Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 63tb on January 19, 2010, 01:45:38 PM
-
Folks,
I was looking through the info at the "Allied and Luftwaffe wrecksites in Norway" thread Grinch posted. I noticed all the RAF aircraft lost attacking the Tirpitz. Why was the RAF so keen to sink her (and take those losses)? She wasn't going anywhere was she? And the RAF kept such close watch on her, she couldn't have raised steam without setting off alarms. Seems like a waste of lives going after her.
63tb
-
protection of the home fleet?
Morale / propaganda? we couldn't invade france so might as well sink a stinking great battleship?
One over Hitler?
I think being rid of a potential threat makes sense. How many naval crews / merchant ships lives were saved?
re-supply of russia? uncle Joe needed them spitfires!!
-
Her mere presence was enough to be a threat to the Allies and tying up significan naval forces.
ack-ack
-
Yeah, but isn't that pre Pearl Harbor and Force- Z thinking? How big of a threat was she? I could see sending in a big strike force if she showed signs of going to sea, but it seems like a lot of RAF crews were lost for "just in case".
63tb
-
Yeah, but isn't that pre Pearl Harbor and Force- Z thinking? How big of a threat was she? I could see sending in a big strike force if she showed signs of going to sea,
And that's exactly the point. Just be it's very existence the Tirpitz tied up a lot of forces having to be ready to intercept her. And what if the Tirpizt had just slipped out of it's base unnoticed?
-
maybe the RAF thought if we sink the bloody dam thing we won't have to keep doing these blasted recon flights in the freakin cold crappy weather?
-
See Rule #4
-
And the RAF kept such close watch on her, she couldn't have raised steam without setting off alarms. Seems like a waste of lives going after her.
63tb
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the Bismark sneak out unnoticed, despite all of the recons over her. I think they needed her sunk to be certain. While she was still on the surface, she was a threat. If she managed to sneak out, she could have caused serious damage to the Atlantic and Arctic convoys. How do you prevent that happening? Make darn sure she can't. So you sink her.
-
See Rule #4
:cool:
Tirpitz was one of the most powerful battleships in the world; if she got out and attacked a convoy, she would have caused havoc. To blockade her in harbour took up a number of ships that would have better employed elsewhere. Hitler and the Kriegsmarine were well aware of this and kept her safe for just this purpose. The one time she threatened to come out and take on a convoy, that convoy was ordered to scatter and all its ships proceed independently. Consequently, PQ17 went down in history as the most costly in terms of lost ships and lives ever to be sent to Russia. Hence the repeated RAF and Fleet Air Arm attacks on the mighty warship.
The departure of Bismarck on her one and only combat sortie was discovered by a magnificent recce carried out on the pilot's own initiative in a Martin Maryland normally used for target-towing. He and his observer flew at low level on instruments through fog which cleared just in time for them to avoid the cliffs on the enemy coast and see that the ship and her consort Prinz Eugen had sailed; the harbour was empty. He transmitted this information in the clear on the target-tug frequency pre-set on the radio and thus the hunt was on well before the Kriegsmarine anticipated it would be.
Honour the brave.
:salute
-
Folks,
I was looking through the info at the "Allied and Luftwaffe wrecksites in Norway" thread Grinch posted. I noticed all the RAF aircraft lost attacking the Tirpitz. Why was the RAF so keen to sink her (and take those losses)? She wasn't going anywhere was she? And the RAF kept such close watch on her, she couldn't have raised steam without setting off alarms. Seems like a waste of lives going after her.
63tb
Like asking a mountain climber why they do it & the answer you get is because it was there.
-
Yeah, but isn't that pre Pearl Harbor and Force- Z thinking? How big of a threat was she? I could see sending in a big strike force if she showed signs of going to sea, but it seems like a lot of RAF crews were lost for "just in case".
63tb
Just to address this, we aren't talking about the Central Pacific where you know you will have 12 hours of flight operations each day. The Brits could have kept all their carriers in the area, but they would have been useless for about 6 months of the year due to the total darkness of the Arctic winter. So, no, it wasn't easily countered by "post Pearl CV thinking."
-
See Rule #4
-
And that's exactly the point. Just be it's very existence the Tirpitz tied up a lot of forces having to be ready to intercept her. And what if the Tirpizt had just slipped out of it's base unnoticed?
Exactly :aok
Remember just how close Bismark and Prince Eugen came to making it into the open waters of the North Atlantic undetected. Tirpitz could have done the same, especially during the winter with a little friendly (atrocious) weather. Those considerable forces Lusche mentioned could have done one of three things:
1) They could be held at the ready in case the Tirpitz sailed (essentially negated by her very existence)
2) They could engage her after she sailed (and run the very real risk of being negated by her for real; along with a lot of merchant ships)
3) Or, knowing exactly where she was, they could just preemptively sink her and be rid of the problem.
Besides, it gave the RAF a great opportunity to play with Wallis' nasty bombs.
Considering what the loss of HMS Hood meant to the RN, and to all Brits in general, it's also probably safe to say that the mere existence of Tirpitz was an affront to British moral, so she had to go. Regardless of military significance.
-
See Rule #4
-
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the Bismark sneak out unnoticed, despite all of the recons over her. I think they needed her sunk to be certain. While she was still on the surface, she was a threat. If she managed to sneak out, she could have caused serious damage to the Atlantic and Arctic convoys. How do you prevent that happening? Make darn sure she can't. So you sink her.
Bismarck's departure was noticed, but she was lost for some time. Tirpitz once sneaked out and then returned to base. The sneak-out was detected, and she had a short window to hide (very long daylight in July 1942 that northerly), but sneak away she did. The results were impressive, since a convoy was dispersed because of it, and losses were incredibly high because of the U-boats in the area.
(Anti U-boat tactics is the convoy form while the convoy form makes the best target for a Battleship).
So, her mere presence did tie up significant naval forces. Getting rid of her as well as the other big German wagons would make a completely different plan for the RN.
Wasn't she the last one to go?
-
sending in a big strike force is difficult in the North Atlantic. Norwegian fjords were heavily protected by mines , U Boats and naval batteries. best way to attack would have been heavy bombing by the RAF and Coastal command. If she had been allowed to get up a head of steam the tirpitz could extend on destroyers and corvettes quite quickly ( her main sea going threat) . If let out into the North Atlantic she could hide for months at a time as there would be no obvious destination for her . the Pacific on the other hand though bigger has strategic locations where you can look for enemy shipping.
While at sea she would also be under protection from the wolf pack . This meant that even if found surface forces would have to counter the U boat threat before giving chase . Once again allowing her to build steam and escape. This was not the case in the Pacific for the Americans as the IJN had a small U boat force compared to Germany's . The two theatres were two different styles of war.
The safest and least costly to lives was aerial bombardment . Least costly because even though many crews were lost it would total less than the possible number of seamen , merchant marines , troops in troop carriers , tonnage of supplies , and therefore possible deaths of other service men due to lack of required items and materials being shipped in from the US . It would also have slowed down the supplies to the USSR (which were slow to start with) .
I think i may have set the case for the "acceptable losses " encountered for the destruction of the Tirpits.
Thank you
-
Folks,
I was looking through the info at the "Allied and Luftwaffe wrecksites in Norway" thread Grinch posted. I noticed all the RAF aircraft lost attacking the Tirpitz. Why was the RAF so keen to sink her (and take those losses)? She wasn't going anywhere was she? And the RAF kept such close watch on her, she couldn't have raised steam without setting off alarms. Seems like a waste of lives going after her.
63tb
The Tirpitz was a huge threat to the allied fleet, and a symbol to Hitler him self. They just had sink to her.
And, in Narvik the Germans needed Ore to make weapon's in Germany. And Tirpitz had to protect those supplyboats.
Allied forces needed to stop that line of supply at all cost. Tirptz had to bee sunk.
-
sending in a big strike force is difficult in the North Atlantic. Norwegian fjords were heavily protected by mines , U Boats and naval batteries. best way to attack would have been heavy bombing by the RAF and Coastal command. If she had been allowed to get up a head of steam the tirpitz could extend on destroyers and corvettes quite quickly ( her main sea going threat) . If let out into the North Atlantic she could hide for months at a time as there would be no obvious destination for her . the Pacific on the other hand though bigger has strategic locations where you can look for enemy shipping.
While at sea she would also be under protection from the wolf pack . This meant that even if found surface forces would have to counter the U boat threat before giving chase . Once again allowing her to build steam and escape. This was not the case in the Pacific for the Americans as the IJN had a small U boat force compared to Germany's . The two theatres were two different styles of war.
The safest and least costly to lives was aerial bombardment . Least costly because even though many crews were lost it would total less than the possible number of seamen , merchant marines , troops in troop carriers , tonnage of supplies , and therefore possible deaths of other service men due to lack of required items and materials being shipped in from the US . It would also have slowed down the supplies to the USSR (which were slow to start with) .
I think i may have set the case for the "acceptable losses " encountered for the destruction of the Tirpits.
Thank you
I think you lay out a reasonable argument here.
The wikipedia article on the Tirpitz says that it was damaged and rendered unseaworthy almost a month before it was actually sunk, but the RAF did not know it. Is this true?
-
Try to follow this link, i think i found something about the attack of Tirpitz.
http://translate.google.no/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumsnett.no%2Fmidttromsmuseum%2Fmtm%2FTirpitz%2Ftirpitz%2520historie%2Fde_forste_flyangrep_mot_tirpitz_.htm&sl=no&tl=en
-
Thanks for the info. I guess from what you say the cost in lives was worth it. I also noticed that most of the attacks on Tirpitz were from level bombers. Did the RAF have any dive bombers similar to the USN Dauntless? If so wouldn't they have been more effective? Or were level bombers needed to stay above most of the aaa?
63tb
-
Thanks for the info. I guess from what you say the cost in lives was worth it. I also noticed that most of the attacks on Tirpitz were from level bombers. Did the RAF have any dive bombers similar to the USN Dauntless? If so wouldn't they have been more effective? Or were level bombers needed to stay above most of the aaa?
63tb
I believe it was tried, but her top armour was too thick to be pierced by the limited bombload of Divebombers. Hence why they needed the Lancaster with the Tall Boy. It was the only bomb capable of piercing the armour and sinking the Tirpitz. Though any details I'm wrong on, I'm sure I'll be corrected soon enough :D
-
Exactly :aok
Remember just how close Bismark and Prince Eugen came to making it into the open waters of the North Atlantic undetected. Tirpitz could have done the same, especially during the winter with a little friendly (atrocious) weather. Those considerable forces Lusche mentioned could have done one of three things:
1) They could be held at the ready in case the Tirpitz sailed (essentially negated by her very existence)
2) They could engage her after she sailed (and run the very real risk of being negated by her for real; along with a lot of merchant ships)
3) Or, knowing exactly where she was, they could just preemptively sink her and be rid of the problem.
Besides, it gave the RAF a great opportunity to play with Wallis' nasty bombs.
Considering what the loss of HMS Hood meant to the RN, and to all Brits in general, it's also probably safe to say that the mere existence of Tirpitz was an affront to British moral, so she had to go. Regardless of military significance.
The Bismarck did make it to open sea.
-
I believe it was tried, but her top armour was too thick to be pierced by the limited bombload of Divebombers. Hence why they needed the Lancaster with the Tall Boy. It was the only bomb capable of piercing the armour and sinking the Tirpitz. Though any details I'm wrong on, I'm sure I'll be corrected soon enough :D
you are right . only the tall boy could penetrate. even a cookie dropped by a mossie would have only done superficial damage .The tall boy had a shape and weight that could pierce the top armour. Also the shape of the Fjords plays into the hands of the Germans . You would only be able to attack from one of two directions and egress the in one direction ; straight through the AAA on either side of the run . When dive bombers attack they stay low for quite a while this means in range of light (if you can call it that ) flack .
-
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the Bismark sneak out unnoticed, despite all of the recons over her. I think they needed her sunk to be certain. While she was still on the surface, she was a threat. If she managed to sneak out, she could have caused serious damage to the Atlantic and Arctic convoys. How do you prevent that happening? Make darn sure she can't. So you sink her.
Bismarck was Hitler's trump card nr 1. With its groundbreaking technique and violent weapons power challenged the Bismarck the British Navy's control of the Atlantic. The ship was spotted by Norwegian resistance fighters who once reported to London. The British initiated a pat hunting unparalleled in which 42 vessels and several aircraft participated.
-
No ship ever made "required" a tall boy sized bomb to get through it's armor.
Even the Yamato/Musashi class which were considerably larger than Tirpitz were
damaged/sunk by smaller carrier aircraft. Admittedly they used torpedos as well,
but many many bombs.
-
No ship ever made "required" a tall boy sized bomb to get through it's armor.
Even the Yamato/Musashi class which were considerably larger than Tirpitz were
damaged/sunk by smaller carrier aircraft. Admittedly they used torpedos as well,
but many many bombs.
I faithfully disagree. Every source I have read has said that daue to the Tirpitzs double armour on the top, regular bombs were ineffective. Hence the tallboy
-
Size of ship is not the issue but the form of the armour. It was the shape and pure mass of the tall boy that destroyed the tirpitz not the amount of explosive. The Tirpitz was designed to take a pounding from 16inch navel shells that would land from a vertical or near vertical angle ; therefore it had a double skin both of which were thicker than that of any other navel vessel at that time plus a slight downward dihedral to to amour on the decks. Think of it as a bastard child of a tiger tank and the Bismark. Even torps would not have put a scratch on it's armour.
-
The sister of the Tripitz and Bismark was destined to become even more infamous than her sisters..
(this is called Scenario forshadowing ;))
-
The sister of the Tripitz and Bismark was destined to become even more infamous than her sisters..
(this is called Scenario forshadowing ;))
If only we had the model to make it epic...
-
The Bismarck did make it to open sea.
Undetected? The period "." typically means the sentence you're reading stops here -> "." , not before.
I faithfully disagree. Every source I have read has said that daue to the Tirpitzs double armour on the top, regular bombs were ineffective. Hence the tallboy
A regular AP aerial bomb from a Barracuda nearly killed the Tirpitz during the Goodwood III raid. Even the German's admitted that faulty fusing saved their butts.
Size of ship is not the issue but the form of the armour. It was the shape and pure mass of the tall boy that destroyed the tirpitz not the amount of explosive. The Tirpitz was designed to take a pounding from 16inch navel shells that would land from a vertical or near vertical angle ; therefore it had a double skin both of which were thicker than that of any other navel vessel at that time plus a slight downward dihedral to to amour on the decks. Think of it as a bastard child of a tiger tank and the Bismark. Even torps would not have put a scratch on it's armour.
Agreed. You're talking about sectional density. All effective kinetic penetrators share this design trait. Remember that Tallboy was designed to penetrate the submarine pens, then wreak havoc with delayed fusing. This made it perfect for killing a battleship, provided it was stationary.
-
I faithfully disagree. Every source I have read has said that daue to the Tirpitzs double armour on the top, regular bombs were ineffective. Hence the tallboy
Amazingly enough, the Tirpitz's sister ship was sunk without tall boys. The "double
armor" didn't save the Bismarck, so I guess we agree to disagree.
-
Amazingly enough, the Tirpitz's sister ship was sunk without tall boys. The "double
armor" didn't save the Bismarck, so I guess we agree to disagree.
A torpedo did hit the rudder/steering mechanism that forced Bismark to go in a big circle. When she did, the Germans soon started to give her up, and the allied forces moved closer in to finish her.
-
they were not identical in their armour design either. the Tirpits had a diffrent armour design to the bizmark.
-
The Bismarck was not "tied" into a steep circle as many think, but restricted she was. Anyway, she faced HMS Rodney which beat her to the first hit, penetrating the fire control quarters. (Take it with a grain of salt, I am running on my memory here). Bismarck was hit hundreds of time from various vessels of the RN, ending up as hopeless. I have not seen any source of the Bismarck hitting anything back by the way.
Although well armoured, the Bismarck and Tirpitz were nothing undestroyable. By the way, HMS Prince of Wales did score on the Bismarck. The shells were smaller than of the 15 inch gun (Bismarck, HMS Hood, Warspite etc), "only" 1.500 lbs or so, but enough.
Tirpitz did get bombed before, but the eggs were not heavy enough....
-
Her mere presence was enough to be a threat to the Allies and tying up significan naval forces.
ack-ack
Agreed Ack-Ack...the sinking of the Tirpitz was a huge blow to the Kriegsmarine. And also as Bruv said, it was at a time when England and the rest of the free world could breath a sigh of relief. It was a Morale victory at a time when they were few and very far between.
-
One of my military history professors once said that the Bismarck wasn't destroyed by the British but, in fact, was scuttled by the crew after the wrecked steering gear made fighting back a losing proposition in any event. If this info is true (he claimed he had a source that was "there") she wasn't sunk by any bombs or torpedos.
-
The Bismark BBs were not very good.
Check out this page for an interesting comparison.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
The North Carolina and Alabama class BBs from the US Navy would have easily bested her. The Iowas would have dominated.
I think the whole Navy other then Uboats where a huge waste of time and resources for the Germans. Think of all the tanks the steel from those two wasted junk wagons could have built.
-
One of my military history professors once said that the Bismarck wasn't destroyed by the British but, in fact, was scuttled by the crew after the wrecked steering gear made fighting back a losing proposition in any event. If this info is true (he claimed he had a source that was "there") she wasn't sunk by any bombs or torpedos.
:) I have also heard that, but only from a old man for many years ago. But now i have heard 3 ways of this story.
Angus,yours and mine story :)
-
One of my military history professors once said that the Bismarck wasn't destroyed by the British but, in fact, was scuttled by the crew after the wrecked steering gear made fighting back a losing proposition in any event. If this info is true (he claimed he had a source that was "there") she wasn't sunk by any bombs or torpedos.
I've heard that story a few times as well, but as far as I remember there is no proof that it it happened.
RINO: I agree to Disagree, but if you feel like stateing your sources, you may yet convince me. I'm very open minded and I realise that I am not a History professor with a degree in either WW2 or the Sinking of The Tirpitz and the Bismark. :aok
As for my sources, I saw one source that mentioned as you said correctly that one bomb once penetrated from a Barracuda. All the other sources I looked at stated that normal bombs were ineffective hence the need for the Tallboy.
-
Folks,
I was looking through the info at the "Allied and Luftwaffe wrecksites in Norway" thread Grinch posted. I noticed all the RAF aircraft lost attacking the Tirpitz. Why was the RAF so keen to sink her (and take those losses)? She wasn't going anywhere was she? And the RAF kept such close watch on her, she couldn't have raised steam without setting off alarms. Seems like a waste of lives going after her.
63tb
Well first off, she was one of two Bismark class battle ships. She and the Bismark were the pride of the german navy, so it was a morale blow to the germans. Second, but not less important, she and the Bismark posed a major threat to allied shipping, and the convoy escorts, although the Bismark was sunk on her maiden voyage. The allies couldn't send a couple of battleships out with every convoy, so Tirpitz had to be destoyed. The sole purpose of the raid on St. Nazaire was to destroy the only dry dock on the french coast large enough to service her.
-
Well first off, she was one of two Bismark class battle ships. She and the Bismark were the pride of the german navy, so it was a morale blow to the germans. Second, but not less important, she and the Bismark posed a major threat to allied shipping, and the convoy escorts, although the Bismark was sunk on her maiden voyage. The allies couldn't send a couple of battleships out with every convoy, so Tirpitz had to be destoyed. The sole purpose of the raid on St. Nazaire was to destroy the only dry dock on the french coast large enough to service her.
I was always under the impression St. Nazaire was a target due to the U-Boat pens, unless you are talking about a single, particularly eventful raid which I think I am remembering but am embarrassingly unsure about.
-
I was always under the impression St. Nazaire was a target due to the U-Boat pens, unless you are talking about a single, particularly eventful raid which I think I am remembering but am embarrassingly unsure about.
I believe you are both right. St Naziere was made famous for her U-Boat pens, hence the major raids of which I believe were multiple.
However I also believe that Commando's were sent in to destroy the dry docks at one point because, as pointed out, it was the only dry dock on the Atlantic coast big enough to take the Tirpitz. With this dock gone, or out of action, it meant that the Tirpitz had to go back to Germany to resupply and refit.
-
I believe you are both right. St Naziere was made famous for her U-Boat pens, hence the major raids of which I believe were multiple.
However I also believe that Commando's were sent in to destroy the dry docks at one point because, as pointed out, it was the only dry dock on the Atlantic coast big enough to take the Tirpitz. With this dock gone, or out of action, it meant that the Tirpitz had to go back to Germany to resupply and refit.
Ah yes, thank you Macleod, I was remembering right on that raid as well. Thats the one where the British commandos penetrated on a destroyer marked up to look German, correct?
-
Ah yes, thank you Macleod, I was remembering right on that raid as well. Thats the one where the British commandos penetrated on a destroyer marked up to look German, correct?
Far as my memory serves, yes.
-
Ah yes, thank you Macleod, I was remembering right on that raid as well. Thats the one where the British commandos penetrated on a destroyer marked up to look German, correct?
The HMS Campbeltown, the USS Buchanan which they got through the lend-lease act. Yes, was painted in german colors, flying the german flag and naval ensign, and I believe the bridge and superstructure had the outlines changed with sheet metal.
They crashed it into the dry dock, and planted timed charges in the ship. I don't know what the raiders did, but I do know that when the the timed charges went off as the germans were searching the ship.
-
The HMS Campbeltown, the USS Buchanan which they got through the lend-lease act. Yes, was painted in german colors, flying the german flag and naval ensign, and I believe the bridge and superstructure had the outlines changed with sheet metal.
They crashed it into the dry dock, and planted timed charges in the ship. I don't know what the raiders did, but I do know that when the the timed charges went off as the germans were searching the ship.
Here is the first part of a documentary on Youtube. Just look for the others after this one is done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHjSxFyfuo
-
all the commandos were either killed or captured but put up a bloody good fight
-
The Combined Ops raid on St. Nazaire was codenamed Operation Chariot. H.M.S. Campbeltown, ex-U.S.S. Buchanan, was disguised as a German torpedoboot and rammed into the lock gate of St. Nazaire in March 1942, denying the use of the largest dry-dock on the west coast of France to the Axis when the explosive charge in her bows blew up the lock gate - and some numbers of German sight-seers - the following day. The result was no more Atlantic or Channel-coast repair facilities for the big German battleships, which were now confined to northern waters. Tirpitz was now a lot less dangerous without a secure Atlantic port in which to refit.
Well done, the Royal Marines and the British Army personnel who fought their way into the dock area installations and blew them into such a tangle that repairs were still incomplete by war's end. And the Royal Navy who got them there, even if it couldn't get them home again: most of the Marines and soldiers were killed or captured when it proved impossible to get away on the designated RN light vessels that were shot to pieces by an alert defence. Five Victoria Crosses were awarded for the action.
For further information, the best single-volume history of Operation Chariot is Storming St. Nazaire by James Dorrian; 1998, Leo Cooper, Pen & Sword Books, London, ISBN 0 85052 419 9. It describes how the attack was compromised by a bombing raid by the R.A.F. that succeeded mainly in alerting the German garrison rather than distracting it - not 'Bomber' Harris' finest hour, for sure.
:cool:
-
Look no further....look at this, Jeremy Clarkson's father-in-law was a commando. And here is Clarkson at his best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF0R4dhUqk
I did post this earlier by the way....
-
The Bismark BBs were not very good.
Check out this page for an interesting comparison.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
The North Carolina and Alabama class BBs from the US Navy would have easily bested her. The Iowas would have dominated.
I think the whole Navy other then Uboats where a huge waste of time and resources for the Germans. Think of all the tanks the steel from those two wasted junk wagons could have built.
Oh, bear in mind that it's the crucial first hit that matters, and a couple of 15 inch shells will do a load of hurt to ANY WW2 warship. The Germans were ahead of the RN in aiming technology early in the war, however the RN was very much more at sea and well drilled.
So, - so many factors....
-
Look no further....look at this, Jeremy Clarkson's father-in-law was a commando. And here is Clarkson at his best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF0R4dhUqk
I did post this earlier by the way....
Psst . . . look three posts above yours. :lol
-
oh, me bad :o
-
Tirpitz was a "potential threat" to the Murmansk run (Arctic Convoys) and therefore was a valid target. The USN would not have left an IJN Battlecruiser sitting unmolested in Tokyo Bay or parked in the Aleutian Islands in 1944-45 either. It was there, so they attacked it.
-
It was a "threat" to artic shipping. It wasn't a potetial threat unless they couldn't sortie out of whatever harbor she was in. And repairs don't really qualify something as being a "potential threat". IMO, anything that can sail, is armored and can carry guns would be a threat, if not nessicarily a large one.
-
Not sure parsing the grammar really adds anything to the topic? Label it what you like.
Btw the definition of potential includes: "Anything that may be possible; a possibility"
Regards.
-
As for the German surface fleet. Had Hitler put all the time materials man power and money into more U-Boats and not larger mostly worthless bombing targets for the RAF. He and Germany would have been better served. I think Hitler would still have managed or mismanaged the lose of the war. He surrounded himself with morons totally unsuited for high command at the political level. While he ignored advise from professional soldiers. The poor use of the Battleships he did have made for good story lines for later war movies but had no long term gain for the German war effort while 100 more U-Boats in 1941 would have.
-
One of my military history professors once said that the Bismarck wasn't destroyed by the British but, in fact, was scuttled by the crew after the wrecked steering gear made fighting back a losing proposition in any event. If this info is true (he claimed he had a source that was "there") she wasn't sunk by any bombs or torpedos.
What you say could be true...and although German crew possibly scuttled her( I have never read an account of this event actually holding water(No Pun Intended, lol)), it was British torps and bombs that wrecked that steering gear. SO, if you want to get tachnical, without the "Help" from the Brits, the Hun would have never had to scuttle it. <S>
-
I heard the version of bismarck being scuttled, but it was the history channel that I saw it on so yeah 50 50 shot on that one lol.
-
Ballard explored the wreck, and could not completely conclude whether the sinking was due to damage or the bottom valves.
He did note though, that the damage was so extensive, that it would not have made a difference.
Bear in mind that the firepower of the Bismarck stayed full after the fire control was knocked out. She did not (AFAIK) score a single hit, while the RN simply closed in and hit her like +700 times.
So....no doubt. And the initial "stun" was done with a ship that Bismarck had an equal opportunity to hit more or less, and double opportunity to sink, due to difference in shher armour....
-
Ballard explored the wreck, and could not completely conclude whether the sinking was due to damage or the bottom valves.
He did note though, that the damage was so extensive, that it would not have made a difference.
Bear in mind that the firepower of the Bismarck stayed full after the fire control was knocked out. She did not (AFAIK) score a single hit, while the RN simply closed in and hit her like +700 times.
So....no doubt. And the initial "stun" was done with a ship that Bismarck had an equal opportunity to hit more or less, and double opportunity to sink, due to difference in shher armour....
It doesn't really matter anyway and is silly german pride/fanbois thing. I have a book by a survivor officer and he says scuttled, but honestly, the ship would have been sunk by direct fire soon anyway. It was wrecked.
Also go compare it with Brit and American BBs of the same period, it was a mediocre ship at best.
-
It doesn't really matter anyway and is silly german pride/fanbois thing. I have a book by a survivor officer and he says scuttled, but honestly, the ship would have been sunk by direct fire soon anyway. It was wrecked.
Also go compare it with Brit and American BBs of the same period, it was a mediocre ship at best.
Ok I'm going to bite.
If it was only a 'Mediocre' Battleship, then why was there such a to-do about it? Why did it have the best part of the RN on her trail trying to stop her if she was nothing special? Surely a Mediocre Battleship isn't worth all that fuss to sink?
Or maybe I'm missing something?
-
Ok I'm going to bite.
If it was only a 'Mediocre' Battleship, then why was there such a to-do about it? Why did it have the best part of the RN on her trail trying to stop her if she was nothing special? Surely a Mediocre Battleship isn't worth all that fuss to sink?
Or maybe I'm missing something?
Even a mediocre battleship is more then a match for anything smaller then it. It was a real threat to allied shipping. It just wasnt a very good BB.
Don't take my word for it, go read that link or any good book that compares them.
-
The Tirpitz was a serious threat to the Russian convoy lanes to Murmansk. If she and her escorts could devastate a convoy and cause serious ship losses for the aliies. Moral and proganda was a second factor. But mainly the threat the Tirpitz posed to the convoys was the main point in sinking her.
-
Wasn't mediocre. Bismark, sister to the Tripitz (both Bismark class battleships) sank the Hood, pride of the Royal Navy. Allies wouldn't have made such a big fuss over her if they could have sent a single battleship of their own, and sank her. Fact is that Tirpitz would have made a fight of it. I would have bet on her if the RN sent one of their battleships to hunt her.
-
Wasn't mediocre. Bismark, sister to the Tripitz (both Bismark class battleships) sank the Hood, pride of the Royal Navy. Allies wouldn't have made such a big fuss over her if they could have sent a single battleship of their own, and sank her. Fact is that Tirpitz would have made a fight of it. I would have bet on her if the RN sent one of their battleships to hunt her.
The Hood was a horribly flawed ship. It was not a battleship and had no business taking one on. Battle cruisers were a stupid idea. So the Bismark taking her out isn't a very big deal, she was basically a fast battleship with no armor.
Compared to her contemporaries in the US Navy and Royal Navy the Bismark class was mediocre. Just go compare them on paper.
-
HMS Hood equalled Bismarck's speed and firepower at long range. Had Hood not been tracking Prinz Eugen instead of the much bigger Bismarck, things could have gone quite differently.
It took only one shell from HMS Rodney to disable Bismarck, and a shell from HMS Hood would have done very close to the same damage.
The luck of war.....and the bad luck of war....
-
HMS Hood equalled Bismarck's speed and firepower at long range. Had Hood not been tracking Prinz Eugen instead of the much bigger Bismarck, things could have gone quite differently.
It took only one shell from HMS Rodney to disable Bismarck, and a shell from HMS Hood would have done very close to the same damage.
The luck of war.....and the bad luck of war....
The Hood had bite there is no doubt about it. But her Armor would not have stood up for long even had the Bismark not gotten lucky.
That the Hood could give a BB the Bismark a challenge doesn't really say much for the Bismark.
Go check out the combined fleet link, they break down all the variables, like protection firepower speed, armor layout, etc. There is a lot of detail in the breakdowns that is really interesting and it doesnt just compare the bismark to a few BBs, it compares it to all its competition including the other over rated BB the Yamato.
Or pick up Fleets of WW2 by worth cheap somewhere and read up on it.
-
I did study this quite a bit.
The bottom line with all the big guns was that a "KO" was always possible. Bismarck was very much better protected than the Hood. Yet it did only take one shot to knock Bismarck out when that time came. One 16 inch shell penetrated her fire control quarters and from that point on she was doomed. In that case HMS Rodney just beat her to getting that first hit.
So, it could have been the other way around.
BTW, Bismarck took hits from HMS Prince of Wales and it did some damage immediately. But POW was not ready for the battle, and had to get out once Hood was gone.
-
I did study this quite a bit.
The bottom line with all the big guns was that a "KO" was always possible. Bismarck was very much better protected than the Hood. Yet it did only take one shot to knock Bismarck out when that time came. One 16 inch shell penetrated her fire control quarters and from that point on she was doomed. In that case HMS Rodney just beat her to getting that first hit.
So, it could have been the other way around.
BTW, Bismarck took hits from HMS Prince of Wales and it did some damage immediately. But POW was not ready for the battle, and had to get out once Hood was gone.
Going back and reading some of that page myself, mediocre may be a little strong, about the equal of POW, and far better then hood. Bismark was not really up to taking on any of the American BBs, well other then the older Colorado class.
-
CC. And the RN KGV series were a good match for her as well.
The most amazing career would be the one of the old Warspite though ;)
-
And the career of the Warspite's Swordfish floatplane wasn't dull either, eh?
:aok
-
That was an insane performance. What an aviator.
Warspite did put a record in the books in the battle of Matapan, now wasn't that a 15" hit on a moving targer from a moving platform at 26K?