The Battle of the North Cape was instigated by the new admiral of the fleet Doenitz, who won from Hitler an overturn of his previous directive.
Lesser ships had previously been given a chance of proving their raiding worth during the Battle of the Barents Sea, a combat so embarrassing that afterwards Hitler spat his dummy, threw his toys out of the cot, and wanted to scrap the ships and turn their resources to the other services.
He had to be talked out of what would have been a huge propaganda/prestige blow without a lot of return.
Those capital ships sank very little in the way of merchant shipping.
Bismarck was lost on her maiden voyage, I'm not sure Tirpitz even fired a shot at another ship.
Better luck was experienced by the smaller Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during Operation Berlin, but they were under orders not to mix it with the RN.
A clash would have been hard to avoid if all four ships met in the Atlantic, which was actually the original idea for Bismarck's first sortie.
Last edited by clackers; 12 Jun 12, at 07:16.
As for why no more "Q" ship raider types. If you read the exploits of those ships, the allies caught on quick. They were constantly being reported on. It was a gimmick that worked in a very narrow circumstance and for a short period of time.
Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?
Your own losses tally, Appendix 14 in Post 173, has around 900 RAF fighters destroyed between the start of July and the end of September.
"Wastage" on the other hand includes planes that are repaired - about 500 in the same period (again, your figures).
These aircraft can fly again, they're not lost.
The infrastructure to do that was lacking on the German side, which means you've missed the whole point of the article you read!
On one hand the article the implies a susbtantial contribution of the CRO in the Bob.
but when it comes to back up that assesment with numbers, it cames up with circumstantial evidence at best , and even data that goes against it.
namely that british production alone was capable to cover british losses ( both destroyed and damaged ).
Last edited by 1979; 14 Jun 12, at 12:37.
J'ai en marre.
How do you count British production.
Rolls Royce had factories in Detroit IIRC Are those engines US or British?
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
because I fell that because of my posts the discution has drifted far of topic ( for which I offer my apology )
my future coments on this topic would be posted on the newly opened sea lion thread or a topic of yours or clackers own
Genarally, I trust the data posted on :
HyperWar: British War Production [Appendix 4]
J'ai en marre.
The definitions between nations are not the same. As I understand it, the German records of damage were kept locally, not centrally, and were based on nominal percentages. But somewhere I've read that in actual practice, while formally 60% was a write off, many planes with an IIRC 40% assessment or more also did not fly again.
In the RAF, the term 'wastage' included operational and non-operational losses, and simply, any repair not undertaken at the base itself, even if it returned to service after a stint at a civilian centre.
Note from the diagram how many of the 'wastage' planes in Fighter Command returned to the frontline squadrons - in November, they almost equal the new aircraft coming to them off the assembly lines.
But also note that the graph only applies to those frontline squadrons. It does not talk about planes coming off the production lines or out of the repair centres that end up being placed in reserve, for instance:
If anyone else wants to see the article complete with diagrams, Google books has it: Air Force journal of logistics: vol24_no4 - Google Books
I don't enjoy sifting between competing bureucratic definitions, so I personally think sticking with planes destroyed and pilots lost is easier. Even those figures can get to be problematic.
But I think we need to get over the Churchillian rhetoric that a valiant few saved Britain in 1940 - the article is one of many scholarly works over the last decade showing that line of logic in the Michael Caine 'Battle of Britain' film and various books is recycled propaganda.
Last edited by clackers; 15 Jun 12, at 08:40.
The pocket Battleships were more expensive than u-boats to build. Obviously, there couldn't be made as many pocket battleships, as u-boats. The capital ships would have been sunk, before they could have made an impression on shipping. I am reading, 'Battle at Sea' written by Mr. Nathan Miller, and published by Oxford University Press, U. S. A., currently. The Royal Navy, seems to have been the best in the Atlantic Ocean, and the North Sea. It seems so reading page 82, and before. This had more to do with the individual commanders of the ships, and their crew. Mr. Miller is less admiring of the Admiralty. The Royal Navy fought the Kriegsmarine well, in the naval exchanges between the navies in the war for Norway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)