Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alternate Bismarck sortie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alternate Bismarck sortie

    Suppose the germans waited 6 months untill Tirpitz was worked up and sent her out with Bismarck, Prinze Eugen and Hipper, simultaniously sent out Admiral Scheer for independant raider activity's and repaired the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau in brest and sent them out to link up with Bismarcks group? Reguardless of the hype of all the other german successes in may 1941 what would the result of the germans sending out a large taskforce peacemeal only to link up in the Atlantic and desimate convoys? Could they pull it off?
    Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

    -- Larry Elder

  • #2
    Heh, maybe. :)

    In the end though, I seriously doubt it.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #3
      Even just the Bizmarck, Tirpitz, Hipper and prinze Eugen would be a severe headache for the British.
      Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

      -- Larry Elder

      Comment


      • #4
        Britain's Fleet Air Arm would have been the only threat to such a "dream-team" (and what a team it would have been!).
        Unfortunately, the RAF had practically neglected naval aviation right into the ground, to the point that the RAF had Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters and the RN had Swordfish bi-planes....*Shudder*
        Ironically, those same magnificent stringbag flying kites were responsible for Bismarck's ultimate fate.
        Still and all, luck will only carry you so far and should never be counted on, only toasted afterwards.
        Speaking of naval aviation and the Kriegsmarine, does anybody have any comments or commentary on the Kriegsmarines AA equipment, training, capabilities etc?
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Imho, the mission was a suicude from the beginning, and AA equipment of the german capital ships was inadequate to the date.

          Just compare the throw weight of the Bismarck/Tirpitz in 1941 with any of the surviving battleships, like Iowa.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lurker
            Just compare the throw weight of the Bismarck/Tirpitz in 1941 with any of the surviving battleships, like Iowa.
            you mean like the Nevada? Maryland? California? how about the Texas? Pennsylvania?
            Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

            Comment


            • #7
              The British had fits trying to find Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, emagine if Tirpitz and Hipper had have separated from the group and you had two fleets with Identical ships. This would have given the British problems as to figuring out what fleet was where. They would need the proper intelegence to tell them that they were in fact dealing with two fleets based around the Bismarck and her sister. Some may say with two fleets it would be twice as likely for one to get caught, but what about the other? Even if one fleet gets caught you have an identical situation as the original Bismack sortie, except for the fact that you have another fleet to chase and as such devide up your forces. Factor in the Fuel situation and only 2 carriers in the region things get even shadier for the Brits. The hit by the Ark's swordfish was equally as lucky as Bismarcks hit on the Hood. Could the fleet arm arm do in both BB's?
              Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

              -- Larry Elder

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stinger
                you mean like the Nevada? Maryland? California? how about the Texas? Pennsylvania?
                I was talking about the newly built ships in 1940-41, but even "the big five" AA equipment is looking already more massive in 1942 than Bismarck's.

                It's enough to say that Bismarck's AA failed to drive off small attacking force of biplanes! And the result we all know.

                Damage of any major system in a single ship (raider) in my opinion is fatal, if not to the ship itself, then to it's mission.
                If it wasn't the rudder, it may also have been for example rangefinders (very vulnerable), gun directors, and so on and so on...

                p.s. imho none of the capital ships in 1941 had enough AA firepower to stand against airborne attack sufficient to disable them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Swordfish was ultimately the nemesis of the Bismarck. These canvas covered slow bi-planes could take an incredible ammount of AA fire and survive (if the pilot wasn't hit).
                  The problem is the hit that doomed the Bismarck could possibly doom another ship, the rudder is always a super sensative spot on a ship. With Bismarcks triple screw set up it was even worse.
                  A.A. on other ships of the time were not much better. The U.S. had the most but the 1.1" were prone to jamming due to overheating and were replaced with the Bofors. The British KGV class started out with 32 2 pdr pom pom's, but even these 8 barreled mounts were not as good as the Bofors.
                  The Japanese relied too heavily on the 25mm gun which later in the war should have been replaced by a larger caliber.
                  Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                  -- Larry Elder

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Alternate Bismarck sortie

                    Originally posted by smilingassassin
                    Suppose the germans waited 6 months untill Tirpitz was worked up and sent her out with Bismarck, Prinze Eugen and Hipper, simultaniously sent out Admiral Scheer for independant raider activity's and repaired the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau in brest and sent them out to link up with Bismarcks group? Reguardless of the hype of all the other german successes in may 1941 what would the result of the germans sending out a large taskforce peacemeal only to link up in the Atlantic and desimate convoys? Could they pull it off?

                    In your hypothetical scenerio, I tend to believe that the force of the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Prinze Eugen and the Hipper would have been detected or spotted making its way to open sea. The British would have done as they did, in respect to current history, but would have sent a much larger force. The Admiral Scheer would have been seen as a secondary concern.

                    In this scenerio, Hitler would have been better off combining the Admiral Scheer with the main German Task Force of Bismarck, Tirpitz, Prinze Eugen and the Hipper.....simultaneously, having the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau leave Brest a few days early, as compared to the departure time of the main German Task Force, and had them make all due haste to combine with the Bismarck/Tirpitz off of Iceland. ALSO....having and adding submarine assets within those areas combine with the surface German assets would have made the Atlantic a very rough situation for the British to counter or engage. This is again, all hypothetical and subject to many variables.

                    All speculation but combining all assets would have been the best opportunity for the Germans. Impressive as the Bismarck and Tirpitz were, they would have been no match for the combined British fleet, separately or for that matter....possibly together.



                    regards
                    seekerof
                    Last edited by seekerof; 01 Jan 04,, 07:48.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Regarding the worldwide AA situation in 41-early 42, I would say the USN had the advantage. Unfortunately, during the early carrier-strikes of the war, VADM Halsey remarked (in effect) "Our AA guns might as well have been water pistols" for the effect they had. This was due to lack of experience I'm sure, but the .50 caliber and 1.1" AA guns just were not up to the job. The .50 was too small and the 1.1 was an overly-complex POS that was prone to breakdown.
                      As has been pointed out, the Japanese relied far too long on their 25mm, which was slow firing and lacked real hitting power.

                      Regarding the Bismarck and Tirpitz, I think they would have had a murderous effect on the RN. They were fast, very well armed (except their AA suite) and had superb fire-control systems. Operating together, in concert with the other heavy units of the Kriegsmarine, they would have dominated the sealanes, drawing off dozens of heavy units of the RN that were critically needed elsewhere.
                      For example (i think something like this was already proposed earlier in this thread). Let's say a heavy German task force starts to rip through the Atlantic. The heavy units of the RN respond and are drawn away from other convoys, perhaps, or away from Britain itself. This is not the Pacific War of 1945 where there are dozens of carriers and thousands of tactical aircraft waiting to jump on battleship battle groups. This is the Atlantic of 41-42 and America has not (or just barely) entered the war.
                      This would be a great scenario to wargame out....
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Put it this way, if Bismarck, Tirpitz, Hipper and Prinz Eugen all sortied through the denmark straights Hood and POW would not cut it for a blocking force even with the shadowing cruisers joining the fray. The RN would have to consintrate more ships to engage them. You can see the problem developing? In the Bismarck hunt the RN was lucky to catch the Bismarck not once but twice with capital units after guarding every possible escape route into the Atlantic.
                        With double the German forces do they use this same tactic or do they consintrate on one of these routes? They would have to pool nearly all their forces to do both as doing one or the other leaves them a problem. Without useing hindsite the British would never even think that POW and Hood could not dispatch both German BB's but looking at the battle that developed as per history its a much worse situation than the actual battle.
                        Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                        -- Larry Elder

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If the Bismarck had sailed much later (1942) in company with the Tirpitz, they might have run up against the USS Washington, which was as fast, and more heavily armed.

                          Wasn't one of the Iowa's stationed in the Atlantic on "Tripitz watch" for a while?
                          sigpicUSS North Dakota

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Iowa was stationed in Argentia Bay, Newfoundland on the 27th of August, 1943 on "tirpitz watch", and by the end of the year was in the Med with the President on board for the Ciaro and Tehran conferences.
                            In reguards to the Bismarck facing either of these ships, she stands a better chance against the Washington, which was esentially a 14" gunned ship upgunned to 16". Her armor remained the same except for her turrets. Essentially both ships were reasonable armored but Washingtons upgunning was to her advantage, giving her more hitting power than her potential rivals, neither ship could take too much damage from 16" guns. In reguards to turrets Bismarcks would be vulnerable at any range to washington's while Washingtons provided an imunity Zone, which exact figure escapes me now, but sufice it to say that having an imunity zone against your opponent while he lacks one is a significant advantage if both ships are hitting accurately.
                            Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                            -- Larry Elder

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by smilingassassin
                              ... Essentially both ships were reasonable armored ...
                              Just wanted to add to that some passages from my recent private correspondence with with Mr. Nathan Okun. Who is to my knowledge is an unchallenged expert in ships armouring:


                              "... Since then, I have learned more about various armors and
                              projectiles, as can be seen in the latest versions of my programs at www.warships1.com or www.combinedfleet.com. These results have forced me to downgrade BISMARCK's armor significantly -- the belt plus sloped deck at the waterline turns out to be much less protective than I originally thought since I now have the re-evaluated the effectiveness of German WWII naval Wh homogeneous armor and have discovered that the brittleness of this material (as indicated by a Percent Elongation before it snaps in two in tests of
                              only 18-20% (18% is the Krupp spec) compared to the better homogenous British NCA and U.S. STS/Class "B" armors at 25% or more) makes it significantly inferior against large-size projectiles, though against projectile 8" (203mm) and less, there is no penalty, to my knowledge. This
                              is reflected in the German Navy's "G.Kdos. 100" armor penetration tables developed by Krupp in 1940, not just by my own evaluations, which confirm them."

                              "... As I said above, I have learned more and some of
                              the things I said are no longer correct, but in almost all cases this makes BISMARCK worse and worse as a warship by WWII standards -- I rate it as a battle-cruiser, not a true battleship, by the criteria of having ranges where it would be at least partially invulnerable to enemy fire being the mark of a battleship and very little of BISMARCK can resist any enemy battleship fire of any WWII warship at any range. Use the German G.Kdos. 100 penetration tables and try to find ranges where anything but that narrow waterline area is immune to its own guns (to say nothing of foreign guns); you will not find any areas of the ship that are protected at any useful range, much at no range zone whatsoever. Turrets, barbettes, upper hull, conning towers, whatever; all the armor on BISMARCK is essentially useless at any range against any enemy if they get direct hits on those parts of the ship.

                              Thus, aside from some details, the results of that article still stand.

                              Nathan Okun"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X