Hello, everybody.
This could make a good sequel to the other thread, “German mistakes” and although the subject may have been discussed in other threads, (I’ve scrolled the pages of this link but found none concerning my idea) I felt nonetheless that this still could be an interesting debate. I’ve gathered a few of the most remarkable moments in German naval history of World War II and simply toss the ball to you, guys… Which one would you rank as the most significant and/or remarkable single event in Kriegsmarine history?
A) The sortie of the Admiral Graf Spee.
More than just the hunt for an independent raider, there was also the Altmark episode
B) The daring venture of U-47.
Not the finest of moments in the history of the Royal Navy
C) The secret documents of the Automedes - Atlantis’ boarding party.
These documents could have been crucial to the naval situation in the Pacific
D) The sortie of the raider Penguin.
Perhaps the most successful of all Kriegsmarine ships
E) The largest naval operation during the war – Weserubung.
Despite some losses, a successful naval blitz attack
G) The Bismarck sinking the Hood - Rheinubung
Self-explanatory…!!!
H) “The happy times”
Admiral Dönitz introduced the wolf pack tactics, it proved very successful
J) Operation Cerberus - Channel dash
Not since the 11th Century has a non-British warship successfully passed the English Channel in wartime (This I’ve read but am not 100% sure about)
K) Tirpitz’ success as a “fleet in being”
A naval weapon that didn’t even have to be present to achieve results
These are the options that came to mind right now. If you have others, please add them as well. It’s not my intention to compare the action of the Bismarck with the “happy times” but hopefully measure the magnitude of each event. I’m thinking of the consequences derived from each event in terms of politics and propaganda, strategies and tactics as well as impact upon naval history in general.
Very best regards
Single events in Kriegsmarine history
-
Terje Langoy
- Supporter
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Hi Terje.
Great idea for a thread.
B and J stand out as being very audacious, ok so losing Royal Oak and having the Twins escape through the channel were not going to cost Britain the war but they certainly dented British morale and pride.
D. the sortie of Pinguin, the most successful German ship of WW2 is a must.
But I think the single biggest Kriegsmarine victory of the war has to be Bismarck sinking Hood.
Was there ever a larger force of ships involved in hunting down a single ship?
To destroy Britains favourite and most loved capital ship in a matter of minutes has to be their biggest success.
Unfortuntaely for the Germans, 3 days later their victory went down the toilet.
Great idea for a thread.
B and J stand out as being very audacious, ok so losing Royal Oak and having the Twins escape through the channel were not going to cost Britain the war but they certainly dented British morale and pride.
D. the sortie of Pinguin, the most successful German ship of WW2 is a must.
But I think the single biggest Kriegsmarine victory of the war has to be Bismarck sinking Hood.
Was there ever a larger force of ships involved in hunting down a single ship?
To destroy Britains favourite and most loved capital ship in a matter of minutes has to be their biggest success.
Unfortuntaely for the Germans, 3 days later their victory went down the toilet.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
-
Terje Langoy
- Supporter
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Hello, Gary.
These were also my thoughts when I mentioned them. But although the Bismarck unleashed a goose chase without an equal in naval history, she still only count for a single ship sunk. (disregarding the nature of that particular ship, of course) If you look only at the numbers, U-47 also sunk a capital enemy warship...
What about the Atlantis' boarding party? They found papers with vital information, where the Admiralty expressed their concern for their naval situation in the Pacific. These got into the hands of the Germans and later also the Japanese. Could it be described as a decisive blow that the Japanese got to know that the RN were not as mighty as they seemed to be in the Pacific? (What about 10th December, 1941 - Force Z?) According to what I've read, the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse were one of those that left a mark upon Churchill. But was the attack on these ships in any way connected to the papers found aboard the Automedes? A deterrent that didn't work because of the achievement by Atlantis' crew?
And what about the Cossack ignoring Norwegian neutrality? (Altmark incident in Jossing fjord) What effect did this have on the Norwegians being gridlocked between Germany and Great Britain? The Graf Spee had left Montevideo and thus respected other countries neutrality but the RN severely violated this. I do not doubt that Phillip Vian acted in the best of interest and I think he did the right thing but he nonetheless made a signal that Britain didn't necessarily respect neutrality zones.
What about Weserubung? Norway would play a vital role in the plans of the Kriegsmarine, not only in supplying iron ore but in offering ports of relative safety and thus open up the area of operations. The operation was favourable in many ways and much depended upon it's success. There's no doubt that seizing Norway played a major role in Kriegsmarine stategy. Every capital warship except the Graf Spee, which visited Norway in peacetime, had Norway as base of operations or as a middle station before proceeding.
Churchill expressed after the war that the only thing that really frightened him during the war was the German submarines. This theatre of the war saw a lot of inventions both technical and tactical, spanning from Asdic and Mortar, Naxos and Schnorkel to Liberty-ships and counter-sub warfare. It was indeed a theatre that could have brought Great Britain to her knees, something that luckily never happened.
The Tirpitz caused more of a headache to the RN than the Bismarck, she was a constant threat over several years. Much time, monitoring and futile attempts were acquired before countering this. She proved valuable simply by being and that certainly put her on the list. (Could her success as a fleet in being be related to the achievements of the Bismarck?)
This is just some immediate thoughts but hopefully they can reflect some magnitude of these events and bring forth new elements to consider, which is exactly what I hoped for when starting the thread.
Very best regards
These were also my thoughts when I mentioned them. But although the Bismarck unleashed a goose chase without an equal in naval history, she still only count for a single ship sunk. (disregarding the nature of that particular ship, of course) If you look only at the numbers, U-47 also sunk a capital enemy warship...
What about the Atlantis' boarding party? They found papers with vital information, where the Admiralty expressed their concern for their naval situation in the Pacific. These got into the hands of the Germans and later also the Japanese. Could it be described as a decisive blow that the Japanese got to know that the RN were not as mighty as they seemed to be in the Pacific? (What about 10th December, 1941 - Force Z?) According to what I've read, the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse were one of those that left a mark upon Churchill. But was the attack on these ships in any way connected to the papers found aboard the Automedes? A deterrent that didn't work because of the achievement by Atlantis' crew?
And what about the Cossack ignoring Norwegian neutrality? (Altmark incident in Jossing fjord) What effect did this have on the Norwegians being gridlocked between Germany and Great Britain? The Graf Spee had left Montevideo and thus respected other countries neutrality but the RN severely violated this. I do not doubt that Phillip Vian acted in the best of interest and I think he did the right thing but he nonetheless made a signal that Britain didn't necessarily respect neutrality zones.
What about Weserubung? Norway would play a vital role in the plans of the Kriegsmarine, not only in supplying iron ore but in offering ports of relative safety and thus open up the area of operations. The operation was favourable in many ways and much depended upon it's success. There's no doubt that seizing Norway played a major role in Kriegsmarine stategy. Every capital warship except the Graf Spee, which visited Norway in peacetime, had Norway as base of operations or as a middle station before proceeding.
Churchill expressed after the war that the only thing that really frightened him during the war was the German submarines. This theatre of the war saw a lot of inventions both technical and tactical, spanning from Asdic and Mortar, Naxos and Schnorkel to Liberty-ships and counter-sub warfare. It was indeed a theatre that could have brought Great Britain to her knees, something that luckily never happened.
The Tirpitz caused more of a headache to the RN than the Bismarck, she was a constant threat over several years. Much time, monitoring and futile attempts were acquired before countering this. She proved valuable simply by being and that certainly put her on the list. (Could her success as a fleet in being be related to the achievements of the Bismarck?)
This is just some immediate thoughts but hopefully they can reflect some magnitude of these events and bring forth new elements to consider, which is exactly what I hoped for when starting the thread.
Very best regards
Hi Terje.
Regarding Cossack.......
I suspect the British were not so concerned about upsetting them (Norway) as they were practically in Britains backyard and they could make amends whenever. (example, Devonshire carrying the Norwegian King and his gold to saftey).
To put it plainly, Britain and Norway were neighbours and friends and a small violation of neutrality could be repaired.
2 Close friends may have a disagreement but they will NOT become mortal enemies because of one incident.
Urguay openly had the support of almost every country in the America's.
Britain didnt want to burn its bridges with the various countries of the America's because they may need them and they would be harder to repair relations with.
Maybe I'm off the mark but that is just my basic feeling.
Regarding Cossack.......
I suspect the British were not so concerned about upsetting them (Norway) as they were practically in Britains backyard and they could make amends whenever. (example, Devonshire carrying the Norwegian King and his gold to saftey).
To put it plainly, Britain and Norway were neighbours and friends and a small violation of neutrality could be repaired.
2 Close friends may have a disagreement but they will NOT become mortal enemies because of one incident.
Urguay openly had the support of almost every country in the America's.
Britain didnt want to burn its bridges with the various countries of the America's because they may need them and they would be harder to repair relations with.
Maybe I'm off the mark but that is just my basic feeling.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
-
Terje Langoy
- Supporter
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Hello, Gary.
I didn't have the relations between Britain and Norway in mind, in fact I think the Norwegians were pleased with the Cossack simply rushing in and get the job done. Vian's actions helped Norway out of a possible diplomatic crisis and I'm sure both Norwegian and British authorities could settle with that. I was more bent towards the international perception of the episode, where you have one power that respected the neutrality areas whereas the other didn't. But it's of course important to hold in mind that Germany used other countries neutrality for their own benefit.
Very best regards
I didn't have the relations between Britain and Norway in mind, in fact I think the Norwegians were pleased with the Cossack simply rushing in and get the job done. Vian's actions helped Norway out of a possible diplomatic crisis and I'm sure both Norwegian and British authorities could settle with that. I was more bent towards the international perception of the episode, where you have one power that respected the neutrality areas whereas the other didn't. But it's of course important to hold in mind that Germany used other countries neutrality for their own benefit.
Very best regards
-
Terje Langoy
- Supporter
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Hello, Gary.
I must apologise for my very bad posting. I see that I made a point of the Norwegians being gridlocked in my first reply. It was truly the international perception of the episode I had in mind although that's a point that my post indeed failed to highlight. Yes, I agree on the point you bring forth. Norway and England were close connected and the action of Vian were in the best of interest for us both. I was simply thinking about one thing and writing another
Very best regards
I must apologise for my very bad posting. I see that I made a point of the Norwegians being gridlocked in my first reply. It was truly the international perception of the episode I had in mind although that's a point that my post indeed failed to highlight. Yes, I agree on the point you bring forth. Norway and England were close connected and the action of Vian were in the best of interest for us both. I was simply thinking about one thing and writing another
Very best regards
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
I believe that the most important naval activity of the KM was, without doubt, her unrestricted U-Boat campaign in North Atlantic. If something was going to put Great Britain in the verje of surrender were the U-Boats.
Obviously the surface raiders and the big ships as Bismarck or Schanhorst appeal a lot to the Military History buffs (and those ships were beautifull), but the course of the war was in the hands of 17 and 18 year old boys on board those "pig-boats".
Some 50 or 60 more U boats at the right moment in the Atlantic and the USA must have some problems finding an "unsinkable" aircraft carrier as were the Isles...
Obviously the surface raiders and the big ships as Bismarck or Schanhorst appeal a lot to the Military History buffs (and those ships were beautifull), but the course of the war was in the hands of 17 and 18 year old boys on board those "pig-boats".
Some 50 or 60 more U boats at the right moment in the Atlantic and the USA must have some problems finding an "unsinkable" aircraft carrier as were the Isles...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
In reviewing the original thread the most significant event for the KM surface fleet was the sinking of Hood. Apart from Corenel in WW1 it is the only clear substantial German naval victory over the British without U-boat involvement.
The hilfskreuzer are somewhat undermentioned and Pinguin was not the only substantial success. Thor engaged three British AMC's and sank one of them. Kormoran ambushed and sank the Sydney.
In fact the hilfskreuzer were also an opportunity lost to the Germans - purpose built Q-Ships, better armed, with greater endurence and turn of speed could have achieved so much more.
Another opportunity lost by the Germans was their neglect of naval air power and the completion of the two aircraft carriers.
The hilfskreuzer are somewhat undermentioned and Pinguin was not the only substantial success. Thor engaged three British AMC's and sank one of them. Kormoran ambushed and sank the Sydney.
In fact the hilfskreuzer were also an opportunity lost to the Germans - purpose built Q-Ships, better armed, with greater endurence and turn of speed could have achieved so much more.
Another opportunity lost by the Germans was their neglect of naval air power and the completion of the two aircraft carriers.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
-
Terje Langoy
- Supporter
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
It's not my intention to leave out the hilfkreuzers, RF, but rather include other ships as well. I've not mentioned a single one of heavy cruisers. Can't think of an event that make a difference. Karl, could we say that measured in success, (tonnage sunk pr. ship) the hilfkreuzers did just as good as the submarines? You have "Silent Otto" as one of the highlighted sub commanders but did he ever do something remarkable? I'm not looking solely for the ships that could turn the war but did things that in some way was remarkable. Like the Kormoran sinking the Sydney... That's the little extra, the "remarkable" I had in mind. The Happy times are placed in my list since the Wolf packs played such a vital part, being remarkable or not. But I'm more curious to whether they had any other daring sub commanders besides Gunther Prien?
The Bismarck is mentioned as a siginificant and substantial event. What of the Tirpitz? I find the term "A fleet in being" to be quite remarkable. It is truly something to be recognized that the only battleship left in the KM should be able to pose such a threat for several years. Even at anchor, she was still offensive. Any thoughts?
Best regards
The Bismarck is mentioned as a siginificant and substantial event. What of the Tirpitz? I find the term "A fleet in being" to be quite remarkable. It is truly something to be recognized that the only battleship left in the KM should be able to pose such a threat for several years. Even at anchor, she was still offensive. Any thoughts?
Best regards
Terje asked about daring sub-commanders apart from Prien.
One such commander I would mention would be Heinrich Timm, who commanded the only German U-boat in WW2 to operate in the Pacific Ocean.
He took U-859 on a voyage from Germany to Singapore, then did a cruise down Western Australia, through the Australian Bight and sank a US Liberty ship off Sydney harbour on Christmas Day 1944. He then moved across the Tasman Sea and cruised up the east coast of New Zealand, attacking unsucessfully a ship in Napier Bay - the most distant U-boat operation from Germany in WW2.
He successfully retraced his course back to Singapore, in so doing sinking the last Allied merchant ship to be sunk in the Indian Ocean in WW2.
Timm only sank 10 ships - no major influence on WW2 - but made a significant impression on the Australian navy, which put considerable effort into a fruitless hunt for him.
One such commander I would mention would be Heinrich Timm, who commanded the only German U-boat in WW2 to operate in the Pacific Ocean.
He took U-859 on a voyage from Germany to Singapore, then did a cruise down Western Australia, through the Australian Bight and sank a US Liberty ship off Sydney harbour on Christmas Day 1944. He then moved across the Tasman Sea and cruised up the east coast of New Zealand, attacking unsucessfully a ship in Napier Bay - the most distant U-boat operation from Germany in WW2.
He successfully retraced his course back to Singapore, in so doing sinking the last Allied merchant ship to be sunk in the Indian Ocean in WW2.
Timm only sank 10 ships - no major influence on WW2 - but made a significant impression on the Australian navy, which put considerable effort into a fruitless hunt for him.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Yes, the Tirpitz had a cosiderable impact on WW2 at strategic as well as tactical level. Its principal success was the destruction of convoy PQ 17 simply by posing a threat.Terje Langoy wrote:
The Bismarck is mentioned as a siginificant and substantial event. What of the Tirpitz? I find the term "A fleet in being" to be quite remarkable. It is truly something to be recognized that the only battleship left in the KM should be able to pose such a threat for several years. Even at anchor, she was still offensive. Any thoughts?
Best regards
Arguably it could be said that the Japanese gained more from Tirpitz than the Germans - all the ships that the British and US deployed against her could alternatively be deployed in the Pacific, as they were once Tirpitz had been destroyed in November 1944.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
With the Hipper class cruisers there was of course Prinz Eugen, which caused substantial damage to Hood, went up the English Channel unscathed and survived the war.Terje Langoy wrote: I've not mentioned a single one of heavy cruisers. Can't think of an event that make a difference.
Best regards
I would also mention Krancke's voyage with Admiral Scheer to the Indian Ocean and back, the most successful single heavy ship commerce raiding operation in WW2.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Not sure about that. Wasn't the large fire on Hood caused by PE? I believe there were also a large number of casualties due to a PE hit on an area where the flak crews had taken refuge.Gary wrote:It was superficial damage thoughwhich caused substantial damage to Hood
Remember, IJN Kirishima was crippled by US Cruiser and destroyer gunfire. Battleships can't disregard cruiser fire by any means.