Bismarck sunk by Hood causes Germany to win WWII?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2017
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Bismarck sunk by Hood causes Germany to win WWII?

Post by Von Schadewald » 18 Nov 2004 19:37

WI Bismarck is sunk by Hood, causing Hitler to have his Fuhrerbefehl 52 rage after the loss of Scharnhorst, in 1941 instead of 1944, ordering the destruction of the scrapping of the surface fleet, & all steel & crews focussed solely on U Boats.

The result: 150 U boats in the Atlantic in March 1943 instead of 45 as in OTL, enough to win the Batle of the Atlantic for the Germans, delaying the D Day build up by a year. Is this plausible?

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004 10:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by The Argus » 18 Nov 2004 20:15

Yes no Maybe

In general terms it took about 12 months to get a U-Boat on patrol, but any surge would have been far less abrupt given the need to take production priorities into account, the lead time for many submarine components was at least 6 months, then there is man power and yard capacity that has to be found above that historically available.

You also have to wonder how much of that steel would end up diverted to Russia and other production. Steel making is a continous process, under wartime conditions general stocks (not specialist stuff like armour) is not going to be left to sit around just becuase the yards can't use it right now. Germany was still running a signifigant civilian ecconomy in this period so some might even have gone in that direction.

But then there would be more U-Boats, I don't think there can be too much argument about that.

Would they have made any impact? Of course they would, but again it's a matter of how much.

Allied ASW in this period was a mixture of evasive routeing and actuall active ASW in the form of ships aircraft and so on. More patroling subs would have ment more intercepted convoys but Im not that sure if the sinking rate per inteception would have increased much with the numbers.

By 43 aircover was becoming common for convoys along with Escort Support groups and all the rest of the gubbins.

Radar kept most subs under water around convoys and with air cover it hardly matters if there is one or a dozen U-B's under an aircraft, their all going to keep their heads down.

In the end it might well have put D-Day back perhaps 6 months, so the Russians would have met the Allies on the Rhine not the Elbe.

Perhaps it was better all round the way it actually happened.

shane

User avatar
Drobjatski Sergei
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 10 Oct 2003 19:31
Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Post by Drobjatski Sergei » 18 Nov 2004 22:45

Hi

Bismarck wasn't sunk by Hood!!! She was sunk by King George V, Rodney & Dorsetshire...on the contrary, the Bismarck sunk the Hood.. :)

Tiornu
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 20 Aug 2003 20:16
Location: NAmerica

Post by Tiornu » 18 Nov 2004 23:16

"WI" means "what if." So suppose history had gone differently, what would the outcome be?

User avatar
Drobjatski Sergei
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 10 Oct 2003 19:31
Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Post by Drobjatski Sergei » 18 Nov 2004 23:48

Oh, thanks Tiornu, now i understood it, i was completely mixed up with that one :? ...i hope it wont happen to me again :oops:

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15321
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 19 Nov 2004 02:37

I suggest that you search the What If section of the Forum as numerous variables have been discussed there before

Andy H

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15321
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Bismarck sunk by Hood causes Germany to win WWII?

Post by Andy H » 14 Feb 2021 18:40

Von Schadewald wrote:
18 Nov 2004 19:37
WI Bismarck is sunk by Hood, causing Hitler to have his Fuhrerbefehl 52 rage after the loss of Scharnhorst, in 1941 instead of 1944, ordering the destruction of the scrapping of the surface fleet, & all steel & crews focussed solely on U Boats.

The result: 150 U boats in the Atlantic in March 1943 instead of 45 as in OTL, enough to win the Batle of the Atlantic for the Germans, delaying the D Day build up by a year. Is this plausible?
Hi Von Schadewald

This is Adm. Raeders breakdown if the surface fleet assets were scrapped in 1943:-

1. About 300 Officers and 8.500 enlisted men would become available. This represents 1.4% of the total naval personnel.

2. 125,800 tons of Iron would be obtained if the ships were scrapped; that is less than 1/20th of the German monthly requirements.

3. There would be savings in raw materials, fuel, yard facilities, ship workers etc. A large part of these savings would be consumed by mounting the ships guns as shore batteries.

4. Fifteen batteries could be constructed from the guns thus made available. The first of these batteries would be ready for action twelve months after the order to scrap the ships, the fifteenth battery after 27 months.

5. The scrapping would require the work of 7,000 men in five large shipyards for a period of about a year.

6. Effects on the submarine program would be slight. Of the 300 Officers available for reassignment, only about 50 would be gained for the submarine arm, the others being too old or otherwise unsuitable. If the entire amount of iron from the scrapping of the ships would be used exclusively for submarine construction, seven more submarines per month could be built providing 13-14k specialised workers could be allocated for this job.

7. The decommissioning of the big ships would make it imperative to increase the numbers of destroyers and TB.

Regards

Andy H

Return to “What if”