Was building Bismarck and Tirpitz a mistake?

[Tim Smith]

The Germans supposedly built Bismarck and Tirpitz in response to the two French battleships, Richelieu and Jean Bart. (Although the French ships were superior designs to the conservative German ships.)

However Germany was always going to fight France on land, so defeating the French battleship fleet was unimportant to German strategy. Thanks to the Wehrmacht's pressing requirements for tanks and aircraft, the German surface fleet could never hope to match the British Home Fleet in strength and thus were only useful as commerce raiders. A second Battle of Jutland was out of the question for Germany, so why build battleships at all?

As commerce raiders Bismarck and Tirpitz were overkill - very expensive, and bound to attract a massive British response if they put to sea. They were not cost-effective.

Interestingly, the money and steel that went into Bismarck and Tirpitz could have been used to build 80 type VII U-boats instead. The U-boat force only had 37 ocean-going U-boats in 1939 - imagine the effect on the early Battle of the Atlantic had another 80 been available! Allied shipping losses would have been doubled.

Any opinions?

[Sam H.]

Tirpitz and Bismark had a value that went beyond their performance. Bismark was a ship that was feared by the British. She demanded a great deal of respect, and if she had been handled properly, she could have had a profound impact on British shipping.

Later, Tirpitz had an undistiquished career, however, her mere presence forced the British to deploy four or five capital ships in Northern waters just to counter balance her deployment. If the Tirpitz had not been deployed, those capital ships could have wrecked havoc in the Med. and Indian Ocean.

I doubt 80 more U-Boats early in the war would have made a significant diffrence. Perhaps Merchant vessel losses would have been marginally higher in the early years. However, it wasn't until 1942 the the U-Boats were able to make shipping a serious issue for the British.

[Mark V]

However, it wasn't until 1942 the the U-Boats were able to make shipping a serious issue for the British.

Hi.

...righ about the time the number of front boats in Atlantic started eventually rise considerably.

Don't forget that total number of front boats remained about the same from the start of the war until early 1941 - right about the time when Med theatre started to consume the numbers. Actually the number of U-boats participating to convoy battles in Atlantic didn't change from 1939 to late 1941 too much.

What would had been the consecuences of extra 80 front boats in Atlantic by the end of 1940 ?? - for sure anything else but marginal.

[Mark V]

For Tim:

This has been to me the love/hate issue of WW2 for years now..

On the other hand i am stunned by the material, manpower and production capacity Bismarck and Tirpitz consumed, which could had been used to fullfill other, more important needs. On the other hand i accept the "fleet in being" importance of these vessels and resources which were consumed by the allied to counter them.

After thinking this forth and back for years - i am now settled to following:

- if they would had not been build and RN because of that wouldn't had build 5 !! KGV-class battleships - not building them would had been a mistake.

- if they would had not been build and RN on the other had (not taking German production program to account ***) would had still build 5 KGV-class battleships - not building them would had been a wise decision.



*** And this question brings us to Japanese. Would the increasing threat of Imperial Navy (and the ongoing building race in Italy and France) had made Brits build all 5 KGVs ???

So, thinking about this issue i have by now ended to Pacific Ocean... Be warned, this is a question that can haunt you in your dreams.

[Tim Smith]

So, SamH, building Bismarck and Tirpitz tied up 5 British battleships, which helped Italy and Japan considerably. A triumph for German strategy? I think not.

The Italian fleet mostly stayed in port anyway after the Taranto raid in Nov '40, and the Japanese stayed neutral instead of joining the war against the British in late 1940, which would have helped the Germans. Finally they attacked the US, which didn't help the Germans at all (quite the contrary.)

Yes, Bismarck and Tirpitz were feared by Britain, but that very fear drove the British to develop tactics that made a successful breakout into the Atlantic quite difficult. Also, getting home again undetected is a problem, and when you do get home you get bombed in harbour anyway.

I think 80 U-boats would cause more damage to British shipping than two battleships that would spend most of their time in harbour.

[Tim Smith]

Mark V,

I think the British would have had to continue the KGV battleship series in order to counter the two new Italian battleships already laid down before 1937. (Another two Italian Littorio class ships were laid down in 1938, but only one, the Roma, was completed in 1942 - Impero was never finished.) Also the British had the Japanese to consider, the Japanese were bound to lay down at least two and probably more battleships very shortly. The Yamato class was originally going to be a class of 4 ships.

After all, in 1937 Britain could not count on either French or American help if both Italy and Japan attacked the British Empire. The French would have stayed neutral for fear of the Germans, and prior to 1942 the peace loving American people would have been very reluctant to fight to defend the cause of British imperialism, even if it was in their interest to do so.

At most Britain might have cancelled Howe and Anson and only built three KGV's instead of 5 - but even that would be a difficult decision.

For Tim:

This has been to me the love/hate issue of WW2 for years now..

On the other hand i am stunned by the material, manpower and production capacity Bismarck and Tipitz consumed, which could had been used to fullfill other, more important needs. On the other hand i accept the "fleet in being" importance of these vessels and resources which were consumed by the allied to counter them.

After thinking this forth and back for years - i am now settled to following:

- if they would had not been build and RN because of that wouldn't had build 5 !! KGV-class battleships - not building them would had been a mistake.

- if they would had not been build and RN on the other had (not taking German production program to account ***) would had still build 5 KGV-class battleships - not building them would had been a wise decision.



*** And this question brings us to Japanese. Would the increasing threat of Imperial Navy (and the ongoing building race in Italy and France) had made Brits build all 5 KGVs ???

So, thinking about this issue i have by now ended to Pacific Ocean... Be warned, this is a question that can haunt you in your dreams.

[Sam H.]

I still can't get away from the potential for the Bismark and Tirpitz. Sure, they did not, in the end, make a significant impact on the Battle of the Atlantic. But the two ships did make a diffrence.

The Hood was lost to the Bismark, and the POW should have gone down as well (if only Lutjens had the balls to make a command decision).

The Tirpitz was a constant threat to the Murmansk convoys. Her putting to sea forced PQ 17 to disperse (and get destroyted).

Both ships definetly could have done more - the potential was there, Hitler did not have a sea mentality and Reader could not see fit to develope a clear strategy for using the ships.

[Andy H]

I agree with Tim that in sheer cost-effectivness the two German ships were not worth the effort, because sheer mathematics were against them achieving any lasting victory.

Yes they would have had there moments in the sun (Like the Bismarck) but eventually as happened in reality they would have to bow to the inevitable.

Andy from the Shire

[Napoli]

Tim Smith: to your original question.
My thinking would be to biuld the battle ships as looking at the time of planning there was a question of the effectiveness of submarine warfare vs surface fleet action. Only when submarines began having success did they go down that path, but I still think the plan of re-biulding the surface fleet should have been the long term goal which was cut short by the beginning of war.
OK, so they didnt have the effect of what could have been but imagine if another 2-3 battleships and 10 cruisers may have added to the equation?
As for the actual effectiveness of submarines on merchant ships, what is the actual successful sinking rate compared to what was actually getting through to England as far as supplies goes? I have heard it may have been as little as 8% but I'm only guessing?

[Galahad]

One thing no one has commented on is that Bismarck and Tirpitz were first installments for Raeder's Z Plan, which was intended to give Germany a balanced battle fleet by 1945.

Since the war began a bit early, only parts of the plan were completed, and they had to fight as best as they could. Sure, the money and material used for the BB's could have been better used for other things--like more subs--but at the time they were built, it wasn't known they wouldn't be part of a full fleet--a fleet that was to include several hundred submarines.

[Napoli]

I thought I did mention the long term plan?

[varjag]

Most admirals of the WW 1 generation, whether German or Allied - were mesmerized by the battleship long after younger and smarter Captains had doubts about their value. On an anecdotal note; if it had been possible to have 'quarter-deck cocktail parties' for visiting dignitaries on submarines - their popularity would have been wider than it was.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Building the Bismarck and Tirpitz was a mistake because both of them were white elephants from the beginning. Both battleships contributed little in Hitler's war effort. The only notable success was the sinking of HMS Hood by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. The Tirpitz attracted 16 air attacks, seven by the RAF and nine by the Fleet Air Arm.

[waldzee]

I agree with Tim that in sheer cost-effectivness the two German ships were not worth the effort, because sheer mathematics were against them achieving any lasting victory.

Yes they would have had there moments in the sun (Like the Bismarck) but eventually as happened in reality they would have to bow to the inevitable.

Andy from the Shire

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Agreed. The Heer could have used thousands of MAN six wheel trucks built with the steel, & drastically reduced the long lines of horse drawn carts attempting to resupply their Russian adventure.
Plan Z was Der Kaisers High Seas Fleet,reborn in miniature -the forlorn love child of nostalgia



[Text color removed /Marcus]

[vladalex]

Interestingly, the money and steel that went into Bismarck and Tirpitz could have been used to build 80 type VII U-boats instead. The U-boat force only had 37 ocean-going U-boats in 1939 - imagine the effect on the early Battle of the Atlantic had another 80 been available! Allied shipping losses would have been doubled.

Any opinions?

A commonplace question : are you sure that at those time Germany were in position to have enough specialized workers and technicians, plants, and tools to build till 1939 another 80 type VII U-boats, without generating a big quake in the entire war industry ?
Why not 1000 long range bombers instead ?
Why not 2000 JU-52 with extended range ?
Finally warplanes have won the war .

Regards,
VladAlex.