Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a fast battleship. In fact it was the last battlecruiser to be built by the Royal Navy. There are some who refer to her as a fast battleship on the basis that her armament and protection schemes were roughly equivalent to the Queen Elizabeth class battleships (but faster), but she and her 3 (never completed) class-mates were all built with the intent of serving as battlecruisers and she was utilized as such through their entire careers in battlecruiser squadrons (although it might be worth mentioning that the original design study that evolved into the Admiral-class battlecruiser *did* start life as a battleship replacement study before being revised into a battlecruiser design). Its important to note that while the Hood was comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class in terms of weapon and armor, the level of firepower and protection this offered her was insufficient to serve as a first-line battleship (fast or otherwise) by the time she was built compared to the other battleships that were being laid down and built at the same time - that she wasn't totally outclassed vs contemporary battleships is more due to the fact that post WW1 naval treaties stalled further development than it is because the Hood was particularly well armed or armored.

The British definition of a battlecruiser differed from that by the US, French and Germans. By all accounts Hood was a fast battleship. Certainly she was seen as one operationally, she was fast enough to run down any ship afloat, and that was her core role, as a 'battlecruiser' but she was also very heavily armoured and gunned and could and did lead squadrons of battleships in line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt Swain wrote:
I've always thought the birmark was one of the most overrated units in the history of war. Basically it sunk one obsolete ww1 era British ship and got famous, but in simple gamer terms it's unlikely she even "made her points back" .

Yes, she sunk the hood, a ww1 era battleship in a war that was dominated by carriers and subs,

Speaking of subs, thank god hitler built the busmark instead of listening to Donitz and building uboats. The Uboat was the best weapon system the Nazis ever had, and hitler was stupid enough to short change them early on in the war when they could have forced england to surrender.

After the war churchill admitted the only think he killing england's supply lines with the few the kriersmarine had. If Hitlet had put the resources sunk into the birmark into building Uboats early on when there were no counters to them, the war might have gone differently.

You could have probably built at least 50 uboats for the resources wasted on bismark, If donitz had 50 more uboats early on germany may have won.

One single uboat that weighed like 1% what bismark weighed did far more damage to the enemy that bismark did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-47_(1938)

As a wargamer I see the bismark as one of the most overrated and romanticized units in ww2 and a complete waste of resources.

As someone glad the nazis lost ww2 I'm damn glad she was built.

Historical fun fact: The bismark's escort, the prinze eugen, survived ww2 and was used by the US as an atomic bomb test target. She survived not one but two nuclear blasts with minor damage but was soaked in fallout. A small routine leak occurred, unsurprisingly, and the navy was not willing to risk a repair team's exposure to enough rads to mutate a couple fruit flies into a herd of purple cattle so the ship sank in shallow water, her stern still above the waterline.

Bismark was not a bad idea, however she was insufficiently supported. Part of this was bad luck, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst could not accompany Bismark on her journey, bother were initially intended to, but one was laid up in dock the other took battle damage while doing a channel run. The Germans misused their heavy warships. Some people suggest Graf Zeppelin was the missing element, I disagree, one carrier would not have been enough to secure a fleet in the Atlantic. Bismark should have been sent to Brest directly, under continual CAP, then raided the eastern Atlantic under Me110 protection. That would have killed the convoy system and added as a force multiplier for the uboats, more than having more uboats. If given enough support by the Luftwaffe a three month siege by a surface fleet from Brest, massed Luftwaffe and uboats would have a very good chance of starving out the British.
As usual Hitlers interference changed much. Bismark sailed at the wrong time due to the Feurer's impatience, given three months the Germans could have put four heavy capital ships to sea at once, given three more Tirpitz may have joined them.

As for starving out the UK, it wouldnt have worked as well as it sounds. While at times the Uk was only one convoy ahead of critical shortfall, people forget what happens after critical shortfall occurs. This get bleak but not hopeless. When supplies actually have run out people get creative and draw 'hidden' reserves. Leningrad passed the point of desperation long before she was relieved but held on. Had the UK ran out of supplies trams would have cancelled, non coal based energy would be severely curtailed and it may well effect the night bombing campaign. However three contingencies would likely be crossed in time. First, the government would stop pussyfooting around with the NUM. The Miners Union was powerful enough to hold a general strike during WW2 and even Churchill caved to them. With coal being the only majopr resource the Uk is self sufficient on lines would have been crossed and the mines would be forced into double shift at gunpoint. That would remove reliance on oil power power stations. Second more sinister change would be an invasion of Iceland. Iceland remained neutral and the neutralirty was reluctantly respected. Should the convoys be blocked completely the UK would have invaded Iceland, most likely allowing self government but temporarily annexing a portion of the island to act as an airbridge. i.e you keep quiet and you get your country back when it is all over. Massed air conveyance would then be realistic. Third diets and eating patterns would change, chocolate would be gone, tea itself might be restricted. It might not be available in the home but only in communal tureens. People might end up eating rat etc if things got very bad. I reckon six months after official food exhaustion the UK would be a very different place but there would be a new normal, just as Germany itself found out. It would not have meant defeat or surrender any more than for Leningrad or for Germany itself.

On the other hand once Bismarck is in Brest the Royal Navy would presumably have shifted a tonne of resources to the area. The four German battleships having to go up against the four KGVs would already have been a fight that favoured the Royal Navy; get Rodney or Nelson along with some Revenges or Queen Elizabeths to back them up and the Germans have no choice but to keep running and hoping they can snag some convoys while dodging the various elements of the Home Fleet. As long as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau haven't received their 15" gun refit they're not even a match individually for a Revenge class despite their much higher speed. Waiting for Tirpitz to come online would have given the Royal Navy three more months to work out the kinks in the KGVs quad turrets, and we saw what happened historically when Duke of York went up against Scharnhorst.

Pooling their strength could probably have let the Germans do a chunk of damage, but in the end two light battleships and two inefficient but modern battleships were never going to outright the Home Fleet.

EDIT: Also, Iceland was invaded by the UK 17 days before the Bismarck was sunk. The idea that Iceland's neutrality was respected is the complete opposite of what happened.

It's worth noting the mere existence of the German heavy naval units soaked a LOT of Allied resources. Older battleships were required for escort duty to fend off the Pazerschiffe and Scharnhorst class. Several front-line battleships were kept close to the Bismark or Tirpitz to keep them contained. Vast aerial resources were expended in attacking these ships. They easily tied down twice their value in Allied military resources even when sitting in port.

Without the surface force threat, and only U-boats to worry about, it's quite likely even more allied resources would have been put toward dealing WITH said U-boats much earlier.

At the same time the UK had a bunch of older battleships to commit; if Germany had gone full U-boat it's not like the Revenges or Queen Elizabeths could have been much use in anti-submarine warfare, as Barham could attest to. It did keep the Japanese and Italians from just getting completely swamped in battleships though.

Well, Churchill himself admitted after the war that the only thing that had him scared in ww2 was the uboats. Not the blitz, not a possible invasion, not even the evacuation at Dunkirk, it was the Uboats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/battle_atlantic_01.shtml

People often underestimate the sheer scope and planning of the UK islands' rationing system. The phrase "starve the UK out" might have come into play regarding oil supplies, but even cutting the incoming food off from the UK entirely wouldn't have actually brought starvation. Years of planning had gone into the preparation to support the population at hand with just the food resources made on the island, in a pinch, and it was a pretty impressive feat. The multiple layers of careful rationing is still held up by modern nutrionists as just about the healthiest diet the british ever lived on. So not literally starved out.
I am not saying some things might have gone awry for Great Britain -- but they really did have adequate protein/energy reserves for their masses, which is rather impressive compared to the german strategy (the germans ALSO planned to prevent a repeat of WWI food shortages in their coutnry .. but by stealing it from greece and france and poland and russia...)

But when the oil goes the RAF and the Royal Navy (mostly) goes and the Luftwaffe gets free reign. It's not about literally starving Britain's population, it's about starving the industry keeping Britain fighting. Once that happens the food either gets bombed or doesn't matter any more.

Yeah. It was more about war material than actual food. If the British navy can’t sail they lose relevance.

 Orlanth wrote:
The thing is Swordfish were so obsolete the Germans could not track them. Bismark's AAA cannon sights had a minimum target speed setting of 100kph, a Swordfish with laden torpedo flew at 60kph. Swordfish also had reasonable performance and accuracy themselves and were airworthy in bad weather, more so than later designs. Being able to fly bombing missions in poor weather and high sea states is an overlooked asset of the design. I am frankly not surprised the RN stuck with them.

What was less forgivable was using biplanes as fighters. You can skimp on torpedo bomber 'quality' especially if there are positive bonus features, but obsolete CAP is a no no.

Last biplane fighter of Fleet Air Arm was Sea Gladiator, which was already leaving service as WW2 began - I think they might have been used in Norwegian campaign, but not much after that. It was replaced by Fairey Fulmar, which, to be fair, did not really have much better performance than Gladiator...

 Orlanth wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, Korea was the turbo diesel prop Hawker Sea Fury. Not biplanes but prop driven.

Sorry it was two stories mixed. Sea Furies did get some Mig kills. The recorded case of a biplane that shot down a jet was a North Korean Polikarpov which got a crit against an F-94.

As for Korean War FAA biplanes, IIRC they had some for ASW air recon due to their long flight endurance, sorry for the mix up. I still swear I heard of a FAA biplane shooting down a Mig-15, but it was on History channel which is not a realiable source at best of times, then likely watered down by memory leakage over about a decade.

The funny thing about that was the Polikarpov got the kill because the F-94 tried to slow down so much to track that target that the Jet stalled and crashed! IIRC the American pilot did manage to escape unharmed, but I may be misremembering.

I'm sure he got a serious dressing down after that incident. The F-94 had a super top secret gun radar at the time and was the top of the line US interceptor jet.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
At the same time the UK had a bunch of older battleships to commit; if Germany had gone full U-boat it's not like the Revenges or Queen Elizabeths could have been much use in anti-submarine warfare, as Barham could attest to. It did keep the Japanese and Italians from just getting completely swamped in battleships though.

Which is rather the point. The Italians sank a LOT of British ships. Having the ships tied down by Germany instead serving in the Med would have allowed the British fleet to battle more on their terms instead of the Italians. This would likely have resulted in a lot more Italian ships being sunk more quickly and ending that naval conflict a lot faster. This then would have freed up more light ships from the Med which could have then served against the u-boats.

Or the battleships and carriers held back to catch those surface units could have gone after the u-boat pens much more aggressively than they did historically...

Fair point. With Suez and North Africa safe earlier a lot could change.

Relating to this, the bismark's short career followed by the kriegsmarines poor performance at the battle of the barents sea in 1942 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Barents_Sea ) convinced hitler to switch production away from surface units and to focus on uboats, which by this time were being countered by more and more advanced measures like convoy systems, hydrophones, observation planes, sonar, depth charges, etc.

This is part of the reason the nazis never built a functional aircraft carrier.

https://www.historynet.com/why-didnt-germany-have-any-aircraft-carriers.htm

Even if they had they probably couldn't have supplied it effectively for it to make a difference.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if they had they probably couldn't have supplied it effectively for it to make a difference.

Yes, not only the planes, but their quality of pilots had diminished so much towards the end of the war their pilot loss in simple mishaps (training, landings, etc.) was staggering. Imagine trying to have these poor gents taking off and landing from a carrier.

Carriers are a tool for naval supremacy. Japan could try a hand at that Germany could not. Battleships can sortee into the Atlantic do some damage and retire. Carrier deployments mean 'this portion of sea is mine'. Germany was never in a position to do that outside the Baltic.

 Orlanth wrote:
Carriers are a tool for naval supremacy. Japan could try a hand at that Germany could not. Battleships can sortee into the Atlantic do some damage and retire. Carrier deployments mean 'this portion of sea is mine'. Germany was never in a position to do that outside the Baltic.

Agree - not the sort of thing Germany really needed to do, given their blitzkrieg method of warfare to take ove the immediate ground area.

...back OT, it was just a one in a million shot in a spot known to be vulnerable, but still considered an acceptable risk when Hood began in her role during WWII since her deck retrofit before the war began was never done. Those one in a million shots are what will always intrigue historians and rally the nation, similar to what the Japanese did to the Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Relating to this, the bismark's short career followed by the kriegsmarines poor performance at the battle of the barents sea in 1942 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Barents_Sea ) convinced hitler to switch production away from surface units and to focus on uboats, which by this time were being countered by more and more advanced measures like convoy systems, hydrophones, observation planes, sonar, depth charges, etc.

This is part of the reason the nazis never built a functional aircraft carrier.

https://www.historynet.com/why-didnt-germany-have-any-aircraft-carriers.htm

Well a German aircraft carrier would have come out when the US was deep into the war. With no functional air doctrine (as in not even knowing how to launch aircraft), it would have been a major but shortlived target for US and UK carrier groups.

It likely saved a couple of thousand German lives.

Yes, I think Germany had its fair share of technological firsts and advances and spreading so thin as to have carriers? That would have been disastrous.

If you are interested in ww2 naval warfare, look into "operation pedastal".

It was a desperate effort to delivery critical supplies to the isle of Malta to let is resist german conquest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pedestal

One of the most vital ships in the convoy was a fuel tanker, the SS Ohio. Towards the end she was severely damaged with a broken stern and cracked keel. Two ships literally lashed themselves to her sides to hold her together while others towed the slowly sinking ship into shallow water so her vital fuel cargo could be saved.

The Ohio when she arrived at port.





One ship survived because an torpedo dropped by plane got caught up in part of her paravane rig. The ship could not slow for fear the topedpo would hit her hull if she did so the rig was cut off and the torpedo sank and detonated when it hit the bottom.



They really should have done a good movie about this operation.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Relating to this, the bismark's short career followed by the kriegsmarines poor performance at the battle of the barents sea in 1942 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Barents_Sea ) convinced hitler to switch production away from surface units and to focus on uboats, which by this time were being countered by more and more advanced measures like convoy systems, hydrophones, observation planes, sonar, depth charges, etc.

This is part of the reason the nazis never built a functional aircraft carrier.

https://www.historynet.com/why-didnt-germany-have-any-aircraft-carriers.htm

They were looking at building one and equipping it with navalized Bf-109's and Ju-87's. I don't even want to think about what casualties among the Ju-87s would have been in combat, and somehow I think the problematic landing gear of the Bf-109's would have handled carrier landings terribly well...

On the other hand, with it's large battery of 5.9" guns the Graf Zeppelin would have made a serviceable (if grossly oversized and overpriced) light cruiser.

The worst part of the Bismark's story was over 2,000 men on her died so needlessly. The captain must have known after here rudder was jammed by that torpedo plane hit she was doomed. He could have scuttled the ship after evacuating it. A portion of c=]his crew might have reached a friendly port, many may have been taken POW but most would have survived.

In the end the captain scuttled her after she was a flaming wreck and just out of spite to deny the British the honor of sinking her. Out of 2200 men onboard only 114, and possibly a cat, survived. The rest died pointlessly over vainglory and the nazi's twisted concept of honor and valor.

Contrast this to the story of the Cruiser Graff Spee:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

The captain of the Graff Spee, believing his ship was doomed and almost certain to be destroyed before she could reach a safe harbor, ordered her evacuated and then destroyed with a massive blast that left her quite unusable by the enemy. He saved the lives of his crew from a doom he believed was real but was in fact a clever deception. Nonetheless he decided not to lead his men to a pointless death.

Maybe bismark's captain believed he was being tricked like the graf spee's captain was. But once it became apparent his ship was doomed he could have signaled surrender, evacuated his men and scuttled the ship, which he did later anyway, too late to save over 2000 of his men.

Graf Spee was scuttled in port. Bismarck was in the middle of the Atlantic.

Besides, naval officers don't usually surrender their ships unless they absolutely positively have no other option. No one's giving Taffy Three flak for not surrendering despite Yamato alone outweighing the entire task force.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Graf Spee was scuttled in port. Bismarck was in the middle of the Atlantic.

Besides, naval officers don't usually surrender their ships unless they absolutely positively have no other option. No one's giving Taffy Three flak for not surrendering despite Yamato alone outweighing the entire task force.

Taffy Three was defending the unarmed transports behind them with everything they had. Had they just surrendered the entire landing force was in danger of destruction.

Bismark was defending.... what, exactly?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Graf Spee was scuttled in port. Bismarck was in the middle of the Atlantic.

Besides, naval officers don't usually surrender their ships unless they absolutely positively have no other option. No one's giving Taffy Three flak for not surrendering despite Yamato alone outweighing the entire task force.

The above post deals with one issue. I must raise another.

While task force taffy 3 was outweighed and outgunned terribly by the japanese force, she has one significant advantage: Air power.

TFT3 was contained 6 small carriers. It had a number of aircraft in total equal to the compliment of a large carrier. The japanese fleet had no appreciable air power whatsoever. While it is true the aircraft of tft3 were not exactly piloted by ace pilots and they were not ideally armed to deal with heavy cruisers and battleships they wreaked merry hell on the destroyers screening them.

Bismarck was defending, as silly as it sounds, the reputation of the Kriegsmarine. Having your most powerful ship just surrender would be a ridiculously huge blow to German morale; far worse than getting sunk.

Also, Taffy Three fought out of desperation. The air assets would probably not have made a difference if Kurita just pressed the attack. They faced the same certain annihilation as Bismarck (more so, as they were actively fighting) but they're upheld as heroes. Bismak had far greater chances of survival than Taffy Three which survived because Kurita had a brain fart, not because the planes from Taffy One, Two and Three were stopping him.

Two things: U-boats had a HARD counter: Blimps. blimps were very fuel efficient, had incredible loiter times, and were really great at spotting U-boats. If I remember correctly, no ship was lost with a blimp accompanying it. With the US having control over the vast bulk of the world's helium I think Blimp production would have hit overdrive if there were more U-boats.


Also, as to the "Bismarck was overrated" argument, I will admit that I've had several conversations about WWII in several forums where the Bismarck got a bit of a fanboy problem. In one memorable thread someone was animate that the Bismarck would have come out on top if it went up against an Iowa class Battleship.

Naval officers of the period generally didn't have a habit of surrendering their vessels to the enemy. Langsdorf ended his life because he had to scuttle his ship in a neutral port. That's the kind of mental emphasis a naval command officer is going to have. On a ship like the Bismarck (or Hood, or really any of them), everyone knows the score, they don't head out to sea crewed by unwilling conscripts. Likewise, safely evacuating a warship like Bismarck on the high seas into enemy hands would have been...difficult and awkward.

It should also be pointed out that the orders to the Royal Navy were to *sink* the Bismarck, not to force its submission, not to take it as a prize. They continued hurling steel into the vessel long after it was clear to anyone involved that the ship was unable to resist or fight, and chose to put torpedoes into the ship to finish it off even as the battle damage & scuttling was clearly causing the ship to heavily list and was pretty clearly in the process of sinking. The RN's orders were pretty blunt.

The story of Taffy 3 is amusing in that neither side really grasped entirely what the other was, the US thought Yamato was much more in scale with maybe something more akin in displacement to maybe the Iowa's (which was still huge) until well after the war, nobody realized how truly big they were at the time, the Japanese had done a really intense job keeping the details of their construction secret and destroying records at the end of the war, while the Japanese also thought the carriers of Taffy 3 were fleet carriers not escort carriers during the initial part of the engagement

With regards to the Bismarck itself being "over-rated", I think it could be called "overweight". For the foe it was designed to fight in the seas it was intended to operate at the time it was designed, Bismarck met its objectives well and obviously was able to match the pride of the Royal Navy in the North Atlantic in the early 1940's and required the attention of everything the RN could muster at that moment to deal with it. However, the Germans hadn't been on the cutting edge of capital ship development for a couple of decades, and the US got a whole lot more out of the same general displacement in the Iowa's (more guns, bigger guns, more speed, broadly equal armor qualities and quantities, etc), which undoubtedly would have clobbered a Bismarck (but also had a several more years of advanced radar and fire control technology) in open seas, probably wouldn't have been able to operate in the North Atlantic as well for as long as Bismarck was expected to.

The bismark allways struck me as a gamble.

Especially the mission, basically, scare the british royal navy to have a big detachment of surface fleet in circulations due to fear of the Bismark, wasting ressources to keep them there, therefore make the gamble of the mission and then basically retire the ship somewhere safe but in reach to work as a potential threat in the atlantic, lowering the pressure for Italy.

Now, the bismark also comes into play with the general political infighting in the german highcommand for ressources and strategey, beeing part of what is known as Plan Z to my knowledge.

Yes, as with the Tirpitz, the Bismarck in a French port (or worse, roaming the Atlantic) would have been a considerable fleet-in-being and tied down a lot of British forces.

There’s an interesting “what-if” (covered in one of Drachinifel’s other videos) that the Germans would have been a lot better off not sinking Hood. The extreme “sink her at all cost” orders were really an act of revenge. If Hood had survived, with both sides likely withdrawing after taking damage, the RN would probably have been a lot more cautious and circumspect.