Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3201
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Kingfish » 07 Dec 2022 23:26

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
07 Dec 2022 22:18
Richard Anderson wrote:
07 Dec 2022 07:16


Good to see that the what if section is still hard at work killing zombies with giant weed eaters.
Thats a metaphor I'd never thought of.
Rich probably knows the best string gauge to use when killing zombies. He's weird that way...
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

paulrward
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by paulrward » 07 Dec 2022 23:58

Hello All ;

Mr. Anderson Posted :
This goody notion is almost as weird as they idea that an "aircraft carrier"
dependent on an unworkable catapult system for air group operations by a handful
of aircraft could change the dynamic of the war in the Atlantic.

Good to see that the what if section is still hard at work killing zombies with giant
weed eaters.

HMMMMMMM...... Now, I'm not a History Major, but I seem to recall that an Aircraft Carrier,
launching a handful of twin engine bombers successfully changed the dynamic of the war in
the Pacific.....

After all, up till the Doolittle Raid, the USN was having it's ass kicked in the Broad Waters of
the Pacific Ocean. Then Lt. Col. Doolittle bombed Tokyo, and so frightened the Imperial Army
General Staff that they allowed Yamamoto to send the Kido Butai to Midway.....

Thinking back, the thread which discussed killing Zombies reminded me of Hobart's Funnies -
you know, those single purpose tanks designed to bridge rivers, climb over walls, and
flail their way through mine fields. I wonder If Hobart would have been able to solve the
Zombie Problem ?


Respectfully

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Takao » 08 Dec 2022 20:54

paulrward wrote:
07 Dec 2022 23:58
HMMMMMMM...... Now, I'm not a History Major, but I seem to recall that an Aircraft Carrier,
launching a handful of twin engine bombers successfully changed the dynamic of the war in
the Pacific.....
Meh, I seem to recall that an aircraft carrier launching a handful of single engine torpedo bombers succeeded in it's attack...Yet, failed to change the dynamic of the war in the Mediterranean.

I also seem to recall that the US proceeded to lose 4 fleet carriers - LEXINGTON, YORKTOWN, WASP, and HORNET - after this dynamic change...Wow! Germany loses 4 Graf Zeppelins! That will certainly change the dynamic in the Atlantic.
paulrward wrote:
07 Dec 2022 23:58
Thinking back, the thread which discussed killing Zombies reminded me of Hobart's Funnies -
you know, those single purpose tanks designed to bridge rivers, climb over walls, and
flail their way through mine fields. I wonder If Hobart would have been able to solve the
Zombie Problem ?
Yes...Right up until his Funnies ran out of gas. Then, it would be Hobart brains for breakfast.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9592
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 08 Dec 2022 21:45

The title put me off.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5310
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 Dec 2022 21:50

Takao wrote:
08 Dec 2022 20:54
paulrward wrote:
07 Dec 2022 23:58
HMMMMMMM...... Now, I'm not a History Major, but I seem to recall that an Aircraft Carrier,
launching a handful of twin engine bombers successfully changed the dynamic of the war in
the Pacific.....
Meh, I seem to recall that an aircraft carrier launching a handful of single engine torpedo bombers succeeded in it's attack...Yet, failed to change the dynamic of the war in the Mediterranean.

I also seem to recall that the US proceeded to lose 4 fleet carriers - LEXINGTON, YORKTOWN, WASP, and HORNET - after this dynamic change...Wow! Germany loses 4 Graf Zeppelins! That will certainly change the dynamic in the Atlantic.
You might do better to put this one on ignore to reduce the inanities in your life. Notice this one, like most fantasists, continues to ignore the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design.
paulrward wrote:
07 Dec 2022 23:58
Thinking back, the thread which discussed killing Zombies reminded me of Hobart's Funnies -
you know, those single purpose tanks designed to bridge rivers, climb over walls, and
flail their way through mine fields. I wonder If Hobart would have been able to solve the
Zombie Problem ?
Yes...Right up until his Funnies ran out of gas. Then, it would be Hobart brains for breakfast.
That one knows about as much about Hobart's Funnies as they do about aircraft carriers...or anything else.

1). They were not "single purpose tanks". They were Assault Vehicles Royal Engineers with various attachments enabling them to perform different assault missions.
2). CRAB, AKA "flail tanks" were not AVRE, they were an entirely separate development by Captain Abraham Du Toit, SAFF, Captain Norman Berry, REME, and Major L.A. Girling, REME.
3). Hobart would not have worried about a "Zombie Problem" because he wasn't an idiot.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2144
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Peter89 » 08 Dec 2022 22:54

Richard Anderson wrote:
08 Dec 2022 21:50
Takao wrote:
08 Dec 2022 20:54
paulrward wrote:
07 Dec 2022 23:58
HMMMMMMM...... Now, I'm not a History Major, but I seem to recall that an Aircraft Carrier,
launching a handful of twin engine bombers successfully changed the dynamic of the war in
the Pacific.....
Meh, I seem to recall that an aircraft carrier launching a handful of single engine torpedo bombers succeeded in it's attack...Yet, failed to change the dynamic of the war in the Mediterranean.

I also seem to recall that the US proceeded to lose 4 fleet carriers - LEXINGTON, YORKTOWN, WASP, and HORNET - after this dynamic change...Wow! Germany loses 4 Graf Zeppelins! That will certainly change the dynamic in the Atlantic.
You might do better to put this one on ignore to reduce the inanities in your life. Notice this one, like most fantasists, continues to ignore the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design.
I guess the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design were pretty much minor compared to other problems, eg. the lack of a working torpedo, RAF-free bases or purpose-built aircrafts :D
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5310
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 Dec 2022 23:08

Peter89 wrote:
08 Dec 2022 22:54
Richard Anderson wrote:
08 Dec 2022 21:50
Takao wrote:
08 Dec 2022 20:54
paulrward wrote:
07 Dec 2022 23:58
HMMMMMMM...... Now, I'm not a History Major, but I seem to recall that an Aircraft Carrier,
launching a handful of twin engine bombers successfully changed the dynamic of the war in
the Pacific.....
Meh, I seem to recall that an aircraft carrier launching a handful of single engine torpedo bombers succeeded in it's attack...Yet, failed to change the dynamic of the war in the Mediterranean.

I also seem to recall that the US proceeded to lose 4 fleet carriers - LEXINGTON, YORKTOWN, WASP, and HORNET - after this dynamic change...Wow! Germany loses 4 Graf Zeppelins! That will certainly change the dynamic in the Atlantic.
You might do better to put this one on ignore to reduce the inanities in your life. Notice this one, like most fantasists, continues to ignore the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design.
I guess the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design were pretty much minor compared to other problems, eg. the lack of a working torpedo, RAF-free bases or purpose-built aircrafts :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5627
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by glenn239 » 09 Dec 2022 00:03

Peter89 wrote:
08 Dec 2022 22:54
I guess the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design were pretty much minor compared to other problems, eg. the lack of a working torpedo, RAF-free bases or purpose-built aircrafts :D
I listed previously the advantages of Graf Zeppelin operating in conjunction with German heavy surface raiders in the Atlantic. None of those advantages required air dropped torpedoes or purpose built aircraft. An operational Stuka and fighter squadron would be adequate.

WRT US carriers, GZ would not be a match even for the weakest of these, the Ranger. Each of the American Atlantic Fleet carriers, in fact, posed a serious threat to Axis warships.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Takao » 09 Dec 2022 01:39

I can list the advantages of the Kriegsmarine having the Space Battleship Yamato if you want.

Perhaps even the Battlestar Galactica, or maybe an Imperial Star Destroyer.

Makes you wonder though...How well Stukas would function in a cloud deck at 100 to 500 feet.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2144
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Peter89 » 09 Dec 2022 09:53

glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 00:03
Peter89 wrote:
08 Dec 2022 22:54
I guess the unresolved issues of the Graf Zeppelin design were pretty much minor compared to other problems, eg. the lack of a working torpedo, RAF-free bases or purpose-built aircrafts :D
I listed previously the advantages of Graf Zeppelin operating in conjunction with German heavy surface raiders in the Atlantic. None of those advantages required air dropped torpedoes or purpose built aircraft. An operational Stuka and fighter squadron would be adequate.

WRT US carriers, GZ would not be a match even for the weakest of these, the Ranger. Each of the American Atlantic Fleet carriers, in fact, posed a serious threat to Axis warships.
I think reconnaissance is a key factor in carrier operations, right? The Germans had very serious troubles of finding pilots who could navigate over open seas. This might seem to be a trivial problem, but in fact Luftwaffe pilots were not allowed to learn navigation even over the North Sea. The pilots who had actual skills in open sea navigation worked for Petersen's KG 40*. It is interesting to note that early Condors sunk their targets after a very long open sea navigation (a feat that other LW anti-shipping units couldn't really match at the time), but late Condors basically navigated along the Iberian coastline and sunk their preys en the route to Gibraltar. In the Condor mission reports, gradually from 1940 to 1943, more and more times the crew "did not find anything", which is most likely the cause of the ever lowering skills.

Carrier or not, the fundamental German problems were to be the same. If they couldn't refuel, their range was simply not enough, and they had to return to bases on shipping lanes controlled by the Royal Navy and moor in ports which were attacked by the Royal Navy. While I myself have very good blue water theories about a more effective German surface fleet, in reality most of the advantages of such theories are offset by very mundane underlying problems which plagued the Kriegsmarine from the beginning.

*and in other units not related to the anti-shipping effort.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5627
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by glenn239 » 09 Dec 2022 18:06

Peter89 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 09:53
I think reconnaissance is a key factor in carrier operations, right? The Germans had very serious troubles of finding pilots who could navigate over open seas. This might seem to be a trivial problem, but in fact Luftwaffe pilots were not allowed to learn navigation even over the North Sea.
The Germans couldn't field a carrier in the Atlantic unless the air wing is properly equipped and trained. Also have to wonder after the invasion of the SU was set why it would be a high priority item. All sorts of valid historical reasons to shelve the thought exercise, if one is so inclined.
The pliots who had actual skills in open sea navigation worked for Petersen's KG 40*. It is interesting to note that early Condors sunk their targets after a very long open sea navigation (a feat that other LW anti-shipping units couldn't really match at the time), but late Condors basically navigated along the Iberian coastline and sunk their preys en the route to Gibraltar. In the Condor mission reports, gradually from 1940 to 1943, more and more times the crew "did not find anything", which is most likely the cause of the ever lowering skills.
Well, if we were to assume something simple like that Graf Zeppelin accompanies Bismarck and Prinz Eugen on their breakout, then the primary utility of the carrier is not so much long range search, but short range dive bomber attacks on pursuing warships, and combat air patrol trying to shoot down scout aircraft and torpedo bombers. Heck, if GZ is lurking somewhere nearby for the final battle they'd probably try to attack the Rodney, (maybe after evacuating some of the Bismarck's crew).
Carrier or not, the fundamental German problems were to be the same. If they couldn't refuel, their range was simply not enough, and they had to return to bases on shipping lanes controlled by the Royal Navy and moor in ports which were attacked by the Royal Navy. While I myself have very good blue water theories about a more effective German surface fleet, in reality most of the advantages of such theories are offset by very mundane underlying problems which plagued the Kriegsmarine from the beginning.
I don't disagree on that assessment in the overall scheme of things, but it is still the case that Bismarck is better off with Graf Zeppelin than without it.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2699
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Gooner1 » 09 Dec 2022 19:13

glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 18:06
I don't disagree on that assessment in the overall scheme of things, but it is still the case that Bismarck is better off with Graf Zeppelin than without it.
For the company?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2144
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Peter89 » 09 Dec 2022 19:35

glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 18:06
Peter89 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 09:53
I think reconnaissance is a key factor in carrier operations, right? The Germans had very serious troubles of finding pilots who could navigate over open seas. This might seem to be a trivial problem, but in fact Luftwaffe pilots were not allowed to learn navigation even over the North Sea.
The Germans couldn't field a carrier in the Atlantic unless the air wing is properly equipped and trained. Also have to wonder after the invasion of the SU was set why it would be a high priority item. All sorts of valid historical reasons to shelve the thought exercise, if one is so inclined.
I would say the same about all the anti-shipping units. Yet, what happened in reality was that the Germans were all too keen to send half-trained boys to their doom.

glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 18:06
The pliots who had actual skills in open sea navigation worked for Petersen's KG 40*. It is interesting to note that early Condors sunk their targets after a very long open sea navigation (a feat that other LW anti-shipping units couldn't really match at the time), but late Condors basically navigated along the Iberian coastline and sunk their preys en the route to Gibraltar. In the Condor mission reports, gradually from 1940 to 1943, more and more times the crew "did not find anything", which is most likely the cause of the ever lowering skills.
Well, if we were to assume something simple like that Graf Zeppelin accompanies Bismarck and Prinz Eugen on their breakout, then the primary utility of the carrier is not so much long range search, but short range dive bomber attacks on pursuing warships, and combat air patrol trying to shoot down scout aircraft and torpedo bombers. Heck, if GZ is lurking somewhere nearby for the final battle they'd probably try to attack the Rodney, (maybe after evacuating some of the Bismarck's crew).
Yes, but also if the GZ is there, the British would probably mobilize different resources, maybe target GZ in the Denmark Strait, etc. A lot of things could have happened, and because the German sortie was discovered at leaving port, this could spell disaster on the GZ too.
glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 18:06
Carrier or not, the fundamental German problems were to be the same. If they couldn't refuel, their range was simply not enough, and they had to return to bases on shipping lanes controlled by the Royal Navy and moor in ports which were attacked by the Royal Navy. While I myself have very good blue water theories about a more effective German surface fleet, in reality most of the advantages of such theories are offset by very mundane underlying problems which plagued the Kriegsmarine from the beginning.
I don't disagree on that assessment in the overall scheme of things, but it is still the case that Bismarck is better off with Graf Zeppelin than without it.
In a theoretical, blue water combat situation yes, but if the GZ accompanies the Bismarck, she had to keep pace with it after it was damaged in the Denmark Strait. The whole German surface operation depended on secrecy, not on combat capabilities. When it came to combat, the Germans were pretty much done for unless the Allies underestimated the threat.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5627
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by glenn239 » 09 Dec 2022 21:09

Peter89 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 19:35
I would say the same about all the anti-shipping units. Yet, what happened in reality was that the Germans were all too keen to send half-trained boys to their doom.
The Bismarck was the only German heavy surface raider in WW2 to go down outside the home area with heavy casualties. And even with it, the casualties would have been far lighter if the British had stuck around to rescue more survivors.
In a theoretical, blue water combat situation yes, but if the GZ accompanies the Bismarck, she had to keep pace with it after it was damaged in the Denmark Strait. The whole German surface operation depended on secrecy, not on combat capabilities. When it came to combat, the Germans were pretty much done for unless the Allies underestimated the threat.
Bismarck could do 28kt after Denmark Straights, GZ was good for around 33kt, so station keeping should not be an issue. Not sure on prevailing winds, but I half expect these to have been from the southwest? If so, then what happens is that as the Germans break through the Denmark Straights, Graf Zeppelin is armed and ready for battle at dawn and is sailing into the wind. I don't think under the circumstances that the British will be able to maintain contact, as their shadowing cruisers will be constantly breaking off to evade air attacks, and will not be able to maintain radar contact.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2144
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Kriegsmarine surface ships are more aggressive in the Atlantic.

Post by Peter89 » 09 Dec 2022 22:08

glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 21:09
Peter89 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 19:35
I would say the same about all the anti-shipping units. Yet, what happened in reality was that the Germans were all too keen to send half-trained boys to their doom.
The Bismarck was the only German heavy surface raider in WW2 to go down outside the home area with heavy casualties. And even with it, the casualties would have been far lighter if the British had stuck around to rescue more survivors.
Yes, but the casualties would have been far lighter if Lütjens gave the order to abandon ship and scuttled it like Langsdorff did. There was no real chance to cause damage to the British.
glenn239 wrote:
09 Dec 2022 21:09
In a theoretical, blue water combat situation yes, but if the GZ accompanies the Bismarck, she had to keep pace with it after it was damaged in the Denmark Strait. The whole German surface operation depended on secrecy, not on combat capabilities. When it came to combat, the Germans were pretty much done for unless the Allies underestimated the threat.
Bismarck could do 28kt after Denmark Straights, GZ was good for around 33kt, so station keeping should not be an issue. Not sure on prevailing winds, but I half expect these to have been from the southwest? If so, then what happens is that as the Germans break through the Denmark Straights, Graf Zeppelin is armed and ready for battle at dawn and is sailing into the wind. I don't think under the circumstances that the British will be able to maintain contact, as their shadowing cruisers will be constantly breaking off to evade air attacks, and will not be able to maintain radar contact.
Maybe I phrased it wrongly. I meant that the GZ had to slow down to keep pace with the Bismarck, thus make itself more vulnerable. Again, I do not argue that the GZ could be very useful in that situation, but the whole Bismarck sortie was doomed from the start, so it is also possible that the participation of the GZ could raise German losses for no apparent gains. I don't really know.

I have been thinking about this for a very long time. I read quite a lot about the SKL and the Luftwaffe's naval aviation projects, both in Freiburg and in online archival sources. As of now, I do not believe that Germany ever had a good chance for a working naval aviation arm. Graf Zeppelin or not, I am simply not keen to believe that Germany could produce a good CAP, a good dive bomber wing or anything similar. There are reports which indicate that the KM did not even share basic WW1 infos with the Luftwaffe. Some old staff officiers warned the developers that the Derfflinger at Jütland withstood 17 heavy caliber shells, so what anti-shipping bombs the Germans possessed might not function properly either. The KM probably didn't share evasive maneuver protocols, AA patterns and such. I simply do not have faith in a German naval aviation arm, because to make it effective, we'd need to change too many factors. The most I could believe that they could deflect the British attacks thus make it possible for the Bismarck to get to France. However, we also know that the British were quite lucky to cripple the Bismarck, so...
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Return to “What if”