Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Bizmark and Tirpitz sail together

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by scrounger, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. scrounger

    scrounger Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    12
    What would have been the Royal Navy's battleplan if Bismark sailed with her sister ship Tirpitz instead of Prinz Eugen ? I don't think the R N would have risked Hood and Prince of Wales against 2 new 15" gunned Battleships, I guess they were lucky the Tirpitz wasn't ready yet ...
     
  2. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    134
    I don't see any change in the ultimate outcome. Either both would have been lost when the home fleet caught up with them, or the would have become fodder for the RAF sitting in Brest.
     
  3. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    If we assume Tirpitz gets completed earlier and the thing happens before US entry the RN is hurting badly, they can only scrape together one fast battleship squadron capable of keeping up with the German one (Hood + the two completed KGV) and if that meets the German and they get lucky as they did in Denmark straits the RN is in deep trouble. The difference bertween a Bismark + Tirpitz raid and operation Berlin is that the Germans have the firepower to overwhelm a single British BB, and if they sink Hood as they historically did, are likely to be less reluctant to engage a single ship than were Sharnhorst and Geisenau.
    After loosing Hood the RN the British are left with:
    4 R class (5 - Royal Oak)
    4 QE Class (5 - Barham she was actually lost on 5/11/1941 so we shouldn't count her in)
    2 Nelson
    2 Renown, though I cannot immagine aftyer loosing Hood the RN would expose these much thinner skinned ships to the Germans, they would probably go to the Med to free better ships.
    2 KGV with 3 more on the line.
    And I'm assuming no ship is currently undergoing repairs, something I'm not sure was true.


    4 ships must stay in the Med, let's assume that's 2 QE (Alex) plus the BCs (force H) as they are the most reasonable choice, the Italians can put 5 BBs at sea but are more likely to use only the Littorios. a major effort against Malta is ulikely before spring allows for loger daylight, force H can of course join a NA force but is too weak to challeng an undamaged German squadron by itself.
    The four R have so bad machinery that we cannot assume they could provide more than one escort group, one is likely to be down at any one time if they are stressed by intensive ops, and we need at least 3 of these WW1 era ships to challenge the Germans.
    The two Nelsons operating together can form a second one, adding a carrier would even allow a more offensive role but they are really too slow and short legged for that.
    The two KGV and a carrier form a third one, they are too weak to face the undamaged Germans but the carrier evens up the odds.

    Having only 3 escort groups will limit the NA traffic to a trickle of what's actually needed until the Germans are neutralized.

    And I'm not even even adding the two German battlecruisers to the mix (I assume they were both undergoing repairs though it's actually likely one could join the German squadron).
    IMO as long as the St Nazaire dock is operational and the US fleet is a bystander a German squadron made up of Bismark and Tirpitz in the Atlantic is a huge threat.

    In late 1941 early 1942 the RAF fighters are at a technological disadvantage, if the Germans add a couple of Gruppen to the Brest defences, and they will if the stakes get that high, the RAF is unlikely to do better than it did and at enormous cost.
     
    belasar likes this.
  4. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    My only quibble TOS is that it would be more likely that Bismark waits for her sister to be completed which is a somewhat different scenario I think.
     
  5. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    I would use the 4 QE and the 2 KG as one group with the express task of hunting them. I might split them in half , two and one to cover more territory, but Itrying to avoid a fight until all could be together. I would be willing to use the 4 R's as a trade off. There are two factors in the British favor, they can trade their ships and once in combat the Germans would have to retreat after one, maybe two fights depending on shell usage. The Hood was sunk by a lucky hit, but the Bismark also lost two turrets with one shell so luck goes both ways.
     
  6. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Problem with that tactic is that while the six British ships sruggle to reach the latest sighting location the Germans will play havoc with any convoy they can reach, and it's a lot easier to catch an 8 knot convoy with two 30 knots ships than to catch the 30 knots ships with a squadron that can barely do 24 (IIRC at least one QE was no longer capable of the original design speed due to lack of a recent refit).
    With two ships (and IIRC four sets) one German radar is likely to be in working order so there is little chance for surprise and while the slower ships can prevent the Germans from attacking a convoy they cannot force a fight if the Germans do not wish it, the 1940 enaggements, in the Med and operation Berlin proved that if a faster enemy wishes not to engage there is little a slower squadron can do.
    The R are at an even bigger disadvantage as they are not only 3 knots slower than the QE but their unmodernized gun mounts are unable to fire back if the Germans stay at long range, if the Germans meet them with good visibility and decide to risk depleting their ammo by engaging at long range the R need a lot of luck to survive.
    The Germans have ammo for a couple engagements so after a second battle will have to return to port, but if St. Nazaire is operational there is little to prevent them from repairing whatever damage they suffered and be back at sea after a few weeks, the British can trade ships but don't have that many to waste, they have already lost one to no visible effect. With 14 ships left against 9 axis ones, even commissioning the two old French ships currently in British ports, at a very high political cost, is not going to improve the picture by much.
     
  7. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    To me while they on paper may have a better chance of escaping out past the British fleet intact they still would have the issue of fuel and munitions of which the port that would best allow that being in range of British bombers so forget the Bismark and Tirpitz, Unless they have at lest 1 but preferably several Dithmarschen class replenishment ships they would in the long run make no difference. With these replenishment ships they could in theory act for years assuming no break downs or damage is incurred (which is highly unlikely).

    From memory they had 6 such ships with each more then able to supply a full load out to any single ship in the KM so they could theoretically also support the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and even a few heavy cruisers depending on conditions but thats going off topic. Simply put with out the Dithmarchen class support ships they would be doomed.
     
  8. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    The resupply ships are not that big an issue if the ships operate from Brest, the RN does not have the capability to blockade Brest in 1942, any squadron that patrols within Ju 88 range is going to suffer bad attrition and if outside Ju 88 range it's ineffective without a speed advantage they don't have. The Germans they don't have to stay at sea for months, they can come back to port and replenish there.

    The 1942 RAF is not likek to win a battle of atrition against a point target, all the Germans have to do is station half a dozen Flak regiments and a few Fw 190 gruppen around the port and every sortie becomes a nightmare, the short legged Spitfire V that make up the bulk of the RAF fighter force are going to suffer very badly in such a confrontation, they are outmatched against the Fw and any damaged plane has a long way to get home.
     
  9. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    I never implied a sea blockade but I do disagree that the RAF would be of no effect. The aim is not to destroy the target but to at the very least tie it up in port dealing with repairs, Even the most minor of hull damage can take months to fix. The Spitfire's would not have had to be the aircraft of choice, They had several bomber aircraft that would have sufficed, with the Spitfire being able to escort (470 mile combat radius [Spitfire Mk Vb] to a 405 mile trip from Plymouth to Brest, Close but maybe just enough).

    While it may have been difficult for the British to actually remove the threat entirely I find it also just as difficult for the Germans to field the threat to its full force and capability with out incurring damage of some form.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Indeed for one thing she's not really ready until late September of 41, by that time the RN has radar on more ships and the US is more agressive in persuing its "nutrality" . Indeed FDR put out the "shoot on sight" order on 11 September and the Tirpitz sailed on her first mission in the Baltic a week and a half later. The US was already sending battleships with some convoys all be it old ones. If the Bismarck and Tirpitz break out they may add some of the new US BBs as escorts as well as aircraft carriers.

    The US escorts of convoys as far as Iceland I beleive and Texas was with some of them. That kind of presents a problem for the German BBs if they encounter such a convoy. Prior to 11 September they can break off with out engaging after that the Texas may open fire first which may result in the loss of the Texas but might also lead to the US entering the war earlier.


    I'm not sure that's the case. Were the JU-88's that effective in attacking naval vessels at that point in the war? Certainly the actions off Crete don't give that impression. There's also the possiblity that naval aircraft could provide CAP which will make it tougher on the Ju-88s by quite a bit. An aircraft carrier would also make a lot of sense for scouting purposes. Then there's the question of how concentrated a raid the Germans could send out if they spot the British battleships.


    They also risk mines and British subs every time they enter or leave Brest.

    At least one of the twins was kept out of commission for most of the time they were there. They may not sink any of them but they will they be in condition to sail?




     
  11. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    In my humble opinion, a more probable and worthwhile scenario would be to keep both ships, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, Lutzow and Admiral Scheer and the two Heavy Cruisers (or at least those operational at any given time) as a fleet in being operating out of Norway or northern Germany. The object being a threat to Soviet artic convoys and a threat to break out into the Atlantic..

    This would force the Royal Navy to keep a disproportionate amount of her capitol ships in home waters, straining her deployments elsewhere. Until the US enters the war there is little the USN can do to help contain them and there presence would likely divert Bomber Command to more missions aimed at either destroying/damaging the ships or to keep them bottled up in port. Any diversion of Bomber Command to these targets gives Germany's cities and industry an easier time of it.

    The German fleet does not have to attempt to hit every Russian convoy, but the threat that they could attack any convoy forces the RN to send 3 to 5 capitol ships (plus cruiser/destroyers to screen the BB's) with every convoy they send. As I understand it sailing to Murmansk/Archangel was a nightmare and terribly hard on ships and crews. Britain (and later the US) must either accept the wear and tear on so much of her battlefleet or reduce the number of convoys risking the ire of Stalin.

    Granted there were two other routes for western Lend-lease, but you don't allow yourself to overly worry about the things you cannot control.

    My main problem with sending Bismark/Tirpitz into the Atlantic and then onto a French port is that while there are more lucrative targets for them to hunt, they become easier for Britain to strike at by all the means mentioned above. Nor does Britain need to keep quite as much tonnage tied to home ports. Anytime the German fleet would sail they now become a target for the RN fleet at Gibralter (Force H?), the US Atlantic fleet on the east coast and of course the Home Fleet

    Sooner or later they get trapped at sea by these three concentrations, while they could last indefinately if deployed in Norway or north Germany which would keep Adolf happy.
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    That much shipping in either place becomes a very inviting target from 43 on. US ships often tended to work up in the Atlantic from what I've read. Carrier strikes vs the German ships as part of that working up process wouldn't be unreasonable.
     
  13. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Agreed a concentration would be inviting as a air target, but I have reservations on the possibility of US Fleet carriers operating in the North Sea. Yes they could, but I doubt it. Britain has carriers too, but not as many nor with a big an Air wing per ship. Based in France is another thing and why I would not (amoung other reasons) base them there.

    Much like Churchill said of Graf Spee's raiders in WWI, "Fair to look at, but destined to die". Keeping them together in Norway or Germany allows them to be a threat while placing them in the least risky position.
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    There were a few USN air ops off Norway. I forget just when though. I think one of the few encounters between USN carrier fighters and LW fighters took place over or near Norway.
     
  15. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Operation Leader had the USS Ranger conduct air ops in the area, but she was the only carrier in the group. Technically a Fleet carrier, it is curious she only operated in the Atlantic and was relegated to training duties before the end of the war. Makes me think that the USN did not consider her use in the Pacific for some reason.

    More to the point a fairly large CV group would be needed to strike at a protected anchorage, one the US would not likely part with from the Pacific. By way of comparison Operation Hailstone used 8 Fleet and 4 Light carriers to attack Truk Lagoon in 1944.

    To my mind land based attacks by Heavy Bombers seem more likely, but as I said this would come at the expense of attacks on Germany proper and her industry. This would be a net positive for Germany.
     
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ranger was the smallest of the US carriers I believe and built basically to use up the London treaty carrier tonnage. Being small limited her in a number of ways.

    My thought was not that they send carrers to the Atlanatic from the Pacfic but perhaps hold one or two a bit longer so that a multiple carrier strike could be launched as part of the working up process. The First 4 Essex class carriers worked up in the Atlantic from what I can see (wiki).
     
  17. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    The KM after 1943 in is a nice set of high value targets, but the two ships in late 1941 early 1942 can do a huge amount of damage, it's much more important for Germany to disrupt Atlantic traffic than than to turn back or damage a few convoys to the USSR and as long as they disrupt the Atlantic traffic there is nothing to send to Murmansk.

    Air attacks against Brest in 1942 would be daylight raids by not particukarky well armed bombers with escorts operating at the edge of their range against better fighters, not exactly a recipie for victory. Historically the Germans had left very few fighters in France, all the rest was elsewhere, but if the chance for a successful interdiction of the NA route presents itself they will reinforce.
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Given the great number of sorties flown against the Scharhorst, Gneisenau, and later the Prinz Eugen - to quote
    http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/history/scharnbrest.html

    Was their any increase in Luftwaffe fighter protection during this time? Or will it be as the Luftwaffe increase the number of defending fighters, with all four of Germany's battleships at Brest, so will Bomber Command ramp up the number of bombers attacking the naval yard.

    Also, given the concentration of the four primary German naval targets at Brest, would not the British also focus a heavy submarine effort to blockade the port.
     
  19. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Britain tried repeatedly to sink Tirpitz by carrier strikes but gave up the idea for the use of large 4 engine bombers. At least 4 (out of 8 or 9) of the Carrier attacks had to be cancelled due to the tricky weather off the Norwegian coast. There in lies two issues for a USN Carrier operation, one if one of the planned operations is cancelled due to weather, I am not sure the USN can afford to have one or two CV's loiter about the North Sea. The other issue is that Carriers working up would have relatively green airgroup's and asking them to overcome such flight conditions as well as defenses is probably asking too much of them.

    Considering the small number of aircraft in each raid, Britain got pretty good results, at least as far as number of hits are concerned, but they were aiming at one ship only and not a battlegroup of 4 to 8 heavy ships.

    In truth how much can surface raiders do in the long term? Basing in France does give them better targets, but the "sister's" only had one good cruise, and Bismark's was a disater. I guess that at best there is a 30% chance of getting caught on thier first cruise, 60% by thier second and almost certain loss after 3 cruises. Would this be worth their loss by 1943?

    It would be a coup to catch the Torch Convoy's, but I hardly think the Allies wouldn't have every available capitol ship to check any German strike. Also are we not considering the Cambeltown raid? Could not Britain consider using larger ships, even perhaps a "R" class to act as a block ship to keep them bottled up?
     
    lwd likes this.
  20. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Were the British carrier aircraft really trying to sink her or were they trying to damage her enough that she could not sortie. All carrier attacks on the Tirpitz, while she was in the fjords, relied strictly on bombs - light ones at first then getting progressively heavier. The only reliable way to sink a battleship was to use torpedoes, which the fjord and torpedo nets precluded. SO, I have my doubts that the British seriously thought they would sink Tirpitz with carrier aircraft.
     

Share This Page