Pocket battleships or U-boats?

**1979** · 08 Jun 12,, 08:08

Originally Posted by clackers

Now, 'wastage'. I'd like to hear your understanding of the term!

category 2 plus category 3 .
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...fcasulties.jpg

**1979** · 08 Jun 12,, 12:07

Originally Posted by clackers

I don't understand, 1979.

What are you referring to?

for start all figures mean single engine fighters.

Strenght = production + stock - losses +repair.
germans

strenght in november 800 aircraft (your source )
production from july to november 755 aircraft ( your source )
stock in july 1,107 aircraft ( murray page 52 )
losses from july to november ( 663 destroyed + 259 damaged)
repair 140 aircraft ??

800= 755 +1,107- (663 + 259) +140
reasonable enogh ?
Now try to do the same for the
british , I for one I had given up , there is so much contradictory info
posted in your sources that even math does not stand it.

**Doktor** · 08 Jun 12,, 12:12

You don't need math. They won

**1979** · 08 Jun 12,, 13:53

c mon it is not that hard

british strengt in november was 1000 fighters
production was 1908 fighters ( july, august, september, october )
stock at the begining of july was 900 fighters
losses were acording to some figures posted here 900 fighters
repair not specified but significant .

1000 = 1908 + repair

the discrepancy is to high to miss.

**Doktor** · 08 Jun 12,, 14:18

Originally Posted by 1979

c mon it is not that hard

british strengt in november was 1000 fighters
production was 1908 fighters ( july, august, september, october )
stock at the begining of july was 900 fighters
losses were acording to some figures posted here 900 fighters
repair not specified but significant .

1000 = 1908 + repair

the discrepancy is to high to miss.

Your formula is wrong, no wonder you are confused.

(S)tock = 900
(P)roduction = 1,908
(L)osses = 900
(R)epairs = ?
(T)otal = 1,000

R = S+P-T-L
R = 900+1908-1000-900 = 808

Given the repairs are not included in the total.

It is not in contrary with what clackers wrote considering the difference in the methods of repairing the planes.

**1979** · 08 Jun 12,, 19:59

the proper wording would be: returned from repairs.
A aircraft needs to be damaged in the first place to return from repairs,

1000 = 900 stock + 1,908 prod. - (900destroyed + 808 damaged ) + 0 returned from repairs

would be ok from math P.O.V. but :

1 in this case the apraisal of the CRO becomes moot.
2 it would be odd that in 4 months time, no aircraft to return from repair.

some of the data simply does not fit.

**Doktor** · 08 Jun 12,, 22:20

Originally Posted by 1979

the proper wording would be: returned from repairs.
A aircraft needs to be damaged in the first place to return from repairs,

1000 = 900 stock + 1,908 prod. - (900destroyed + 808 damaged ) - 1100 returned from repairs

Fixed it for you. Makes sense now?

**1979** · 09 Jun 12,, 10:10

Originally Posted by Doktor

Fixed it for you. Makes sense now?

well no.

first because the left does not equals the right in what you wrote.
secondly aircraft returning from repairs are added to strength not substracted. ( ie damage has bean fixed and aircraft can return to duty )

Wrt to aircraft damaged I have only partial data, august and september :

cat 1. ( minor damage repairable at unit level ) 257 single engine fighters + 15 twin engine (Blenheim, Beufighter )
cat 2. (damage repairable at depot or contractor ) 380 single engine fighters + 4 twin engine (Blenheim, Beufighter )
cat 3. ( total loss or canibalised for spares) 736 single engine fighters + 22 twin engine (Blenheim, Beufighter )

Axis History Forum • View topic - The Luftwaffe in the Battle for Britain

**Kansas Bear** · 10 Jun 12,, 07:31

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(long thread), but why just "pocket battleships"? Why didn't Germany build more "Q" ship raiders? Just as much damage done to the enemy's cargo ships and much harder to find and identify. Used in concert with U-boats...........

Besides, who doesn't believe Germany lost their "cojones" at Jutland?

**Monash** · 10 Jun 12,, 11:18

Originally Posted by clackers

Personally, I wouldn't be sending servicemen to their deaths in what is essentially a futile gesture, Monash.

They're not to blame for the timing of the war, like WWI designed to maximize the chances of Germany's army succeeding before the opponents had re-militarized.

Replays of Battle of the North Cape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are best avoided. Trading capital ships for a bunch of merchant ships here and there is a losing game.

Agreed Clackers I doubt you, I or any rational/realistic person would have have ordered them to sortie in the manner described either but then we are talking about Hitler who was arguably neither of these two things a lot of the time! -and who in the end did order them to sortie anyway - just not any great effect. In any event I posed the question only as a theoretical execise i.e. could the available German captial ships have been used morre effectivley (stricktly measured in terms of tonnage sunk) than they were. Since the thread started out questioning the use of captial ships v u boats as commerce raiders it also seemed to me the one scenario likley to give them a limited chance of success -even though they would have probably have ended up engaging RAN assets and not merchant marine.

Cheers

**1979** · 10 Jun 12,, 20:53

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Besides, who doesn't believe Germany lost their "cojones" at Jutland?

I think the huevos part was lost at scapa flow.

**Monash** · 11 Jun 12,, 02:05

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(long thread), but why just "pocket battleships"? Why didn't Germany build more "Q" ship raiders? Just as much damage done to the enemy's cargo ships and much harder to find and identify. Used in concert with U-boats...........

True Atlantis in particular had a great run of successes. I was actually going to suggest that in terms of tonnage sunk for resources invested the Q-boats were a much better option for the Germans than their capital ships, of course it would have become more and more difficult to get them out to sea past the British blocakade as the war progressed but in the first year or two?

**Dreadnought** · 11 Jun 12,, 22:51

*One reason for the discontinued "Q" ships was the USN started arming the merchants (Liberty ships). If you think about it, a "Q" ship would have been out gunned several times over if it tried to overtake one of the convoys. That is if the escort itself didnt take it out.

On top of that all they would have to do (for a sub) is to tail the Q ship to its tanker and get both at once.

It became an intrical part of the plan to sink the German tankers as much as it was with the Japanese in the Pacific.

In both cases neither Germany or Japan could replace those ships fast enough to be effective in the Atlantic or the Pacific considering all German ships (cruise liners included) in port were confiscated.

**clackers** · 12 Jun 12,, 06:18

Originally Posted by 1979

some of the data simply does not fit.

Welcome to the world of statistics, 1979!

Best to avoid differing definitions of damage (within nations as well as between them) and stick with planes shot down and aircrew lost.

You seem very confused.

If you still want to go down the rabbit hole of logistical semantics, at least read the US journal article I linked for you.

**Stitch** · 12 Jun 12,, 06:34

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(long thread), but why just "pocket battleships"? Why didn't Germany build more "Q" ship raiders? Just as much damage done to the enemy's cargo ships and much harder to find and identify. Used in concert with U-boats...........

Besides, who doesn't believe Germany lost their "cojones" at Jutland?

I think we were on the right track way back when, when we decided that the "E" boots (Schnellboots), along with the Unterseeboots, would've made a good combination, without a lot of waste of resources; the Germans could've "picked their battles", so to speak and, theoretically, come out on the winning side every time.