Bismarck or U-Boats

[Globalization41]

How many U-boats would equal one Bismarck in terms of weight only? I'm guessing about 45 to 50. From what I can tell, there were only about 30 U-boats at sea out of about 150 commissioned at the time of the Bismarck sinking. It seems to me it would have been more strategic to have went with a bunch of cheap U-boats instead of one expensive battleship.

Globalization41.

[Derek Waller]

As a partial answer to your query, please see CB 4501 (Feb 1946), para 203, viz:

28.03.45. 203. Doenitz's Views on Pre-War Building Programme.
With the Third Reich on the point of collapse, Doenitz and Hitler were involved in a detailed discussion of the appropriateness of naval construction before the war. Doenitz thought the building of battleships instead of more U-Boats had been a mistake; "for, in battleships we could never have caught up with our opponents, while a superior U-Boat Arm would have given us the chance of winning the war quickly."

In the National Archives at Kew it is logged as: ADM 239/388.

Hope this helps.

Yours aye,

Derek.

[Tomg44]

The design of the King George V class battleships began in the period of uncertainty when the inter-war naval treaties were coming to an end. The critical path in capital ship construction time was the production of the main guns, including the mountings and turrets, and as the Admiralty wanted the ships to be in service in 1940 (to match the Bismarck and Tirpitz) contracts had to be placed before the naval treaty talks were concluded.

There were 5 vessels in the class, @ 42,000 tons each. The main British defence against U-Boats was the Flower class corvette @ 950 tons. Employing the same logic as Doenitz, the British could have started the war with 220 corvettes in service. They built 260+ after the war started.

[Globalization41]

Doenitz was right. I suspect he gave the same advice in the '30s. ... It became obvious in May 1941, when the Bismarck was sunk, that expensive battleships were vulnerable to the cheapest bi-plane carrying only one torpedo.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/162751249

There were already over 1,500 Allied & neutral ships sunk when the Bismarck sailed. Not sure what the grand total of ships available was or what the shipbuilding rate was. Had the Germans had a couple hundred extra U-boats at the start of the war, Britain might have had to make peace after the fall of France.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/162708746

The British had lost 239 ships by July 1940 and 923 ships by the time of the Bismarck sinking. ... I agree, a few hundred more corvettes would have been better for the British. But the British were still too overextended militarily and economically to prosecute the offensive war necessary to save Poland.

Globalization41.

[Polar bear]

hi,

It became obvious in May 1941, when the Bismarck was sunk, that expensive battleships were vulnerable to the cheapest bi-plane carrying only one torpedo.

THAT became obvious at Taranto in November, 1940, see Operation "Judgement"

greetings, the pb

[Globalization41]

That's right PB. ... I had forgotten about that.

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newsp ... 116.2.72.1

Didn't the Japanese study the attack at Taranto during the Pearl Harbor planning? ... The Bismarck and Taranto lessons were still difficult to learn. The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sitting ducks to cheap Japanese dive-bombers near Singapore in late '41.

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newsp ... 211.2.46.1

Globalization41.

[Polar bear]

hi,

The Repulse and Prince of Wales were sitting ducks to cheap Japanese dive-bombers near Singapore in late '41.

well ... no. There were no dive bombers in the attack on Force Z and both ships weren't sitting ducks, really.

The PoW suffered a very unlucky torpedo hit on a propeller strut practically crippling her (cp. Bismarck) and the Repulse fell prey to an extremely well coordinated pincer attack of torpedo bombers (see https://www.amazon.de/Battleship-Repuls ... 0141391197)

greetings, the pb

[Globalization41]

Sorry about that PB. I was referring to the sinkings of the Repulse and Prince of Wales more strategically than tactically. ... Cheap Japanese planes sunk two expensive battleships. ... The British before Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on America were overextended, economically and militarily. In chess, overextended major pieces are vulnerable to attacks from cheap pawns. ... No one could have known that battleships were so obsolete, not even Churchill. Germany's only hope (not necessarily common knowledge at the time) was keeping America out of the war. With hindsight, it would seem more U-boats would have been the only answer without a cross-Channel invasion. ... Most Germans did not know Hitler's main objective was the Ukrainian breadbasket. Hitler was in a hurry. Liquidation of the Dunkirk pocket followed by a Crete-like invasion of Britain would have taken months. Meanwhile, the massive French Army might not have been so willing to surrender had the Germans been delayed at Dunkirk. This could have postponed the invasion of Russia. ... More U-boats could have strangled Britain, though some would disagree. I believe the British had already lost over a thousand ships before even the start of the German-Russian War. ... The British were only a minor nuisance at the beginning of the Soviet invasion. ... Even Stalin, looking at the war from Churchill's viewpoint, was baffled that the British would remain in the fight. Stalin logically suspected the British (losing badly) were motivated to divert Hitler toward Russia.

Globalization41.

[Polar bear]

hi,

No one could have known that battleships were so obsolete, not even Churchill.

Let's say "vulnerable" .. but I disagree : we just talked about Taranto and the Bismarck, didn't we ?

With hindsight, ...

Yes, that's most of it, isn't it ?

The British were only a minor nuisance at the beginning of the Soviet invasion.

Again, I disagree.
With the help of ULTRA, the Brits had, for the first time, gained the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic. Numbers of sinkings dropped sharply.
They were building up a bomber force which became so strong that strategic bombing could begin in the Spring of 1942.

greetings, the pb

[sitalkes]

Actually the most effective weapon the Germans had in the first year of the war against merchant ships was the disguised armed merchant cruiser - these sank more ships than any other German naval unit at that time. Maybe the Germans needed to use their existing resources better, in co-operation. What if they had used the Bismark as bait for a massive u-boat attack on British warships? Instead you hear stories of U-boats being unable to help the Bismark because they have run out of torpedoes or were in the wrong place. Difficult for them to work together because the U-boats are so much slower but surely something could have been worked out - and if the Luftwaffe had been more helpful instead of hindering naval-air co-operation...

[Globalization41]

P.B., How about, Seemingly to the Germans, the British were only a minor nuisance at the beginning of the Soviet invasion? ... I'll go with battleships were vulnerable, too. ... Hitler had only a narrow window to invade the Soviet Union. ... Stalin had overestimated the capability of the Red Army when it steamrolled the Japanese in Asia during the summer of '39. He overconfidently ordered the invasion of Finland and became bogged down. Then France fell to Hitler. Consequently, Stalin ordered implementation of operational improvements for the Red Army while hinting at wanting to negotiate a spheres-of-influence agreement with Hitler. By 1942, the Red Army would have been greatly strengthened. The Soviets were manufacturing fresh tanks and planes. Another year would be even better for Stalin. Hitler's best option, in his mind, was a 1941 invasion. ... An airborne and seaborne invasion of England would have delayed Hitler's plans for a backyard empire. More U-boats available could possibly have knocked Britain out of the war before Pearl Harbor.

Globalization41.