Was building Bismarck and Tirpitz a mistake?

[Sid Guttridge]

I would suggest that Tirpitz, as a "ship-in-being" had a more valuable career than Bismarck' in her brief notoriety.

Bismarck cost the British "only" an obsolescent WWI battlecruiser, the Hood. The ballance of resources expended here was to British advantage.

By contrast, Tirpitz absorbed the permanent attentions of larger British naval (and other) forces for several years as they awaited a sortie that never came. I think it plausible that the ballance of resources expended may have favoured the Germans, even taking into account Tirpitz's ultimate loss.

I would suggest that, Tirpitz and Bismarck together just about justified their expense, but any more battleships would have been a waste.

Cheers,

Sid.

[waldzee]

I would suggest that Tirpitz, as a "ship-in-being" had a more valuable career than Bismarck' in her brief notoriety.

Bismarck cost the British "only" an obsolescent WWI battlecruiser, the Hood. The ballance of resources expended here was to British advantage.

By contrast, Tirpitz absorbed the permanent attentions of larger British naval (and other) forces for several years as they awaited a sortie that never came. I think it plausible that the ballance of resources expended may have favoured the Germans, even taking into account Tirpitz's ultimate loss.

I would suggest that, Tirpitz and Bismarck together just about justified their expense, but any more battleships would have been a waste.

Cheers,

Sid.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting point! Unfortunately, Britian initially missed the main lesson of the Bismarck sinking - if the bi- plane gets through, the Betty does too which cost them Repluse & Prince of Wales. the North Carolina Class of battleship bristles with mid ship anti aircraft guns
The Americans struck first, sinking carrier the carrier Ryūjō. The Japanese counterattack came in the form of dive bombers and torpedo bombers, covered by fighters, striking at the Enterprise and the North Carolina.[12] In an action eight-minutes long, the North Carolina shot down seven to 14 enemy aircraft, with her antiaircraft gunners remaining at their posts despite the jarring detonations of seven near misses. One sailor was killed by strafing, but the North Carolina was undamaged. Her sheer volume of antiaircraft fire was so heavy to cause the officers of the Enterprise to ask, "Are you afire?"[4wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55).


Lutjen's decision to skimp on his fuel load leaving Norway is interesting - I feel that it indicates a desire to hoard scarce fuel. ( hauling extra fuel oil means burning more fuel oil). Unfortunately, after his fore tanks were holed, the decision came back to haunt him.

[Kilgore Trout]

For waldzee: Yes. I was trying to indicate the failure of INDEPENDENT rudders. Among other things, independent rudders allow for both to be splayed out to act like brakes. THAT may have allowed Titanic (in my off-topic example) to stop short of the iceberg. Or, conversely, if both were employed, to steer by it. On Bismarck, dual independent rudders would have it would have allowed the ship, even with one damaged, to steer sufficiently as to continue to its destination - the port of Brest.

To address a later note: Perhaps the decision to sail without full fuel tanks was made because the intent of the voyage was only to sail Bismarck & Prinz Eugen to Brest where, with Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, they would form a battle group. If such a group could ever sail collectively, the R.N would have been very hard-pressed to deal with it.
It is strange how senior naval officers in WWII seemed to be rather hide-bound in deriding the damage that air power could inflict on ships, even as ever-more ships were being sunk or damaged by air power virtually daily. The R.N. might worry about such a battle group, but I think the R.A.F. would have salivated like a hungry hound.

[Michael Kenny]

The RN would have no trouble dealing with such a battlegroup if they could find it. Remember one side was trying to bring about an engagement whilst the other was trying to avoid it.

Given the disparity in forces there would be only one realistic outcome and then we would have the usual suspects trumpeting the fact some RN ships were sunk as proof positive that the RN 'lost'.
It seems if you engage any German ships (even if you sink all of them) you only win if none of your own ships are lost!

[Kilgore Trout]

That would be the most frustrating problem with such a group of ships. Because of its size, the R.N. would want to confront it with a force that was at least as large (ideally larger). But ithe group could then split into four different directions. How do you choose which ship(s) to pursue? What happens if one of these others meets a convoy and is able to be a fox in the hen house while all or most of the effort is devoted to the ship being pursued. No matter what you do short of sinking all four, it ends up looking like a loss in the public eye.

[Paul Lakowski]

Lutjen's decision to skimp on his fuel load leaving Norway is interesting - I feel that it indicates a desire to hoard scarce fuel. ( hauling extra fuel oil means burning more fuel oil). Unfortunately, after his fore tanks were holed, the decision came back to haunt him.

Lutjens skimping on fuel was because he believed the weather was clearing and his chance for a dash through the GIUK gap would disappear if he waited. Just months before he had made a similar manuever and had to back track to the artic to await for a gap in the RN patrols to slip through. The mistake they made was trying to sortie in the mid part of the year. All previous sortie had been in the worse weather part of the year. Poor planning or too much pressure to gain results. In which case its Raeders fault.

Lutjens best mission was to attempt break out and failing that return to Norway at speed. Just to keep the Brits on their toes. Sink the Hood along the way turns it into a propaganda victory of the highest order.

BTW Bismarck demised achieved alot more than just sink one BC. It confirmed in Admiralty minds the danger of such vessels...which in turn allows Tirpitz to become a "fleet in being".

' No one would what the fear of another Bismarck break out.'

[Kilgore Trout]

Did the voyage happen when it did from over-confidence? Certainly Bismarck would have devastated any single R.N. ship in a one-on-one fight.
An even more devastating ploy would have been to pursue & finish off H.M.S. Prince of Wales too. If Bismarck & Prinz Eugen then split apart, their rather similar appearance would confuse the tracking R.N. cruisers & aircraft. R.N. ships would not want to get too close to whichever ship they were following, just in case it WAS Bismarck. No one would want to become #3. A mystique would be created. R.N. would lose its flag ship & its newest capital ship on the same day. THAT would be a propaganda victory of the highest order. It is what I would have done. But it's easy to be an "armchair admiral."

[Paul Lakowski]

Did the voyage happen when it did from over-confidence? Certainly Bismarck would have devastated any single R.N. ship in a one-on-one fight.
An even more devastating ploy would have been to pursue & finish off H.M.S. Prince of Wales too. If Bismarck & Prinz Eugen then split apart, their rather similar appearance would confuse the tracking R.N. cruisers & aircraft. R.N. ships would not want to get too close to whichever ship they were following, just in case it WAS Bismarck. No one would want to become #3. A mystique would be created. R.N. would lose its flag ship & its newest capital ship on the same day. THAT would be a propaganda victory of the highest order. It is what I would have done. But it's easy to be an "armchair admiral."

Well yeah its always easier to 'arm chair admiral' a battle. But its also the best way to examine the decisions made for future reference and further understanding of the clash/ battle/ war in general.

I've read the 'Grand Admiral Raeder' wanted to impress Hitler and acted in support of the invasion of Russia. He also had a lingering conflict with Hitler over attacking Russia. He said they should defeat the west before they turn east, something Hitler clearly rejected.

[Michael Kenny]

Did the voyage happen when it did from over-confidence? Certainly Bismarck would have devastated any single R.N. ship in a one-on-one fight.

In what respect would Rodney or Nelson be a pushover for Bismarck?

R.N. ships would not want to get too close to whichever ship they were following, just in case it WAS Bismarck. No one would want to become #3.

Like Gloworm kept away from Hipper?

Ajax, Exeter and Achilles kept away from Graf Spee?

The decision to risk Warspite at Navik?

Running convoys/operating in the Med despite complete Axis air domination?

Yes the RN was risk averse!

[Paul Lakowski]

Mike whats your problem {euro 2012?} . No need for flag waving, he is not saying they were cowards.

But if the Bismarck had sunk two British BB/BC it would have sent even larger shockwaves through the fleet , on how best to approach future clashes with Bismarck and Tirpitz.

[Michael Kenny]

Mike whats your problem {euro 2012?} . No need for flag waving, he is not saying they were cowards.

For the umpteenth time I am Irish.

But if the Bismarck had sunk two British BB/BC it would have sent even larger shockwaves through the fleet , on how best to approach future clashes with Bismarck and Tirpitz.

If, if, if.

The British Battleships were built to take on other Battleships.
Basicaly that was it and to suggest that given the chance to engage an enemy ship they would 'hang back' because they would be frightened of suffering the same fate as Hood is being silly.
In support of my case I gave instances where the RN initiated some very risky (even fatal) engagements.
The word 'cowards' was not used by me and I am a firm believer that the outcome of a battle should be judged on the final result rather than claiming the fact the loser took some of the victors equipment down with him is proof the loser really won.

I also strongly contest the claim Bismarck was certain to finish off any other battleship in the much hyped (in relation to German weapons) 'one-on-one' battle.
For example both Nelson and Rodney (but not just Nelson and Rodney) could take care of themselves and were perfectly capable of seeing off Bismarck.

[Paul Lakowski]

I guess you don't get or understand the prossess of asking a hypothetical question.

For example Rodneys & Nelsons mission would not have been to see off Bismarck but hunt it down. Without crippled Bismarck that becomes impossible or at least difficult since Bismarck can run away from them when ever it wants..

[Michael Kenny]

I guess you don't get or understand the prossess of asking a hypothetical question.

Oh but I do.
I also understand the process of a loaded question.
It should not be taken as a given that in this mythical 'one-on-one fight' that Bismarck will always prevail. I could point out that this super-dooper mighty Battleship was effectively crippled by a wood and glue era aeroplane. If we did not have that as a historical fact then you would insist it could never happen.

For example Rodneys & Nelsons mission would not have been to see off Bismarck but hunt it down. Without crippled Bismarck that becomes impossible or at least difficult since Bismarck can run away from them when ever it wants..

As one was built with restrictions and the other without then obviously the newer ship will be at an advantage. However 'advantage' is not complete superiority. Both Rodney and Nelson (used as examples) had ample means to deal a mortal blow to Bismarck. Your scenario is also flawed in that there would never be a RN Battleship operating alone. It would at the very least have cruiser or destroyer escorts
A simple statement of fact and something you seem to concede by implying Bismarck would be 'running away'.

[Kilgore Trout]

Michael is unduly defensive about the R.N. reputation. It has proven its mettle sufficiently across centuries and does not need a guardian. I made a statement that acknowledges a truth: except in most dire circumstances (usually, direct threat to a loved one), NO sane person takes any life-threatening risk without good cause and a reasonable chance of success.
We observe that H.M.S. Suffolk and H.M.S. Norfolk did NOT plunge headlong into battle against Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. This was for the entirely legitimate reason that their crews had just witnessed the flagship of their navy disintegrated, and their navy's newest capital ship battered and put to flight. Anything these two cruisers could do would be equal to throwing snow balls, and the men would just be throwing their lives away. They stayed out of range and followed, reporting position. They did what they could.
All conflict in life is like street drag racing: you "run what you brung." The important difference in war is that people die. Still, Michael's examples are specious.

1. H.M.S. Glowworm came out of a squall to find itself virtually face-to-face with Admiral Hipper and escorts, far too close to use its greater speed to avoid the superior artillery. It was not a planned situation. The risk was unavoidable. What else could be done, short of running up a white flag?

2. H.M.S. Exeter, a heavy cruiser, and H.M.S. Ajax and H.M.S. Achilles, two light cruisers, against Admiral Graf Spee, an admittedly more-heavily armed ship, but in need of an engine overhaul, was AT LEAST a fair fight. What risk?

3. H.M.S. Warspite, a battleship with 8 X 381 mm. guns, eight escort destroyers, and air cover attacked a DOCKED flotilla of German destroyers (all of which were out-gunned by even the British destroyers). Can you say "shooting ducks in a barrel?" What risk?

4. The Axis NEVER had air supremacy in the Mediterranean. The R.N. convoys had aircraft carriers which carried - aircraft. And Malta had a force of Spitfire fighters. What risk?

Facts:
Class Speed Armament Shell Range:
Rodney 23.0 kn. 9 X 406 mm/45 cal. 930 kg. 34,275 m.

Bismarck 30.8 kn. 8 X 380 mm/52 cal. 800 kg. 36,520 m.

I could not find good specifications on armour plating for Rodney/Nelson, but they were certainly inferior to Bismarck. The Repulse and Queen Elizabeth classes had an even greater disadvantage. The King George V class had near-equal speed, but was out-gunned and out-armoured. Were I on Bismarck, going to battle against one of these ships, I would feel quite confident. Even any two British battleships against Bismarck, there would be a better-than-even chance that it would be a reprise of 24 May.
Building Bismarck and Tirpitz was NOT a mistake. Employing them in driblets was.

[Michael Kenny]

We observe that H.M.S. Suffolk and H.M.S. Norfolk did NOT plunge headlong into battle against Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. This was for the entirely legitimate reason that their crews had just witnessed the flagship of their navy disintegrated, and their navy's newest capital ship battered and put to flight. Anything these two cruisers could do would be equal to throwing snow balls, and the men would just be throwing their lives away. They stayed out of range and followed, reporting position. They did what they could.

Who would have thought that cruisers would funk a 'one on one' fire- fight with a battleship and her consort?

H.M.S. Glowworm came out of a squall to find itself virtually face-to-face with Admiral Hipper and escorts, far too close to use its greater speed to avoid the superior artillery. It was not a planned situation. The risk was unavoidable. What else could be done, short of running up a white flag

and yet you said just before that:

I made a statement that acknowledges a truth: except in most dire circumstances (usually, direct threat to a loved one), NO sane person takes any life-threatening risk without good cause and a reasonable chance of success.

I can not reconcile the 2 statements.

H.M.S. Exeter, a heavy cruiser, and H.M.S. Ajax and H.M.S. Achilles, two light cruisers, against Admiral Graf Spee, an admittedly more-heavily armed ship, but in need of an engine overhaul, was AT LEAST a fair fight. What risk?

Have you decided not to cut-and-paste the details of the Graf Spee guns and her broadside weight/range like you did with the Bismarck?
Maybe that is because it shows the huge advantage enjoyed by the German ship?

The Axis NEVER had air supremacy in the Mediterranean. The R.N. convoys had aircraft carriers which carried - aircraft. And Malta had a force of Spitfire fighters. What risk?

Yes you are right. The tiny Island of Malta completely dominated the many Axis air bases in southern France and Italy. Obvious when you think about it!

I wonder what happened to:
HMS Southampton
HMS Dainty
HMS Juno
HMS Fiji
HMS Goucester
HMS York
HMS Greyhound
HMS Kashmir
HMS Kelly
HMS Diamond
HMS Wryneck
HMS Hereward
HMS Imperial
HMS Calcutta
HMS Waterhen
HMS Defender
HMS Fearless
HMS Latona
HMS Maori
HMS Legion
HMS Lance
HMS Kingston
HMS Kipling
HMS Lively
HMS Jackal
HMS Bedouin
HMS Nestor
HMS Airedale
HMS Foresight
HMS Coventry
HMS Zulu
HMS Quentin
HMS Intrepid
HMS Panther
HMS Dulverton
HMS Janus
HMS Spartan
HMS Inglefield

Limited to Destroyers and Cruisers (38 in total)to make list manageable.

Opposition in the Med was so light that for Operation Pedestal the RN needed only 1 Battleship, 3 carriers, 7 Cruisers and 32 Destroyers to escort 14 merchant ships for the cruise into Malta.

H.M.S. Warspite, a battleship with 8 X 381 mm. guns, eight escort destroyers, and air cover attacked a DOCKED flotilla of German destroyers (all of which were out-gunned by even the British destroyers). Can you say "shooting ducks in a barrel?" What risk?

Oh I don't know, maybe a large ship in restricted waters?
U-Boats known to be in the area (one sunk)and under the guns of shore based artillery?
The probability of torpedo attacks from Destroyers?
Despite your analysis it was a very serious risk but the potential (and realised) results were considered worth it.
Contrast this with the German method of taking no chances at all where her capital ships were concerned