took longer periods of lying idle. But I think Marschall would have run just as Luetjens did and where it comes to torpedoes hitting ships he seems as unlucky as Luetjens.

But the panzerschiffe were diesel engined, had greater fuel economy, and hadn't been chased. But I see what you mean.
ufo wrote: Marschall does not come across as a commander who inspired his men.
Garrett seems to have a different view.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by VeenenbergR »

Hi Ufo,

Sorry that I interpreted your words wrong, but as you correctly state most German sorties of the larger surface vessels of the Kriegsmarine which met oponents of at least equal strength and were followed by a fight ended (directly) in the "abortion" of the mission. It is understandable that skirmishes far from home were avoided, because damage could result in the loss of the ship. Most raiding forces were small and there were no other fleets (nor submarines or aircraft) to give any protection if this should be needed. When Lütjens took Bismarck to sea he risked her in sea combat (and risked likewise the brandnew large heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen). So Lütjens didn't avoid the action and was punished for this because the British forces has closed the gap which existed before the Bismarck sailed.

So Graf Spee (after initial succesful hunting as a raider), Bismarck and Scharnhorst all met their ends after critically be damaged or damaged in a way that they were at a great disadvantage if a new battle was going to have place. Spee avoided that new battle.

True is that if handling a small navy luck is paramount. The few major vessels of the Kriegsmarine suffered from contradictionary orders or expectations: don't take risks and also attack the enemy in an aggressive maner (like the British did). This was most annoying for Langsdorff, Marshall, Lütjens, Kummetz and Bey. They all could not alway avoid the confrontation with equal (or superior) force, but also didn't go for a fight when they were superior in force.

Furthermore: the German major vessels suffered badly from unreliable machinery,too few capable senior commanders, too few combat ready ships, too weak coordination with Luftwaffe or U-Boat arm, too few fuel, too few training (especially the AA-crews), too many damaging accidents, too long reparation periods after being damaged (compare this with the repaartion of the Yorktown after the battle in the Coral Sea), too long idleness......

Their only asset was that they looked damned well and there was a pleiphora of opportunities.

Lack of good, capable and aggressive commanders was no problem in the German Army, Luftwaffe and U-boat fleet, which had so vastly more units than the surface navy. The Germans had very good aircraft (the best in the world, only training, lack of fuel and Hitlers insistance on development of bombers instead of fighters lamed them), and very good armoured forces and very well trained infantry. They were definitely the best in all light arms (MG's, mortars) and the artillery was second only to the US-arty. The armour was definitely nr 1 in the world (even up to the present!), especially the way of using them. To Vic: a horse drawn army is not so bad if it is structurally lacking fuel.
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by Vic Dale »

Hi Veenenberg

I find it quite amazing that people still insist that the German navy was slacking in able and aggressive Senior officers. The KM is the same navy which produced Doenitz and his U-Boat aces. Doenitz does not come over as being critical of any of them - not even Lutjens who seems to be the target for most.

The thing to realise is that there simply were too few useful opportunities for the surface ships. They were being used for tasks for which they were not designed, yet when ships which were purpose designed and used for the specific job for which they were intended, they got results. Look at the the auxilliary cruisers, look at how the U-Boat arm developed and all under the leadership of Raeder. He was able to incorporate aggression and caution in equal measure according to the forces he possessed and the tactical situation which presented itself.

Raeder resigned when Hitler threatenbed to scrap the surface fleet. This was brought about by Hitler's simplistic assessment of the Battle of Barrentsberg. His judgement of most of the war's actions seemd to be about results. SO to those who insist that Germany's naval officers were not up to the job, do you think Hitler was right? A military genius?
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by VeenenbergR »

Vic,

No Hitler was, to my personal opinion, not a military genius. Allthough he was certainly a very high intelligent person, he liked to give attention to the many details of the Army and German Culture (Architecture). He was very convincing and very polite to women or hero's from the lower classes. Knew everything of his own army (especially arms, allmost all officers !!), but almost nothing of the enemy and his huge economic potential. This was a major fault. Furthermore he was over ambitious, liked to take gambles and nervous before major operations (as if things could go wrong where he was not aware of). At the second half of the war Hitler wanted to hold whatever he had captured even risking major losses on the ground (this happened at Stalingrad) but even more in the many encirclements on the Eastern Front in 1944; Falaise in the West. He worst fault was that he wanted to do all operations by himself!!! Never trusted to give the job to the military professionals.

On the other side did Hitler had a very well developed instinct (because he was day and night busy with "his" war). He advised to strengthen the beaches in lower Normandy against the idea's of his marshalls. He sensed the enemy plans as no other.
Hitler had few trust in Rheinübung and facts proofed he was right.
He also had low expectations of operation Citadel, but General Feldtmarschall Erich von Manstein (note the spelling Vic) had to go on and was able to destroy 3600 Soviet tanks in 2 weeks for the loss of 400 own mostly because of the extensive Soviet minefields, AT-guns and artillery. If Citadel (Zitadelle) could have went further another 2-4 weeks the Germans could have destroyed another 3600 Soviet tanks (and so all Soviet tanks on the Eastern Front!).

Hitler wanted an impressive, well balanced Navy (of every shiptype some ships!), therefore he ordered the building of the battleships. He didn't build them for the functions Germany needed most: raiders. Hitler was an infantry man himself. Therefore suspicious to navy and airforce (which both had to assist the ground forces as much as possible). His economic aspirations were simple: he wanted the oil and grain of Russia. Simply thought that seizing them was enough.

Reader thought differently and thought taking Russia was something too big for Germany. Raeder saw more in seizing the oil in the Middle East and trying to exploit the Arab sympathies towards Germany. His grand strategy aimed for Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and then Iraq. Vichy French forces, Arabs, Turks aso could assist Germany in reaching the targets with a modest army of 4-5 elite corps and 2000 aircraft, keeping 100 divisions in the East, 60 in the West, with the Luftwaffe divided over the West and Mediterranean. The KM could then play a very usefull role in subdueing Gibraltar, join the Italians taking Malta and Egypt. The German limited fuel production (Ploesti, Kaposvar and Wien) meant that all units involved had to be limited.

I personally think Raeders plans had a better chance of succeeding than Hitlers plans for the East.
Germany, France and Poland could produce a lot of grain too.
If Hitler had adopted Readers plans the British would have stood alone against a juggernaut which was exercising a sound strategy. But because Hitler had his obsessions (pre fixed ideas) of getting rid of jews and going for land in the East, Raeder had no chance of realising the possible winning strategy for Germany.

In my comment I highly esteem Raeder (grand strategy and realism), Dönitz (he could have done the job alone) and Lütjens (a capable fleet commander).

What if: What if Bismarck had joined the Italian Battlefleet (after the fall of Gibraltar at the end of 1940) and had sortied for Crete to cut off the British on the Island?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RF »

VeenenbergR wrote:Vic,

No Hitler was.......... Allthough he was certainly a very high intelligent person
This is the first time EVER that I have seen Hitler described in these terms.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Marschall instead of Lutjens

Post by RF »

VeenenbergR wrote:
What if: What if Bismarck had joined the Italian Battlefleet (after the fall of Gibraltar at the end of 1940) and had sortied for Crete to cut off the British on the Island?
Or better still the Italian fleet passed to the Biscay or Spanish ports to join Bismarck and Tirpitz.......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply