Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

That was a great documentary, thanks Leo.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

BTW, I didn't know that the father of the Ludovic Kennedy (BBC presenter) was the captain of the HMS "Rawalpindi"...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zecke

Thx Leon¡; as i can see and not the only one that think that the Scharnhorst is The German BB that i most like the ship and The Size.

Great DOC

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zecke

Thx Leon¡; as i can see and not the only one that think that the Scharnhorst is The German BB that i most like the ship and The Size.

Great DOC

Eh, under-gunned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zecke

Thx Leon¡; as i can see and not the only one that think that the Scharnhorst is The German BB that i most like the ship and The Size.

Great DOC

Eh, under-gunned.

They were designed as long-range commerce raiders, able to outrun anything the British could send after them, including Hood, Repulse and Renown. They were never intended to go toe-to-toe with capital ships. The designers and naval strategists in 1933 could not have known how radar and long-range search aircraft would become pivotal in finding and trapping such commerce raiders.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had some success at the start of the war but once the Allied radar and air search made the Atlantic too visible they were relegated to ports as a fleet in being. Hitler did not want Scharnhorst to go on her final sortie but the Grand Admiral (can't remember if Döenitz had taken over or if Raeder was still there) persuaded him that ambushing an Arctic convoy would help the Eastern front and boost Germany's morale. The Germans probably had better than usual intel on the convoy and thought they had the whole picture - i.e. they knew about the cruiser covering force but did not know about BB Duke of York's "distant cover" force.

quote:

They were designed as long-range commerce raiders,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Commerce raiders were not only to sink enemy shipping but also forcing the enemy to use many of its naval ships to search for them and to escort convoys.
Vs subs you just need a lot of DDs and smaller vessels to escort convoys, vs large ships you either need lots of cruisers or a battleship with limited amount of cruisers

quote:

On 5 October, the British and French navies formed eight groups to hunt down Admiral Graf Spee in the South Atlantic. The British aircraft carriers HMS Hermes, Eagle, and Ark Royal, the French aircraft carrier Béarn, the British battlecruiser Renown, and French battleships Dunkerque and Strasbourg, and 16 cruisers were committed to the hunt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

quote:

On 5 October, the British and French navies formed eight groups to hunt down Admiral Graf Spee in the South Atlantic. The British aircraft carriers HMS Hermes, Eagle, and Ark Royal, the French aircraft carrier Béarn, the British battlecruiser Renown, and French battleships Dunkerque and Strasbourg, and 16 cruisers were committed to the hunt.

That was only for the heavy cruiser Admiral Graf Spee ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Commerce raiders were not only to sink enemy shipping but also forcing the enemy to use many of its naval ships to search for them and to escort convoys.
Vs subs you just need a lot of DDs and smaller vessels to escort convoys, vs large ships you either need lots of cruisers or a battleship with limited amount of cruisers

I would argue that building 4 BBs was too few to challenge any power and at the same time way too many for simple "fleet in being". Just Scharnhost + Gneisenau would had done it.

But this of course with the benefit of foresight

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Commerce raiders were not only to sink enemy shipping but also forcing the enemy to use many of its naval ships to search for them and to escort convoys.
Vs subs you just need a lot of DDs and smaller vessels to escort convoys, vs large ships you either need lots of cruisers or a battleship with limited amount of cruisers

I would argue that building 4 BBs was too few to challenge any power and at the same time way too many for simple "fleet in being". Just Scharnhost + Gneisenau would had done it.

But this of course with the benefit of foresight

warspite1

Of course the Germans did not specifically build 4 capital ships for either purpose. These ships were part of a general naval re-armament plan, and later the repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles with the implementation of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.

Hitler believed that Britain could be placated and he wasn't going to make the same 'mistake' as the Kaiser and threaten Britain's naval dominance and provoke her to war.

When it became clear the Britain was not going to play ball the fanciful Plan Z came into being. Raeder was told there would be no general war until 1944. But events took a different path, Hitler could not wait, and the British and French drew a line in the sand at Poland.

Thus the Germans went to war with what they had, not what they planned to have. As for the war, the surface fleet were pretty unsuccessful in terms of tonnage sunk, but they did achieve results as a fleet in being and the Admiralty felt forced to keep capital ships at Scapa to cover off this menace. This was a god-send for the Regia Marina.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE