Was building Bismarck and Tirpitz a mistake?

[Kilgore Trout]

1. Warspite, even if lost, was only a 25-year old ship (approximately).
2. In such waters, it is highly likely that almost all the crew could safely disembark.
3, 150 mm. artillery (at best) on shore would not keep firing very long once Warspite's guns answered back. It would take a lot of hits from them to seriously imperil a battleship, but even a near miss by its guns could end the"conversation."
4. In WWII, the U-boat threat was the naval equivalent of the army seeing Tigers everywhere.
A well-executed event that has unfortunately been re-told far past credibility, largely because Warspite was the same class as Royal Oak, sunk in Scapa Flow about 7 months earlier.
Die Kriegsmarine had to be much more cautious with its ships because it had a lot fewer of them and much less capacity to replace them if lost or seriously damaged. By the geographic location of the two combatants, it was on interior lines. It did not have the luxury of sending ships off to the semi- (or pseudo?)neutral U.S. for re-fits. It also had to closely monitor its fuel use to allow for future operations.
If the R.N. were placed in a simlar predicament, it would be opeerated in precisely the same way.

[mescal]

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.

No, that's not the reason why Norfolk & Suffolk didn't engage. It had more to do with lack of communication of the battle plan. Basically, they were out of position because Holland did not send them his battle plan for fear of breaking radio silence.
Therefore they remained in their trailing position until well after the heavies sighted each other and then they had to overhaul Bismarck & PE which were sailing at ~28 knots under the constraint of their own top speed. Therefore they could not"plunge headlong into battle".

I could not find good specifications on armour plating for Rodney/Nelson, but they were certainly inferior to Bismarck.

That is completely wrong. NelRods were (with the US Big 5) the toughest of the treaty battleships - All or Nothing pushed to the limit - while Bismarck was relatively poorly armored for her time.

The King George V class had near-equal speed, but was out-gunned and out-armoured.

Same here. The outguning part is not so clear : two more guns for one inch less may not be as bad a bargain. And the KVG's broadside was 12% heavier than Bismarck's (15900 lbs vs 14100), and the KGV armor scheme is arguably quite superior to Bismarck's.

1. Warspite, even if lost, was only a 25-year old ship (approximately).

So what ?

Warspite was the same class as Royal Oak, sunk in Scapa Flow about 7 months earlier.

No.

[vladalex]

Hello Olivier,
You are right !
VladAlex,

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Germany had two options.

1) Build a fleet big enough to challenge the Royal Navy for command of the seas.

2) Build a smaller fleet in being that would tie up more Royal Navy resources in blockading them.

1) was unrealiseable in the time available and could not be done without affecting the rearmament of Germany's principle services - the army and air force.

By default Germany ended up with (2) because plans for (1) were abandoned at the outbreak of war.

I would suggest that, almost by accident, Germany ended up with the most practical surface fleet - a small number of powerful units that occupied a disproportionate amount of British attention without being so large that it seriously detracted from rearming the army and air force.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michael Kenny]

In WWII, the U-boat threat was the naval equivalent of the army seeing Tigers everywhere.

One U Boat was sunk just as the engagement started and 2 U-Boats fired at Warspite the next day.
Yes you are right phantom U Boats.

A well-executed event that has unfortunately been re-told far past credibility, largely because Warspite was the same class as Royal Oak, sunk in Scapa Flow about 7 months earlier.

The attack is notable because a huge risk was taken for the chance to 'halve' the German Navy. The gamble paid off!

[LWD]

... Given that, there was a fair chance that H.M.S. Rodney and H.M.S. King George V may have met a fate similar to H.M.S Hood and H.M.S. Prince of Wales. The 380 mm. guns of Bismarck packed quite a bit more punch than the British guns, and Bismarck's superior armour meant it was much more able to take their hits than they were to take its hits. ...

Not really. Bismarck was very lucky to do as well as she did at Denmark straits. Against two better battleships with more supporting vessels she is very unlikely to do as well a second time. As for the German guns packing "more punch" that's comes down to how you measure it. For instance the bursting charges of both British battleship rounds were significantly larger than that of the German round (22kg and 23.2 kg vs 18.8 kg). If you look at shell weight the 15" gun does have a heavier shell than the British 14 but less than the British 16 (721kg and 929 kg vs 800 kg). The German gun does have a bit of advantage in muzzle velocity over both the British guns and a faster rate of fire on the other hand the British have more guns. Then there's the fact that some of the cruiser hits historically would have had a significant impact in a closer fight.

[Paul Lakowski]

In WWII, the U-boat threat was the naval equivalent of the army seeing Tigers everywhere.

One U Boat was sunk just as the engagement started and 2 U-Boats fired at Warspite the next day.
Yes you are right phantom U Boats.

A well-executed event that has unfortunately been re-told far past credibility, largely because Warspite was the same class as Royal Oak, sunk in Scapa Flow about 7 months earlier.

The attack is notable because a huge risk was taken for the chance to 'halve' the German Navy. The gamble paid off!

Why do you say this? The german navy was over 500 vessels at this time. Are you claiming that the Narvik attack sank 250 vessels? Also there were 5 Uboats in the fiord at that time.

The basic point is still being missed. If Lutjens followed Lindemanns advice, he would have returned home via the DMS to Bergen having sunk a BB ; battered another and eluded a couple of shadowing Cruisers, while suffereing limited damage. Nazi would have declare a propaganda victory of the highest order.

The British Admiralty would be forced to reconsider its options engageing future german BB.

[Michael Kenny]

The attack is notable because a huge risk was taken for the chance to 'halve' the German Navy. The gamble paid off!

Why do you say this? The german navy was over 500 vessels at this time. Are you claiming that the Narvik attack sank 250 vessels? Also there were 5 Uboats in the fiord at that time.

You know full well what I mean. The German Destroyed Fleet was cut by 50%.
I put the word 'halved' in (scare) quotes.
Look up the phrase scare quotes and avoid any future mistakes.

Another poster here has at least one glaring factual error in every post and yet you chose to home in on my little joke............

[Michael Kenny]

Warspite, even if lost, was only a 25-year old ship (approximately).
In such waters, it is highly likely that almost all the crew could safely disembark.

The same way the crew got off the Royal Oak?

[LWD]

Hi Guys,

Germany had two options.

1) Build a fleet big enough to challenge the Royal Navy for command of the seas.

2) Build a smaller fleet in being that would tie up more Royal Navy resources in blockading them.
....

But that's if they are building a fleet to counter Britain. If Great Britain could be kept neutral then the KM would be on a par with or supperior to the French fleet and overmatch the Soviet one.

[waldzee]

Warspite, even if lost, was only a 25-year old ship (approximately).
In such waters, it is highly likely that almost all the crew could safely disembark.

The same way the crew got off the Royal Oak?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It was by all accounts a bold & brlliant attack at Narvik. Esp since proximity fuses wre not avialable. a Luftwaffe attack in confined waters would have been touch & go.
the Crosley http://crosleyautoclub.com/Proximity_Fuze.html proximity fuse

[Paul Lakowski]

The attack is notable because a huge risk was taken for the chance to 'halve' the German Navy. The gamble paid off!

Why do you say this? The german navy was over 500 vessels at this time. Are you claiming that the Narvik attack sank 250 vessels? Also there were 5 Uboats in the fiord at that time.

You know full well what I mean. The German Destroyed Fleet was cut by 50%.
I put the word 'halved' in (scare) quotes.
Look up the phrase scare quotes and avoid any future mistakes.

Another poster here has at least one glaring factual error in every post and yet you chose to home in on my little joke............

You should know better than that mike! We get it, but does the German destroyer fleet represent the entire fleet? Maybe in the eyes of the British but not the Germans. The DD were third in importance to surface raiders & U-Boats in mission and importance.

BTW I hear that claim trumpted all the time by people who don't realise how miss leading the statment is.I suppose one could say its a tired old cliche?

[Paul Lakowski]

Hi Guys,

Germany had two options.

1) Build a fleet big enough to challenge the Royal Navy for command of the seas.

2) Build a smaller fleet in being that would tie up more Royal Navy resources in blockading them.
....

But that's if they are building a fleet to counter Britain. If Great Britain could be kept neutral then the KM would be on a par with or supperior to the French fleet and overmatch the Soviet one.

Yes this is the gamble that Hitler made and the KM had to buy into.

BTW Sid Guttridge, there was a third option, the option Grand Admiral Raeder wanted. A fleet big enough and effective enough to seize temporary control of a regional sea/area in order to carry out some related operation.....like the Norway invasion.

[antfreire]

I believe building the two german batleship was a mistake. And it was mostly for Germany that was so lacking of resources. I am inclined to believe that any battleship built from 1936 on was a mistake regarding of who built it. The one on one encounter were of no importance and the convoying of aircarft was something that could be done with cruisers and destroyers. No battleship could get at a shooting range of a carrier if the officers of the carrier were awake. Bombing the coasts prior to landing? It was done only because they had them and they had to use them, but cruisers, destroyers and ships with rocket launching platforms supported by tactical bombers could do it much better. Building them could be accepted by USA that had plenty of resources, but the other nations should not have spent the money on them.

[Michael Kenny]

but does the German destroyer fleet represent the entire fleet? Maybe in the eyes of the British but not the Germans.

Your at complete liberty to tilt at this windmill. I will leave you to it.

The DD were third in importance to surface raiders & U-Boats in mission and importance.

BTW I hear that claim trumpted all the time by people who don't realise how miss leading the statment is.I suppose one could say its a tired old cliche?

Cliche or no cliche it was a crushing blow for the Germans. Deprived of half of her destroyers in the blink of an eye.
As you like what ifs how about 'what if Bismarck had a full complement of Destroyer escorts'?

The Norway battles crippled the German surface Fleet. Make light of that.