Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
delcyros
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by delcyros »

Then this whole discussion just evolves around peoples opinions , which are culturaly centric.

Westeners will just see it as impossible , but admit when pushed its possible ...but they would not be any good , what ever that means :?

German centrics will just grin and say "bring it on". :wink:


The Germans were fast learners.
I agree with RF, this post is not helpful nor constructive. A wide variance in opinions on such a speculative topic shouldn´t be a surprise. From my experience with the secondary literature it appears that the most common consensus was that GRAF ZEPPELIN in 1941 would not contributed to the german war effort and would have ended in another fiasco.

I have laid out why I think this cannot be certain but I wouldn´t go so far and claim the opposite...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by RF »

The second paragraph I can agree with, but I'm not sure about the first.

With respect to military training, thought and doctrine I don't see that the German military thought/practice (leaving aside political ideo;ogy) was really that different from that of the French, Czech, Polish or even British equivalents. The German Officer Corps descended down from the Imperial Army/Navy and the Kaiser had the same stubborn conservative atitudes as the French officer corps, almost totally resistant to changes proposed by officers like Guderian or De Gaulle. And Guderian's ideas for armoured warfare were largely taken from a British general at the end of WW1, General Martell. Only with practical demonstration of new ideas were they grudgingly converted. For the KM even Wegener's ideas were accepted, and that implies the need for carriers.
Had you made the comment concerning the Russians or the Japanese then I would concur. But the Wehrmacht (excluding the Waffen SS forces) to me were typical ''western'' military forces, particulary when facing the British and Americans. In the East, fighting the Russians, well, nazi ideology did increasingly dominate in their conduct of that war and in the crimes that were commited.

As for bias towards one side or the other I can only speak for myself. I have always been strictly impartial on such matters which I hope can be seen in the posts I have made.
Last edited by RF on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
''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: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by RF »

delcyros wrote: . From my experience with the secondary literature it appears that the most common consensus was that GRAF ZEPPELIN in 1941 would not contributed to the german war effort and would have ended in another fiasco.
I have laid out why I think this cannot be certain but I wouldn´t go so far and claim the opposite...
What is important are the reasons why it would be a fiasco - which is that the GZ was only one carrier, with limited means of safely breaking out into the North Atlantic.
The Z Plan did involve the KM acquiring up to six carriers, the flugzugtrager A and B plus up to four converted ocean liners. Had the Germans been able to build up such a force they would have had a better chance to decisively influence events in Germanys' favour.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
delcyros
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by delcyros »

I guess You may also have a different perspective and say that because GZ was a single carrier it had better options to survive. Sending out a single raider posed strategically and tactically more problems to the one executing Sea-Controll strategies than the one doing raiding.
Sending out a task force made the work simpler for the one executing Sea-Controll.
I also don´t think that GZ on it´s own had limited means of breaking out into the Atlantic. It certainly was better in that regard than Scheer or Hipper or the twins. It´s faster. That´s what counts. If a patrolling CA or BB makes contact with GZ, GZ can disengage at will and has the endurance to do so. The twins actually did the same and were significantly slower than GZ.

While a raider only projects about 20nm fighting range, depending on conditions, a carrier projects easily in excess of 200nm. If the intention was to disrupt trade routes, disperse the RN assets to search for GZ then it totally made sense to send her alone.
If the intention was to execute Sea-Controll then Task forces like those envisioned in the Z-plan made sense but by 1941 that´s nowhere near to the KM´s possibilities. After all, the KM wasn´t a large navy.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by RF »

The value of GZ as a stand alone raider is indeed an interesting concept. As you point out it has considerable reach. But arguments can also be deployed about the effectiveness of Bismarck as a soliary raider, especially the one about the 15 inch guns enabling Bismarck to attack and destroy a convoy without even coming under fire. We know that what happened there turned out very different. Bismarck never got a convoy in its sights.

GZ has to my mind one major weakness as a sole raider. A limited number of aircraft. As time goes on into its raiding cruise, planes will be lost and the risk is that GZ is gradually degraded to being a tootthless large target for all types of Allied forces. Another aspect open to question is what happens to GZ and its speed advantage after one or two torpedo hits.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by 19kilo »

I cant see GZ as a solitary raider. Aircraft carriers tended to gobble up fuel and ord.
Keith Enge
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by Keith Enge »

Carriers are inherently unsuited for raiders. Raiders are typically employed by the weaker sea power. Therefore, one of their needs is stealth; they have to be able to disappear into the vastness of the ocean. However, if someone sees a single-engined enemy plane in the middle of the ocean, it is advertizing the presence of a carrier. A carrier has to use planes to project her power but those same planes announce her presence. This is the same problem that raiders had with radar use. Raiders rarely used radar unless their presence was already known. Radar can be detected at a far longer range than its own detection range so a raider couldn't afford to use search radar.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by lwd »

Also given the size of her air group and perhaps even more the size of her potential strike groups she could hardly afford to even encounter a CVE. Being a raider she also would have had to be very careful about using her own radar. Something her hunters wouldn't have had to worry that much about.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by Dave Saxton »

Keith Enge wrote:.... A carrier has to use planes to project her power but those same planes announce her presence. This is the same problem that raiders had with radar use. Raiders rarely used radar unless their presence was already known. Radar can be detected at a far longer range than its own detection range so a raider couldn't afford to use search radar.

A very good and concise description of the concept. I do want to point out that German raiders earlier in the war did use their active radar extensively, however. In 1939 and 1940, and really prior to Rhineubung, German raiders did not need to worry too much about giving themselves away through the use of active radar, simply because the Allies were so backward in terms of radar technology and technique. The Germans knew it too, hence Krancke and Meisel for example, used active search radar almost continously and it played major roles in finding targets, avoiding the enemy, and for gunnery.

Once it became clear that the enemy was starting to catch up in radar technology and technique the Germans began to exercise more caution with the use of their own radar.

For the raider (the Germans) passive radar detection then took on greater significance. Radar detectors could pick up Allied radar before the source was actually within range announcing the enemy presence-and the direction from the source. (Passive radar detection gear cannot determine distance however). It then became a matter of judgement when to switch on one's own radar to precisely locate the enemy. Too soon and you give yourself away. Too late and then the enemy may already be tracking you while your still fumbling around blindly. Bey at Northcape for example, waited too long and then he unluckly lost his excellent forward radar to battle damage before he could use it. Worse and fatally his ship was rendered 1/2 blind, and fully blind to the forward looking sectors, from that point on.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by RF »

Dave Saxton wrote: German raiders did not need to worry too much about giving themselves away through the use of active radar, simply because the Allies were so backward in terms of radar technology and technique. The Germans knew it too, hence Krancke and Meisel for example, used active search radar almost continously and it played major roles in finding targets, avoiding the enemy, and for gunnery
Radarwas also extensively used in 1942 by Gumprich on the hilfskreuzer Thor.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by Dave Saxton »

Yes, at least two hilfskreuzers were equipped with radar. The radar set, later designated FuMO28, was cleverly disguised as regular shipboard communications equipment, with no tell tale mattress or dish antenna.

Back to the topic of aircraft carriers, if one spends much time reading the Fueher Naval Confrences Transcripts it may be surprizing how serious the Germans had become about developing operational aircraft carriers following Hitlers orders to scrap the fleet in 1943. Besides the plans to complete GZ and convert cruisers to CVs, they were moving forward with plans to convert Gneisenau to a carrier. Forget about the oft reported speculation about upgunning to 15", it was a carrier conversion for Gneisenau during 1943. Hitler constantly wants to be updated on the progress of these plans and doesn't seem to understand that it can't just happen in a few weeks or months. Goering is also throwing sand in the gears of course, while paying lip service to the Navy and to Hitler. Germany no longer had the resources to meet the needs of the over stretched Luftwaffe and develop naval aviation by then anyway.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by boredatwork »

Dave Saxton wrote: Besides the plans to complete GZ and convert cruisers to CVs, they were moving forward with plans to convert Gneisenau to a carrier. Forget about the oft reported speculation about upgunning to 15", it was a carrier conversion for Gneisenau during 1943.
Are you sure that is reffering to the Battlecruiser Gneisenau and not the liner of the same name? Her sister btw, the liner Scharnhorst, was taken over by the Japanese and also converted into a carrier named Shinyo.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by RF »

There were plans to convert the liner Gneisenau going back I believe to the inception of the Z Plan, they were not just initiated circa 1942.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by Dave Saxton »

boredatwork wrote:Are you sure that is reffering to the Battlecruiser Gneisenau and not the liner of the same name? Her sister btw, the liner Scharnhorst, was taken over by the Japanese and also converted into a carrier named Shinyo.

Oh, good question. It is not made clear, so I don't know.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
delcyros
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin 1941

Post by delcyros »

Why is it that GZ cannot be seen as a lone raider?

What´s different to a Hipper or a Scheer, a Lützow or a Graf Spee, or -for that matter- a Thor, Stier or Atlantis auxilary cruiser?
All these used their airplanes for recon purposes. Airplanes can spot shipping from a greater distance than these ships can ID the airplane or it´s origin.
In that way, the Fi-167, thanks to it´s extended range, is much more useful in this role than the rather short legged Ar-196.

GZ as designed was a fast carrier, nothing short of a DD in perfect, calm weather can hope to catch her at flank speed. This is what all those 5.9in, the deck and angled belt armour are for, to deal with cruiser and DD ambushes. Combined with 4.1in DP mounts this gives GZ credible self defense firepower in the short to medium range profile.

Back to the airwing: Why not compare GZ (35 kts, 40 planes + spares without deckpark) with it´s contemporaries in late 1941?
Let us hypothetically assume that the Germans in late 1941 decided to use Graf Zeppelin in such a capacity. Her appearence on the Atlantic would have forced the RN to send out large forces to search her. By this time, Renown & KGV were the only remaining fast ships of the RN, which could tackle a slowed down GZ (both beeing slower by 5-6 Kts). Other ships, which could compete with her speed were kind of underarmed & underprotected to tackle GZ (32000t 35 Kts, 40 planes, 16 x 5.91in).
The Royal Navy had the following CV´ s at it´s disposal:

1.) HMS Argus (14.000t. 20 Kts, 20 planes)
2.) HMS Eagle (22.000t. 24 Kts, 21 planes)
3.) HMS Victorious (23000t 31 Kts, 33 planes)

4.) HMS Audacity (11.000t. 15 Kts, 6 planes) -CVE-
5.) HMS Archer (16000t. 17,5 Kts, 16 planes) -CVE-

Other non avaiable:

1.) HMS Furious (22.000t 30 Kts, 36 planes) under refit (drydocked) in the US
2.) HMS Hermes (11.000t 25 Kts, 15 planes) in transfer, sheduled for drydocking in the UK
3.) HMS Formidable (23000t 31 Kts, 33 planes) under repair (drydocked) in the US.
4.) HMS Illustrious (23000t 31 Kts, 33 planes) under refit (drydocked) in the US.
5.) HMS Indomitable (23000t. 30.5 Kts, 45 planes) sea trials, working up

To cover the most lucrative areas for German naval carrier interdiction (West Indies, Western Approaches, and mid-Atlantic narrows) would thus have required at least 6 fleet carriers -- approximately twice the number of ships that the British had aviable. Only VICTORIOUS and INDOMITABLE (in sea trials) had the required speed to follow GZ´s actions.

It has been mentioned that Carriers tended to require lots of ordenance, spare planes, avgas and fuel in operation. This cannot be challanged and indeed is the case. The same problems arised with naval raiders, one of the principal reasons why the HSF refused to send a battlecruiser into the Atlantic in world war one. The Etappendienst in ww1 provided timely coordinated resupply of warships with food, fuel, fresch water and ammunition on remote anchorages or in quiet bays along the coastlines of west African and South America (or Greenland or even Newfoundland for that matter!) despite the huge numerical superiority of the allied forces in both wars and resupplied auxilary cruisers and raiders. It´s not conceivable why spares, food and ammunition could be provided by the Etappendienst why Avgas could not.
In addition to this, Adm. Reader foresaw the logistical problems and looked for realistic ways to extand range and endurance. One was technical in it´s nature. While most battleships of the world war one period had a range of 4,000 to 5,000 nm at 14 kts and full load, the GZ doubled this range at 19 kts. The other was forward basing at Zapadnaya Bay on the Motovisky gulf, following an agreement between Ribbentrop and Molotov in 1939, which allowed a KM naval base to be established there (Basis Nord). The most important, however, was the understanding and enforcement of the ideas of "Underway replenishment" trialed extensively in 1928 and then again in mid summer exercises in 1934 and 1935. In these trials it was concluded that the british stirred up-method was impractical and towing alongside instead of astern was preferred in which fuel, water hoses, booms and crates were passed over. After some exercises it took 20 minutes to start pumping fuel oil, altough the whole practice was demanding in seamanship. During the spanish civil war, pocket battleship DEUTSCHLAND frequently repelenished at the open sea from auxilary ships achieving fuel transfer rates of 120 tons per hour under operational conditions. After mastering this technique, Reader urged to buildt a fleet of advanced auxilary supply ships, the six ship DITHSMARSCHEN class tankers. These ships were extremely innovative for their time and never enjoied much of the focus which often is spent to the more exciting ships of the KM.
They could carry 9,000ts of fuel oil, 400ts of lubrication oil, 200ts of avgas in protected boxes as well as ammunitions, spares, water and food. They had a fully geared repair shop facilities and hospital, a crane and transfer system and seagoing boats to pass very heavy or bulky stores. They had a limited number of self defense guns (3 x 5.9in and 6 x AAA if I remember correctly). They were fully capable of poor weather performance, had a top speed of 22 kts and had a range of 12,500 nm @15 kts without expanding cargo fuel.
Their bouyant rubber hoses went alongside the ships hull and could be either floated aft to a receiving ship or boomed out when passing stores alongside without the danger to damage the involved ships. The surviving ships of the Dithmarschen class were taken over and served until 1956 before transferred into reserve in the US Navy (former DITHMARSCHEN) and 1955 respectively, in the Royal Navy (former NORDMARK).
These ships were not designed to accompany a raider on it´s way, rather differently, they should break out on their own and meet the raider in prescheduled meeting places, replenish it and support if necessary. During operation BERLIN, the twins were replenished on six occassions and received a total of 30,355ts of fuel by ERMLAND and UCKERMARK.
Why is it possible to repenish the twins but impossible to replenish GZ?
Post Reply