German waste of resources??

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: German Navy

#106

Post by BDV » 14 Nov 2012, 00:04

Takao wrote:Those were the Kriegsmarine's two strategic missions? Even though it had too few vessels to accomplish either one strategic missions alone, let alone do both at the same time.

Hitler started his war before the Kriegsmarine was in, any way, shape, or form, prepared for a "world" war.
So you agree with the historical Kriegsmarine as being risible.


At best, the only "strategic" mission the kriegsmarine was capable of was coastal defense.
And for that, fleet 1/3 surface, 1/5 submersibles vs. the historical size would have been just fine.


Takao wrote:Laughable...Really...It took the British, what, almost 3 YEARS to conduct their first successful, large scale amphibious operation(Operation Ironclad in July, '42). Now, what if the British had been able to focus their overwhelming naval supremacy somewhat earlier in the war, instead of being forced to dilute their naval forces to cover the many British vulnerable sea areas.

Without a credible naval threat from the German Kriegsmarine, the British, very likely could focus their vast naval effort much earlier in the war.
The Empyr lacked the land-based capabilities required to conduct large scale amphibious operations against targets that would justify the effort in those years. So it's a moot point. Building up the land based capabilities took time.

How easy to dismiss the RN's success in achieving its strategic naval goals, as tasked in 1939, in that Great Britain did keep its own sealanes open and did close those of Germany's. When such momentous strategic achievements are beyond you even mentioning them, instead you're focusing on a secondary task RN was not even remotely expected to accomplish in 1939?!?


Takao wrote:The conflict arises as to how effective those "other" purposes are.
IMO, relatively effective, especially in the synthetic oil production, establishing heavy device production facilities(tank, heavy artillery), and after 1941 railway build-up, and in supporting the auxiliaries to establish their own heavy equipment production/repair lines.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: German waste of resources??

#107

Post by Rob Stuart » 14 Nov 2012, 04:16

During NS Regime, Germany built 2 Battleships, 3 Battle cruisers and 5 Heavy cruisers ...
This is not correct. During the Nazi regime the Germans built 2 battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz), 2 battlecruisers (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, both completed before Sept '39) and 3 heavy cruisers (Admiral Hipper, Blücher and Prinz Eugen - Seydlitz and Lützow were never completed).

There was also the three pocket battleships, but they were built by the Weimar Republic.


Rob


Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: German waste of resources??

#108

Post by Rob Stuart » 14 Nov 2012, 05:25

But as the British blockade of mainland Europe was at no point under any serious threat, and the UBoot blockade of Britain was an abysmal failure, the Kriegsmarine failed miserably in its two strategic missions: defend Germany's sea lanes, and obstruct Britain's.

That, for the first half of the war, the Kriegsmarine influenced/obstructed Royal Navy's tactical deployment is a risible return on the heavy investment of resources and political capital. And, to be fair, a testament to RN's men & manowars and to Admiralty's strategic acumen.
The KM was partially successful in defending Germany's sea lanes. It's true that it could not defend the sea lanes to the Americas or Asia, but this was due not only to its small size but also to its lack of overseas bases and the proliferation of RN bases on the flanks of these sea lanes, including the RN's home ports in the UK. In WW1 the Gemans had the world's second largest navy but were equally unable to defend these transoceanic routes. On the other hand, the KM successfully defended the very important sea routes to Sweden and, between June 1940 and late 1943 or so, the route to Norway and the coastal traffic of France, Belguim, Norway and Denmark. This was done mostly with destroyers, torpedo boats and smaller vessels, which hardly constituted a big drain on Germany's resources.

The KM enjoyed a substantial level of success in obstructing Britain's sea lanes. It did not sever Britain's maritime links, but that does not mean that it was not worthwhile. The Battle of the Atlantic tied up far more Allied than German resources. Think of all the amphibious vessels not built because the Allies had to build destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and replacement merchant ships. (In 1944 OVERLORD was postponed from early May from early June, and DRAGOON delayed until August, due to a lack of landing craft, IIRC.) Think of all the Liberators and Wellingtons employed against the u-boats instead of bombing land targets. Think of Glorious, Courageous, Ark Royal, Eagle, Royal Oak, Hood, Barham and others, not available to fight the Japanese because the KM sank them. (How might Force Z have fared if it had had Glorious, Courageous and Ark Royal?)

Far from being a waste of resources, the KM was a bargain. The biggest ships had all been completed or at least launched before the war, so it cost Germany little to use them until they were lost. The merchant raiders (e.g. Atlantis) were extremely cost effective and punched way above their weight. Building the 1100 or so u-boats was a pretty substantial investment, but well worth it, and the 60,000 or so men who manned them must have tied down an awful lot more than 60,000 Allied servicemen. And, as noted by some other posters, plants producing naval materiel cannot necessarily be switched to making tanks or aircraft. And what would be the point in taking a skilled but middle-aged welder out of a shipyard and giving him a rifle?

The KM was not risible. It was defeated, but it was not a waste of resources.

Rob

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German waste of resources??

#109

Post by LWD » 14 Nov 2012, 14:37

Rob Stuart wrote: ... 2 battlecruisers (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, ...
The Germans considered these battleships and they weren't alone in this matter. The French equivalants were also built as battleships.

gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 19:46

Re: German waste of resources??

#110

Post by gurn » 15 Nov 2012, 00:40

IF the German navy is considered a waste of resources, then anything the germans did after the first soldier set foot on Polish soil would also be a waste.
In terms of human resources why did they not put the women to work in the factories and fields?
Monetarily how much money could have been saved/spent better if they did not hold the Olympic Games?

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: German waste of resources??

#111

Post by BDV » 15 Nov 2012, 03:42

gurn wrote:IF the German navy is considered a waste of resources, then anything the germans did after the first soldier set foot on Polish soil would also be a waste.
In some respect this holds true. One can say that anything Germany did after the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia was a waste of resources. However my point is that the historical Kriegsmarine was wasteful even within the scope of the Nazi Germany war effort. The land forces at least inflicted severe, crushing defeats on Germany's immediate enemies, Poland and France.


But KM accomplished exactly WHAT? Slightly impede Britain's importation of raw materials? Force old ladies to wait in lines for citrus fruit? Sink cheapo old ships (many not British), crewed by blue collar civilians (often not British, or even European), schlepping raw materials, by using new, expensive devices, crewed by the finest 3rd Reich volunteering warriors.

In a most glaring example of failure, the mighty KM was not even able to close one sea lane by which Great Britain was providing war wares to Bolshevik Russia, despite copious Luftwaffe help, despite the lane snaking for hundreds, thousands of miles just outside KM anchorages.

How Kriegsmarine can be seen anything but an abysmal failure escapes me.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: German waste of resources??

#112

Post by Takao » 15 Nov 2012, 12:24

Oh BDV, you are too much!

Cheapo, and to a certain extent, "old" ships like these?
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/largest.html

Expecting a vessel of the Norwegian merchant fleet to be crewed by Britons, not only that, but one that was sunk by a Japanese I-Boat!

I guess your next argument will be that the Kriegsmarine was such a waste that Germany left it to the Imperial Japanese Navy had to sink the Allied merchants for them.

As much as you seem to favor the warsailors.com website, you apparently neglected to view this page: http://www.warsailors.com/convoys/index.html
Seems to me, that at least in the convoys listed, the ships were preponderantly British flagged.

Although, consulting the Arnold Hague Convoy database would probably be a better option:
http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/
Since that is where warsailors.com got there information from.

Further, I was unaware that tanks, planes, trucks, locomotives, etc. were now considered "raw materials."

Finally, didn't the SS get the "finest" volunteers?

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: German waste of resources??

#113

Post by Rob Stuart » 15 Nov 2012, 13:20

the historical Kriegsmarine was wasteful even within the scope of the Nazi Germany war effort. The land forces at least inflicted severe, crushing defeats on Germany's immediate enemies, Poland and France.
When I was in the Canadian Army, I was in the signal corps. It was not our role to inflict crushing defeats on Canada's immediate enemies. It was our role to support those who did and we were not a waste of resources just because we didn't do the shooting. In the same way, the KM's contribution to the overall Axis war effort was significant and far from being a waste, even if it did not crush any foreign enemy. If Britain had fallen in the spring of 1941 due to the efforts of the KM and Luftwaffe, would you argue that the German Army had been a waste of resources?
In a most glaring example of failure, the mighty KM was not even able to close one sea lane by which Great Britain was providing war wares to Bolshevik Russia, despite copious Luftwaffe help, despite the lane snaking for hundreds, thousands of miles just outside KM anchorages.
Really? Have you never heard of PQ 17? Have you not heard of the heavy casualties the other arctic convoys sustained? (In Halley's books of RAF aircraft serial numbers, the notation "Allocated to Russia. Lost at sea." appears against many of the aircraft.) Are you not aware that Britain suspended the convoys to Russia in 1942 because it needed the escorts to protect the TORCH convoys from u-boats?

To put it another way, we know that the US submarine campaign ultimately inflicted crippling losses on the Japanese merchant fleet, yet it closed no Japanese sea lane until very late in the war. If Japan had done the sensible thing and surrendered after losing the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, would historians be justified in saying the US submarines were wasteful, since after more than 30 months they had failed to close any Japanese sea lane?

Far from being wasteful, the KM was too small. If it had been the size of the French or Italian fleet, Hitler may have been able to invade Britian in September 1940, since a fleet that large may have been able to get the invasion fleet across the channel even without the RAF being crushed first.

(By the way, I find it pretty strange that you think that building submarines instead of tanks was a waste of resources but argue in another thread that producing Do 22's instead of Ju 52's would have been a great idea.)



Rob

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: German waste of resources??

#114

Post by Kingfish » 15 Nov 2012, 13:39

Rob Stuart wrote:When I was in the Canadian Army, I was in the signal corps. It was not our role to inflict crushing defeats on Canada's immediate enemies. It was our role to support those who did and we were not a waste of resources just because we didn't do the shooting.
In all fairness I'm sure your results were in line with your potential. I don't think anyone could argue that having Tirpitz sitting in a Norwegian fiord was a good example of scarce resources being utilized to their maximum potential.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German waste of resources??

#115

Post by LWD » 15 Nov 2012, 14:10

Kingfish wrote: ... I don't think anyone could argue that having Tirpitz sitting in a Norwegian fiord was a good example of scarce resources being utilized to their maximum potential.
I'm not sure I can think of a much better use for Tirpitz at that point. Scrapping would have taken considerable time and effort. At that point in time Tirpitz was a "sunk cost" (pun not intended). The KM wasn't as useful as it was hoped it would be but that's in large part because the war didn't develop the way the Germans thought it would especially in the mid 30's. Saying it was a waste of resources seems a lot like "monday morning quarterbacking" to me.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: German waste of resources??

#116

Post by Kingfish » 15 Nov 2012, 14:22

LWD wrote: I'm not sure I can think of a much better use for Tirpitz at that point. Scrapping would have taken considerable time and effort. At that point in time Tirpitz was a "sunk cost" (pun not intended). The KM wasn't as useful as it was hoped it would be but that's in large part because the war didn't develop the way the Germans thought it would especially in the mid 30's. Saying it was a waste of resources seems a lot like "monday morning quarterbacking" to me.
It seems you and I have a different interpretation of a waste of resources. When you build an item, be it a battleship or a ball point pen, and that item does not get used in its intended role, then that is in my opinion a waste of resource.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German waste of resources??

#117

Post by LWD » 15 Nov 2012, 17:08

Kingfish wrote:
LWD wrote: I'm not sure I can think of a much better use for Tirpitz at that point. Scrapping would have taken considerable time and effort. At that point in time Tirpitz was a "sunk cost" (pun not intended). The KM wasn't as useful as it was hoped it would be but that's in large part because the war didn't develop the way the Germans thought it would especially in the mid 30's. Saying it was a waste of resources seems a lot like "monday morning quarterbacking" to me.
It seems you and I have a different interpretation of a waste of resources. When you build an item, be it a battleship or a ball point pen, and that item does not get used in its intended role, then that is in my opinion a waste of resource.
Without more clarification I would consider that a poor definition or depending on what the "intended role" is/was a rather ambiguous one. For instance were the nuclear arsenals of the US, Britain, France, and the USSR a waste of resources? How about the B-52 which was intended as a nuclear bomber but has served as a conventional one for decades. Or the M-60 tank which I'm not sure ever saw signifiant (if any) combat in US service.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: German waste of resources??

#118

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Nov 2012, 17:34

I think I've said it before - maybe even in this thead...for years the Tirpitz tied up Units of Home Fleet, attracted the attention of RAF/FAA raid after raid, diverted the resources of MilOrg and British Intelligence monitoring her movements and readiness...and put the British to the expense and loss of various covert operations against her.

If, like Bismark, she had sortied and been lost on her first operation - there would have been NONE of this. THAT would have been the true waste.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: German waste of resources??

#119

Post by Kingfish » 15 Nov 2012, 18:37

LWD wrote:Without more clarification I would consider that a poor definition or depending on what the "intended role" is/was a rather ambiguous one.
I don't see how there could be any ambiguity in the intended role of Tirpitz. You don't arm a warship with 8x 15" guns so it can languish in a harbor, no?
For instance were the nuclear arsenals of the US, Britain, France, and the USSR a waste of resources?
One could argue that they were/are used in their intended role, that of deterrent. Last I checked there have been no nuclear exchanges, so I would say they have performed as designed.
How about the B-52 which was intended as a nuclear bomber but has served as a conventional one for decades.
I don't think flying Buffs out of Guam to carpet bomb a patch of Vietnamese jungle is a good example of resources used wisely and efficiently. I believe pound for pound the more locally based Sandys achieved far greater results.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: German waste of resources??

#120

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Nov 2012, 19:07

I don't see how there could be any ambiguity in the intended role of Tirpitz. You don't arm a warship with 8x 15" guns so it can languish in a harbor, no?
Don't you??? :wink: Don't ask LWD, ask Alfred T. Mahan....
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “What if”