3 German battleships in May 1941.

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Ersatz Yorck
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:56 pm

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by Ersatz Yorck »

RF wrote:
This I think is a rather harsh verdict. Bismarck on its own was only just caught, and it took a large force of ships to do it. The weakness of Bismarck is that it was one ship operating alone.

Combined forces of the type envisaged in a more sensible, watered down version of the Z Plan which could have been initiated right from 1934 onwards, building along the lines the British had agreed to, could have yielded crippling results by spring 1941 that would have thoroughly vindicated raider warfare.

The key point of such combined forces is that the loss of one capital ship by the Germans would not matter; also stronger forces, including Atlantic Narvik destroyers, will afford greater cover for ships returning to the Biscay ports. Strong land based heavy bombers and torpedo bombers (including Italian SM 79's) from Brittany can provide further weighty support. The U-boat threat also adds to the strength of the surface fleet.

A strong combined force is a different proposition to sending raiders out in ones and twos. They pose multiple threats and can support each other. That is a true naval strategy for winning a war. Not send out one raider and hope for the best.
But even during operation Berlin, the S&G only sank a fraction of the tonnage the U-boats sank during the same period. True, the surface ships were a threat the British were forced to react to, but the real ship sinker was the U-boats.

Even though I love warships, I múst say I think the surface fleet was an expensive distraction for Germany in both world wars. A distraction that created enemies and that took resources that could have been used to win the war where Germany's best chances lay - on land.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by Dave Saxton »

Ersatz Yorck wrote:, A distraction that created enemies and that took resources that could have been used to win the war where Germany's best chances lay - on land.
Can I disagree with this perspective if I may. The resources German committed to its surface fleet was nothing compared to the resources committed to Das Heer and the Luftwaffe. The resources committed to the Army and Airforces still wasn't enough. Not by a lot. The resources committed to the Surface Fleet re-directed, would not have won Hitler the war. Hitler tried to win the war on land. He lost anyway thank the Lord.

I have long espoused that Germany's best chance lay with winning the Battle of the Atlantic. This would have taken more than more and better U-boats, but also much more from everything available; including German air power being re-directed, and any contribution the surface fleet could make.
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
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by Dave Saxton »

alecsandros wrote:Maybe Dave,
But there were still 330kg shells vs 880kg shells... Scharnhorst was incredibly unlucky that day, and Gneisenau didn't score any important hits on Renown.
S&G were well armoured vs 15" shellfire. Renown was poorly protected against 11" shell fire.
Gneisenau didn't score any important hits on Renown


At least not in that circumstance. However, given a clearer understanding of the tactical situation by Luetjens and more prolonged concentration of fire power, and without the untimely loss of its radar, and Gneisenau probably would have cut the Renown to pieces.

At Denmark St, if POW was armed by 11" or 16" guns the results would have been the same.
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.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by alecsandros »

Dave Saxton wrote: S&G were well armoured vs 15" shellfire. Renown was poorly protected against 11" shell fire.
That's true, but there are other aspects to consider. For instance, Renown's thin armor made the proper functioning of 11" AP shells questionable - their 0.05s fuze delays were to long to cause detonation inside the ship. This is precisely what happened during the engagement - Gneisenau's shells passed through Renown - and precisely what happened at North Cape, when several 11" shells from Scharnhorst passed through Norfolk without exploding.
On the other hand, the heavy armor of the German raiders was exactly what was needed for the 15" shells to function properly.

It's not a matter of winning the battle - S&G would have, ultimately, sunk Renown - it's a matter of perspective between 11" and 15" guned ships...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Ersatz Yorck wrote: But even during operation Berlin, the S&G only sank a fraction of the tonnage the U-boats sank during the same period. True, the surface ships were a threat the British were forced to react to, but the real ship sinker was the U-boats.
The twins were not able to sink more ships than they did because the convoys were too well protected - and not just against the surface threat but against U-boats as well.
The real ship sinker was obviously the U-boats collectivelly. But the twins still sank more than the average individual U-boat and posed a far greater threat than an individual U-boat.
''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: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Ersatz Yorck wrote: Even though I love warships, I múst say I think the surface fleet was an expensive distraction for Germany in both world wars. A distraction that created enemies and that took resources that could have been used to win the war where Germany's best chances lay - on land.
A surface fleet is an essential requirement for Germany to defeat Britain. You cannot defeat a sea power by land forces alone. The Heer alone in 1940 could not even have thought about invading Britain.

The British had by international agreement in 1934 agreed that Germany could construct a substantial surface fleet. Building to that limit openly would not have ordinarily have created enemies. The obvious weakness with that agreement was the restriction on submarines - but even here the British agreed to 100% of their own construction, which if war started in 1939 would have left the KM with the foundation for rapid expansion - had they properly planned for it.

Another clarification needed is the claim that Germany only needs to fight on land. Agaiinst whom? If Germany is to dominate Europe then that means defeating Britain, a sea power. If victory is required against Russia, Britain must be completely defeated first. You need all three combat arms to achieve such goals. Not one force, and certainly not just one weapon.
Then there is the question of the USA. While Britain is unoccuppied then the US can strike at Germany direct by using Britain as a base. Germany couldn't touch the mainland USA. How does the Heer win here?
''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: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote: ... Renown's thin armor made the proper functioning of 11" AP shells questionable - their 0.05s fuze delays were to long to cause detonation inside the ship. This is precisely what happened during the engagement - Gneisenau's shells passed through Renown - and precisely what happened at North Cape, when several 11" shells from Scharnhorst passed through Norfolk without exploding.
Against Norfolk logically HE shells should have been used? And against Renown a mix of HE and AP shells?

And against Renown have the two German ships apart, ideally on opposite flanks to the British ship, rather a reverse of the River Plate battle?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Saltheart
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:46 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by Saltheart »

If Germany prewar had built as big a surface fleet as allowed by treaty then it would have taken resources away from tank, truck, artillery and aircraft production. The German army would not have been ready for the campaigns against Poland or France. As far as equipment went in 1938 when they moved into the Sudetenland their tank forces were tiny. A year later they had enough for 6 Panzer divisions against Poland but even just 6 months earlier they couldn't have had those armored forces.
Hitler chose to put the navy last in equipment because otherwise land campaigns would have been impossible. Germany just did not have the resources for a big navy as well as big modern equipped army.
Hitler also saw Russia not Britain as his ultimate enemy and knew a huge army had to be built if he had a hope of winning that battle. In the end Russia was far to strong anyway. Even without fighting Britain Germany would have lost to Russia.
For Germany to win the war it needed to keep to the non-aggression pact with Stalin and pour all resources into a naval war with Britain after the fall of France. But such a huge naval build up of the kind actually needed to beat Britain would have threatened the US and increased the likelihood of Roosevelt being able to persuade the American people of Germany's threat and enter the war in Europe. So again Germany would have been defeated.
Also even if Germany got lucky and somehow America stayed out the German concentration on naval power would have left them vulnerable to Soviet land power and once Stalin had finished reorganising and reequipping the Red Army (by 1943 at the latest) he would have broken the non agression pact and come knocking. Germany loses again.
Basically by starting a war he could not finish in 1939 Hitler left himself open to having other powers join that war if they so chose and when they chose and finish him. He started out on a tight rope and had to just keep going right through to defeat.

Sorry! I should have said this post was to RF.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Saltheart wrote:If Germany prewar had built as big a surface fleet as allowed by treaty then it would have taken resources away from tank, truck, artillery and aircraft production. The German army would not have been ready for the campaigns against Poland or France........ . Germany just did not have the resources for a big navy as well as big modern equipped army.
The first sentemce here assumes that what the economists call ''opportunity costs'' apply. A microeconomics approach isn't in my view appropriate here, because Germanys' economy was not well managed by the nazies, More specifically it wasn't mobilised for total war (until September 1944!!).

A production possibilities approach is more appropriate, based on the macroeconomic concepts of resource utilisation and input/output analysis. An efficient German economy with optimal allocation and utilisation of resources could have catered for much larger branches of all three armed services - a large army and a large navy.

Had the USA economy been run with the efficiency of Nazi Germany it could never have launched D-Day or come anywhere near winning the war. The same argument applies to the USSR.
And don't forget - Britain mobilised a large army, a large air force and maintained a growing navy.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Ersatz Yorck
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:56 pm

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by Ersatz Yorck »

RF wrote: And don't forget - Britain mobilised a large army, a large air force and maintained a growing navy.
Britain had a completely different ratio between the branches of service compared to Germany. The British army was the smallest branch, while the German army was always preeminent.

If using the terms of economics, Germany had comparative advantages in that her army was several notches above any other army in the world in the 1940s. Her air force was good, certainly among the best, but not that much better that anyone else's, and the KM was at best indifferent in overall quality. Thus, German resources, regardless of the efficiency of the German war effort, would give considerably more bang for the buck if put in the army.

As for winning the war, Germany was never in a position to be able to out-produce both the US and Great Britain to win a maritime war. Germany had to have a strong enough army to beat France and Britain on the ground and did that. The German army almost beat the Soviet union. If less resources had been put into battleships, it would have enabled more tanks, or even more importantly, perhaps more trucks and better logistics for operation Barbarossa. With the Soviet union defeated it is very hard to imagine a successful invasion of Europe by the western allies. Not really a German win, but at least a draw, and that is considerably better what Germany did achieve. Just to be on the safe side I would like to stress that I certainly would not wish for a German victory in WW2, I am merely discussing the alternatives.
Saltheart
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:46 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by Saltheart »

Ersatz Yorck wrote:
RF wrote: And don't forget - Britain mobilised a large army, a large air force and maintained a growing navy.
Britain had a completely different ratio between the branches of service compared to Germany. The British army was the smallest branch, while the German army was always preeminent.

If using the terms of economics, Germany had comparative advantages in that her army was several notches above any other army in the world in the 1940s. Her air force was good, certainly among the best, but not that much better that anyone else's, and the KM was at best indifferent in overall quality. Thus, German resources, regardless of the efficiency of the German war effort, would give considerably more bang for the buck if put in the army.

As for winning the war, Germany was never in a position to be able to out-produce both the US and Great Britain to win a maritime war. Germany had to have a strong enough army to beat France and Britain on the ground and did that. The German army almost beat the Soviet union. If less resources had been put into battleships, it would have enabled more tanks, or even more importantly, perhaps more trucks and better logistics for operation Barbarossa. With the Soviet union defeated it is very hard to imagine a successful invasion of Europe by the western allies. Not really a German win, but at least a draw, and that is considerably better what Germany did achieve. Just to be on the safe side I would like to stress that I certainly would not wish for a German victory in WW2, I am merely discussing the alternatives.
I agree with this to a large extent except to win in Russia would have needed different leadership as Hitler scrabbling around in the Ukraine in 41 then the Caucasus in 42 allowed the Soviets to keep their communications centre and mobilise their strength. Only hitting to Moscow in 41 and Perm in 42 could have seen the Germans overun enough of the Russian population to stop the Soviets having enough men to drive them back out of the country. Basically a draw with a stalemate on the Urals.
As for the west if America gets involved then it's over as even if the Germans have a huge army in France to defeat invasions they still can't cope with the 100,000 aircraft a year America will build. The Allies will still gain air superiority over time and then bomb Germany to destruction. If it isn't over by August 45 it will end then anyway in a mushroom cloud. So even if Russia had been beaten and not just driven to the Urals Germany would still have lost to America.
Basically when Hitler started a war which he could not end, could not force to an end, but which instead was dependent on the British agreeing to peace he placed Germany in a fatal position. If he builds enough ships to beat Britain he will almost inevitably bring in America and then he loses. So ripping up the Munich agreement and invading Poland in the first place was the whole problem.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Ersatz Yorck wrote: . The German army almost beat the Soviet union. If less resources had been put into battleships, it would have enabled more tanks, or even more importantly, perhaps more trucks and better logistics for operation Barbarossa.
I don't think you have grasped the analysis I have offered.

There isn't a straight trade off between producing battleships and tanks, not least because we are talking different factories, different companies/engineers and different allocations of labour and transport infrastructure. Where there is synthesis would be in the materials used, in steel, cabling, engine parts etc but even here it still isn't a straight trade-off. What I am getting at is economic efficiency in the allocation and usage of the factors of production. If materials and labour are better used, if productivity is increased, then there is scope to have more of everything - more tanks, more panzer divisions and more battleships.
All of the USSR, UK and USSR did things far better than any of the industrialised Axis powers. Germany could not possibly outproduce the USA - but could have matched the USSR if the proper leadership and management was in place, with the required incentives. Germany was far more productive under Adenauer than it ever was under Hitler, not just because of Marshall Aid (which enabled West Germany to start from practically nothing) but primarily because of the free market private enterprise capitalism that was allowed to flourish in West Germany. Much the same also is true of post-WW2 Japan.

Had the nazies fully exploited a private enterprise economy, albeit with state direction, instead of stifling it with oppressive taxation and bureaucracy and millions of office bureaucrats who could have been more productively employed eleswhere, Germany could have had more than double the tanks and battleships by June 1941, with Britain under occupation Barbarossa would well have succeeded.
''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: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Ersatz Yorck wrote: Germany had to have a strong enough army to beat France and Britain on the ground and did that.
With respect, Germany didn't.

Yes they defeated France, but to Britain, in being forced to evacuate its army from France, that was a defeat in battle and not the loss of a war. To defeat the British Army completely means invading Britain and occupying the country. For that, as I have previously posted, the Heer is not enough because it has to cross the sea to get into Britain. For that a navy and independent strategic air forces are required.
''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: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Saltheart wrote:
As for the west if America gets involved then it's over as even if the Germans have a huge army in France to defeat invasions they still can't cope with the 100,000 aircraft a year America will build. The Allies will still gain air superiority over time and then bomb Germany to destruction. If it isn't over by August 45 it will end then anyway in a mushroom cloud.
Not necessarily.

The problem for Germany in fighting the USA is simply being able to put the US mainland and its military-industrial complex under serious fire.
There were ways in which Germany could attack the US mainland. Firstly there was the development of specialised bomber aircraft which did in reality get to the planning stage. Secondly there was the potential of rocket weapons, starting with the A10. Thirdly there was the atomic bomb development. Germany could have achieved all three, but for the ideology and bureaucratic practices of the nazies. Replace Hitler with the Kaiser and Germany would have done better. A ruler such as Adenauer or even Merkel would have done even better in running Germany in a world war. The key to winning is this - proper strategic planning, full mobilisation of your economy and most important of all - take on only one opponent at a time, and defeat them one by one in a series of separate wars.
Very much the way that Bismarck achieved his objectives between 1862 and 1871. He didn't take on France, Austria and Denmark all at the same time, but in separate wars and avoided conflict with Britain and Russia altogether.
''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: 3 German battleships in May 1941.

Post by RF »

Saltheart wrote:
Basically when Hitler started a war which he could not end, could not force to an end, but which instead was dependent on the British agreeing to peace he placed Germany in a fatal position. If he builds enough ships to beat Britain he will almost inevitably bring in America and then he loses. So ripping up the Munich agreement and invading Poland in the first place was the whole problem.
No.

Hitler won the war in Poland in September 1939. The country was obliterated from the map and partitioned. Yes, Polish military forces escaped and continued to fight, effectively for the British and the rest of the Allies rather than purely for themselves, as they discovered in 1945 when a communist regime was installed by the Soviets in their recreated Poland.

Hitler defeated France. He could and should have finished the job by the early summer of 1940, by launching an all out assault on Britain immediately on the French surrender. He was in a winning position - and threw it away.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply