German Destroyers at Narvik

[Kingfish]

Can someone explain to me the rational for assigning the furthest objective to the ships with the least endurance?

I understand the German plans called for tankers to fuel the destroyers for the return trip, but it seems to me the Germans were rolling the dice with half their existing destroyer force, assuming these unescorted tankers would already be in the harbor when Gruppe 1 arrived.

Wouldn't it had made more sense to send Koln/Konigsberg (all the landing forces were roughly the same size) to Narvik, where their greater endurance would allow them to make it at least part of the way back on their own stores?

[Polar bear]

hi, Kingfish,

First: I do not know, but my guess is as follows:

(a) The group composition was established without regard of meteorological conditions.

(b) Keeping the element of surprise meant that all groups had both to leave port and arrive at their assigned targets more or less at the same time.

With these points in mind, it made sense to send the fastest group (DDs only) to the furthest target.

I agree on your risk estimate of "rolling the dice".

greetings, the pb

[Kingfish]

(b) Keeping the element of surprise meant that all groups had both to leave port and arrive at their assigned targets more or less at the same time.

With these points in mind, it made sense to send the fastest group (DDs only) to the furthest target.

A fair point, but the German plan called for the DDs to be escorted by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as far as Mös. That, and the fact they were packed with invasion troops, meant they couldn't make the run any faster than the larger ships.

[Polar bear]

hi, Kingfish,

AFAIK, the term escorted isn´t quite appropriate, SG+GN were meant to be a stand-off Action Group (like the Allied battleship groups for the PQ convoys), but not necessarily close together with the DDs and with the same speed.

I had up to now no information that the troop embarkment had influence on the destroyers` supposed speed. Could you give some additional info (sources) on that topic?

greetings, the pb

[phylo_roadking]

A fair point, but the German plan called for the DDs to be escorted by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as far as Mös. That, and the fact they were packed with invasion troops, meant they couldn't make the run any faster than the larger ships.

But they could certainly moor up at Narvik's quays and unload their troops direct onto the shore; larger vessels would have had to stand off and disembark their loads by boat...

And this wasn't a guesstimate made at the planning stage, not with German ore carriers in and out almost daily

[Kingfish]

AFAIK, the term escorted isn´t quite appropriate, SG+GN were meant to be a stand-off Action Group (like the Allied battleship groups for the PQ convoys), but not necessarily close together with the DDs and with the same speed.

Understood, but their speeds had to match in order for the SAG to be within intervention range in case the DDs ran into trouble, no?

According to Wiki, S & G's top speed is listed at 31 kts while the DDs were at around 36 kts. My guess is they maintained formation up until the split, then the DDs may have increased speed to arrive at their scheduled time.

I had up to now no information that the troop embarkment had influence on the destroyers` supposed speed. Could you give some additional info (sources) on that topic?

I don't have any source(s) to provide with regards to the DD's speed during this run, and given they were undertaking a mission they weren't really designed for I doubt their is any 'official' data out there.

However, we can draw some reference from the the engagement of the Glowworm vs the Bernd von Arnim & Hans Lüderman. IIRC, both German destroyers called for Hipper to intervene because the embarked troops put them at a disadvantage.

[phylo_roadking]

Wouldn't it had made more sense to send Koln/Konigsberg (all the landing forces were roughly the same size) to Narvik

Don't forget thet Germans were aware of earlier British threats to mine the Leads, and the Britsh-laid minefields and dummy "marked" minefields in Vestfjord from 24-36 hours before Larger vessels, despite any advantages in duration etc., would pulled had too much draught to get through them...

IIRC, both German destroyers called for Hipper to intervene because the embarked troops put them at a disadvantage.

Destroyers, burdened by deck cargo or carrying men, are both at a speed disadvantage in combat....AND have bad sea manners because they're badly trimmed. A year later, off Crete, British destroyers evacuating troops from Crete got those men belowdecks ASAP in an attempt to re-trim to be able to avoid fall-of-ordnance from attacking aircraft; burdened with a human cargo AND carrying any sort of deck cargo or stores, the German destroyers bound for the Vestfjord would have been wallowing sows...

[Kingfish]

Wouldn't it had made more sense to send Koln/Konigsberg (all the landing forces were roughly the same size) to Narvik

Don't forget thet Germans were aware of earlier British threats to mine the Leads, and the Britsh-laid minefields and dummy "marked" minefields in Vestfjord from 24-36 hours before Larger vessels, despite any advantages in duration etc., would pulled had too much draught to get through them...

But the tankers had to traverse the same route.

[Kingfish]

A fair point, but the German plan called for the DDs to be escorted by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as far as Mös. That, and the fact they were packed with invasion troops, meant they couldn't make the run any faster than the larger ships.

But they could certainly moor up at Narvik's quays and unload their troops direct onto the shore; larger vessels would have had to stand off and disembark their loads by boat...

And this wasn't a guesstimate made at the planning stage, not with German ore carriers in and out almost daily

What is the difference between the draft of the K-class cruisers and a fully loaded Iron ore carrier?

[mescal]

First: I do not know, but my guess is as follows:
(a) The group composition was established without regard of meteorological conditions.

Same here. I do not know, and I'm only guessing - albeit in a different direction as you.
My guess is that, precisely, the meteorological conditions which could be expected in early april were taken into account in the planning - and ruled out the use of the K-class cruisers for the farthest target owing to their structural hull weakness.
You really do not want to loose your landing force because the cruiser carrying them broke in two in a gale.
Moreover using the K cruiser as landing ships may have led to increased topweight if no armament was landed, compounding the structural stability problem.

S & G's top speed is listed at 31 kts while the DDs were at around 36 kts. My guess is they maintained formation up until the split, then the DDs may have increased speed to arrive at their scheduled time.

They did not make the journey at top speed - the DDs did not have the range to go to Narvik from Germany @30 knots.

[phylo_roadking]

What is the difference between the draft of the K-class cruisers and a fully loaded Iron ore carrier?

How many loaded ore carriers made it out AFTER the British mined the Vestfjord on the 7th? Among others, ten German merchant ships were bottled up in Narvik Basin - the 6,388 long tons (6,491 t) Aachen, the 5,398 long tons (5,485 t) Altona, the 4,902 long tons (4,981 t) Bockenheim, the 5,386 long tons (5,472 t) Hein Hoyer, the 4,879 long tons (4,957 t) Martha Henrich Fisser, the 8,096 long tons (8,226 t) Neuenfels, the 5,806 long tons (5,899 t) Odin , the 7,849 long tons (7,975 t) Lippe, the 4,339 long tons (4,409 t) Frielinghaus, and the 5,881 long tons (5,975 t) Planet.

But when it came to loading/unloading on Narvik's older, "normal" quays - the problem mooring at Narvik wasn't necessarily draught - it was also length! (and to an extent width). Ore ships didn't moor at these quays, they moored broadside-on further round the shore of the Basin at the "Iron Quay"....but HERE is where the destroyers were to disembark their load...




...if you remember a discussion earlier this year about mooring the Bremen there!!!

[phylo_roadking]

I understand the German plans called for tankers to fuel the destroyers for the return trip, but it seems to me the Germans were rolling the dice with half their existing destroyer force, assuming these unescorted tankers would already be in the harbor when Gruppe 1 arrived.

Well, it's worth remembering one was - the Jan Wellem with its 8,500 short tons (7,700 t) of fuel oil. Refuelling with just one tanker was difficult, as only two destroyers could be refuelled simultaneously, taking seven or eight hours - but nevertheless before the RN arrived on the morning of the 10th, in 22 hours or so the Jan Wellem had managed to fully refuel three of the German destroyers, and was in the process of refuelling two more while the others stood off in the Basin.

The tanker Kattegat SHOULD indeed have arrived too - but IT was caught on the wrong side of WILFRED on the night of the 7th, out at sea while the British mined the Vestfjord. As it was, the Kattegat did make it to Narvik, but was subsequently refused entry by the Norwegians...maybe if it had arrived BEFORE the Leads were mined, the Norwegians wouldn't have been as conscientious about German traffic...

As a political signal to the Norwegians - it could be argued that WILFRED worked

[John T]

S & G's top speed is listed at 31 kts while the DDs were at around 36 kts. My guess is they maintained formation up until the split, then the DDs may have increased speed to arrive at their scheduled time.

They did not make the journey at top speed - the DDs did not have the range to go to Narvik from Germany @30 knots.

But the Destroyers stood a fair chance to evade any british force, something the bigger ships did not.
And the chance that most destroyers would be able to evade where bigger than using just one or two cruisers.

Raeder where more worried about the return trip, when RN knew the whereabouts of German forces than on the outbound leg when the german forces where cloaked by suprise.


And while we're at it , 200 soldiers weight some 20 tons and that's less than 1 (one) percent of the displacement of a German Destroyer.
Any comparisons with Crete and British destroyers filled with soldiers up to the mast is irrelevant.

Germans destroyers loaded with soldiers mission where to off load the soldiers safely.
They should not fight, not that they could not. And most importantly they could run away with the soldiers abord.


Best Regards
/John

[phylo_roadking]

And while we're at it , 200 soldiers weight some 20 tons and that's less than 1 (one) percent of the displacement of a German Destroyer.
Any comparisons with Crete and British destroyers filled with soldiers up to the mast is irrelevant.

John, this is where you're wrong, for

1/ the trim of a vessel depends on where and how high above sea level that extra weight is positioned;

2/ for this EXACT reason, the RN destroyers evacuating from Crete were very restricted in the number of men they could carry; and they were NOT loaded to the mast either figuratively or literally - instead, destroyer captains ordered evacuated men as far belowdecks as possible, right down in the heart of the vessels...the reason for the VERY low survival rate of these men when evacuating destroyers were sunk ;

3/ The British at Crete could carry more troops "per ton" than the KM at Narvik anyway, for at Crete they embarked with an absolute minimum of personal equipment and arms - and most often none at all;

EDIT: nearly forgot...

4/ German destroyers had a very low freeboard anyway, and tended to ship water at speed.

But the Destroyers stood a fair chance to evade any british force, something the bigger ships did not.

This is correct, however - for if the entire flotilla was intercepted (or even just spotted), the RN would have gone after the larger prizes. Wasn't this in fact eactly what happened in this case? The KM destroyers were sent inshore, with Warbuton-Lee's flotilla in pursuit at a distance...while Renown and its destroyer screen, now back from mining, took off after Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?

Had the Renown battlegroup not at that point had a large force of destroyers grouped with it because of the WILFRED mining operation, I wonder if Warburton-Lee could otherwise have been detached to pursue the destroyers, with an action against Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the offing???

[Polar bear]

hi,mescal,

First: I do not know, but my guess is as follows:
(a) The group composition was established without regard of meteorological conditions.

Same here. I do not know, and I'm only guessing - albeit in a different direction as you.
My guess is that, precisely, the meteorological conditions which could be expected in early april were taken into account in the planning - and ruled out the use of the K-class cruisers for the farthest target owing to their structural hull weakness.
You really do not want to loose your landing force because the cruiser carrying them broke in two in a gale.

I agree that your reasoning is as good as mine

greetings, the pb