What if Germany built 100 Type VII U-boats instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz?

Because the Germans made poor tactical and operational choices doesn't mean that their fleet was irrelevant. Bismarck could have been more useful if handled properly. For example, what if Scharnhorst and / or Gneisenau were available and sent to sea with her along with one or more fast replenishment ships the Germans had?
In operation Berlin Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proved very effective at merchant raiding and capable of evading the RN as well.
A similar operation with two or all three could have been equally effective.

At Jutland the Germans chose to withdraw rather than fight. What if they chose to fight instead? If a major portion of the British fleet went down it would have been an unmitigated disaster for England. For Germany, a land power, a fleet is a luxury and could have been done without.
The result of a fight to the finish at Jutland was a losing proposition only for the British. Yet, the Germans retreated because they failed to really grasp the strategic significance of sea power.

 

Without German capital ships the RN would have had a free hand in the North Sea and Med as well as potentially in the Baltic. Furthermore the High Sea fleet was potent enough to threaten the RN. If they got careless enough a couple of naval victories could have put Britain under a great deal of additional stress. So in this conflict they were far from useless.

You need to learn to seperate potential from what actually happened. I would consider Bisarck as having been in action a number of times. At Denmarck straits she won a clear victory over a pair of British capital ships and if she had returned home at that point it would have been of considerable worth.

She also threatened the Murmansk convoys and contributed to losses on that run to a significant extent. The Pacific wasn't the only place the home fleet could have been used either. Indeed without the German BBs the Med would proably have been a British lake from very early inthe war.

Battleships played a number of important roles in WWII. So wrong again.

 

Like the Yamato ? In the Pacific ,the battle -ships were used as artillery shooting on the islands occupied by the Japanese,when the marines were attacking them ,the Bismarck was immobilised by British aircraft and doomed . And the Prince of Wales and the Repulse ?? That the Tirpitz was considered by the British as a "fleet in beying" ,yes,but was that that an advantage for the Germans ? Last point:were there any battle ships build after WW II ? And if not,why ? Because they were ...useless ?

 

But we are talking about BBs as a groupl

They were also used as carrier escorts, against surface ships, and for bombarment of opposing installations. Ie multiple uses.

And the Glorious was quickly destroyed by German BBs. Note that RN BBs were required to sink Bismarck and the Royal Oaks planes wouldn't even have got a chance at Bismarck if it hadn't been for the shells of POW.

It meant that considerable more escort was required for the Murmanks runs and the reaction to one of her sorties resulted in very heavy losses to said convoy.

Yes

Not because they were useless, but because they were no longer viewed as cost effective. Especially since the only countries left with them were pretty firm allies. Indeed near the end of the war BBs (at least US ones) were quite capable of defending themselves vs air attack as long as it wasn't overwhelming (ie more than a couple CVs worth of planes). Note that the US recommisioned it's BBs on several occasions hardly something they would do for a useless vessel.

 

From "The Hunter Hunted" by Robert C. Stern
Chapter 9:

From Endnotes for Chapter 9:

From 1939-1943: BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC

　
Everything I have read about Donitz suggests to me that he was an intelligent military mind. I'm not sure how he came up with his calculations, but I'm willing to assume that his base figure of sunk GRT to knock GB out of the war had some validity. However, did he really believe he could ever achieve a sustained sinking rate of 700,000 GRT per month for two years?? Even with 100 Type VII boats at sea (meaning 300 in commission), sinking an average of five ships per day for two years seems utterly fantastic to me. As Stern noted, he obviously never counted on America's involvement and I would submit, an assumption that the British would never develop their own effective anti-sub measures either. As noted above, even during "Happy Times" I & II, his maximum GRT sunk was 500,000/month (admittedly impressive!) and before his enemies started to figure out how to deal with the problem.

I recognize that this is an old thread and some of this info was already pointed out, however, I think this clearly knocks out this "what if", even with three times the number of U-boats initially proposed.
　

 

After ww II several navies retained their existing battleships,but they were no longer strategically dominant military assests.Indeed,it soon became apparent they were no longer worth the considerable cost of construction and maintenance and NO NEW SHIPS OF THIS CLASS WERE COMMISSIONED . Source: Wikipedia :Battleship

 

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(1944)

 

Good point, and I just entered a correction in the Wikipedia entry about battleships to reflect that.

Note to all, Wikipedia IS NOT 100% accurate, and historical information should be researched.