lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 25, 2016 9:01:14 GMT
What If: the Bismarck Had Escaped Destruction in 1941
 On May 19, 1941, the German battleship Bismarck, accompanied by the cruiser Prinz Eugen and several escort vessels, made its way through the Kattegat Strait separating Nazi-occupied Denmark from neutral Sweden. The 50,000-ton warship’s objective was to reach British convoy routes in the North Atlantic and do as much damage as possible. From the outset the Bismarck had no hope of reaching those routes in secrecy. Swedish aircraft identified the vessels in the German formation, news that made its way quickly and clandestinely to the British military attaché in Stockholm. The Bismarck reached port at Bergen, Norway, the next day. On May 21 a British reconnaissance aircraft snapped a photo of the battleship at anchor. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen put out to sea on May 22; the following day two British cruisers spotted the enemy ships in the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland. The British battleship Prince of Wales and battle cruiser Hood arrived on the scene early on May 24. In the ensuing fight, the Hood blew up spectacularly, with the loss of all but three seamen. The Prince of Wales suffered significant damage. The Bismarck was also damaged and now had a 9-degree list to port and a 3-degree trim to bow, the result of damage to fuel bunkers and efforts to transfer fuel to intact bunkers. The German admiral in charge of the operation, Günther Lütjens, decided to defer the planned strike at the convoy lanes and instead make for France to effect repairs. He detached the Prinz Eugen; the Bismarck, now operating alone, briefly eluded the British before a Catalina PBY pilot spied the enormous warship. Dozens of British vessels were also hunting the Bismarck, for if the super-battleship ever did break out into the Atlantic, the result could be catastrophic. The Bismarck was nearing shelter at Brest, France, when a fluke of luck caused a torpedo from a carrier-based Swordfish biplane to jam the battleship’s rudder. The Bismarck steamed helplessly in a circle until a British flotilla closed in and, on the morning of May 27, sank the Bismarck, killing all but 114 of the ship’s 2,200-man crew. So ended the Bismarck’s first and only combat voyage—a saga that immediately gained worldwide fame. But what if the German battleship had successfully broken out into the Atlantic? For this to have happened, any of three alterations to the historical events would need to have occurred. First, the Bismarck would have had to elude detection—an unlikely possibility. Second, the warship would have had to escape damage in the Battle of the Denmark Strait—a possibility, since historically the Bismarck had damage minor enough that Admiral Lütjens could have continued the mission. Third, and most likely, the Bismarck would have had to reach safety at Brest, where it would have joined two smaller battleships, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, that had just completed a successful though limited raid against British shipping. Within weeks of Bismarck arriving, all three battleships would have been able to put out to sea in another strike against the Atlantic convoy lanes. What would have been the result? Historically, the chief of the German navy, Admiral Erich Raeder, chose to use his limited number of capital ships as surface raiders. His intention was to force the Royal Navy to dilute its strength by diverting warships to convoy escort duty and, in combination with Admiral Karl Dönitz’s U-boats, to sever Britain’s maritime lifelines. Prior to the Bismarck’s sortie this strategy enjoyed some success. Between November 1940 and March 1941 the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer sank 17 merchant vessels totaling over 113,000 tons of shipping. During the same period the cruiser Admiral Hipper accounted for another 53,000 tons. In February 1941 the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau—under the joint command of Lütjens—had reached the Atlantic undetected. The battleships encountered four convoys, but British battleships were escorting two of the groups, and Lütjens’s orders prohibited him from engaging enemy capital ships if at all possible. He therefore withdrew, inflicting little or no damage. Lütjens’s luck was similarly bad with the other two convoys, in large measure because of the proximity of other British battleships. As a result, Lütjens did scant damage, destroying only about 27,000 tons of British shipping. Lütjens’s caution, however, was driven by the fact that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (like Admiral Scheer and Admiral Hipper) were lightly armored and less powerful than their British rivals. In contrast, the heavily armored Bismarck could outgun and outrun virtually any of Britain’s capital ships. Had Bismarck encountered a convoy, the battleship could have successfully engaged the escort vessels and picked off most of the freighters before they could escape, and in the open Atlantic the Bismarck would have been very difficult to locate. Further, the Kriegsmarine had stationed more than a dozen German support vessels ready to resupply and refuel the Bismarck, which would have allowed the battleship to remain at sea as long as three months. United under these conditions with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the Bismarck could have done a formidable amount of damage indeed. Ironically, the original concept for the Bismarck’s historical operation, Rhine Exercise, contemplated just such a raid by Bismarck and the two smaller battleships. Bismarck set out alone in mid-May because the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were not ready to go to sea. Events proved this course of action unwise, but had the Bismarck sprinted successfully to Brest—which certainly would have occurred but for the fortuitous damage to the Bismarck’s rudder—Rhine Exercise could have proceeded in its original form. In any counterfactual it is tempting to make extravagant claims—in this case that Bismarck and consorts could have won the Battle of the Atlantic. That is unlikely. However, the Bismarck’s presence in the Atlantic would have forced the Royal Navy to guard each convoy heavily while at the same time maintaining an extensive fleet dedicated to finding and destroying the battleship. That, in turn, would have sapped British strength in other vital sectors, particularly the Mediterranean, where Major General Erwin Rommel’s North African offensive was just getting underway. And the heightened threat of destruction to any given convoy would likely have resulted in larger, more easily protected convoys—which would have taken more time to assemble, thereby reducing the flow of vital war supplies to Britain. When combined with the German U-boat offensive, the damage and disruption to the British convoy system would have been even worse. The Bismarck would not have won the Battle of the Atlantic, but it would have severely harried the British war effort at a time when that nation could least afford it. Published on the website HistoryNet with a article called: What If the Bismarck Had Escaped Destruction?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 25, 2016 17:30:23 GMT
Lordroel
The most likely British response could have saved a fair number of Bomber Command aircrew, at least in the short term. Instead of flights over Germany Brest would have been the top priority target and you might see considerable air battles over the region. Also widespread mining of the approaches and probably British subs withdrawn from the Med to operate in the Sea of Biscay.
If the Germans can get three ships into a combined raid it could be nasty, with a good chance any convoy they come across being very badly mauled, especially if they can co-ordinate with U boats. However if the RAF can keep them damaged and disrupted enough they might not get out.
Also if they do get out there is the chance of some damage meaning one or more of the ships being damaged enough that the Home Fleet does what it did with Bismarck OTL.
The other unknown is the US reaction. There is the possibility of clashes between German and USN forces, either deliberately or by accident and possibly bringing the US into the war a few months earlier. Which could have a hell of a lot of butterflies.
Overall its likely to be bad for Britain with some nasty losses in the Atlantic, although it might draw more resources away fron Bomber Command into trade protection [which is where it should have gone IMHO!]
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 6, 2017 9:59:23 GMT
Lordroel The most likely British response could have saved a fair number of Bomber Command aircrew, at least in the short term. Instead of flights over Germany Brest would have been the top priority target and you might see considerable air battles over the region. Also widespread mining of the approaches and probably British subs withdrawn from the Med to operate in the Sea of Biscay. To bad the British did not in 1941 have the Tallboy (bomb), it would have wreck the Bismarck in port like the British did during the bombing sorties against Tirpitz in 1944. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 6, 2017 10:55:25 GMT
Lordroel The most likely British response could have saved a fair number of Bomber Command aircrew, at least in the short term. Instead of flights over Germany Brest would have been the top priority target and you might see considerable air battles over the region. Also widespread mining of the approaches and probably British subs withdrawn from the Med to operate in the Sea of Biscay. To bad the British did not in 1941 have the Tallboy (bomb), it would have wreck the Bismarck in port like the British did during the bombing sorties against Tirpitz in 1944. True. This might prompt earlier development of such weapons, although not sure if it needed the Lancaster developed to carry it? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 6, 2017 14:07:53 GMT
To bad the British did not in 1941 have the Tallboy (bomb), it would have wreck the Bismarck in port like the British did during the bombing sorties against Tirpitz in 1944. True. This might prompt earlier development of such weapons, although not sure if it needed the Lancaster developed to carry it? Wonder how bad the Luftwaffe will be hold accountable for any damage the Bismarck suffers while laying in dry dock, the Kriegsmarine can claim that it is the job for the Luftwaffe to keep the air clear of RAF bombers. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 28, 2018 16:43:40 GMT
If Bismarck reach Brest and need some dock-time, he will face additional air strikes by the british.
Unfortunatly you need a LOT of luck to really hurt the battleship in one of the french ports by british bombers in 1941.
Even worse, if they try to bomb at daylight the unescorted bombers will be eaten by german fighters Me109, later FW190, Me110 and german AA guns.
In opposition to the claim of stevep, the additional use of bombers to cripple the german ships cost em more crews and planes, because the germans know exactly at what spot the british attack. Much easier as the otl "try and pray"-attitude...
if a large blimp nears the french port, it is an attack by british bombers.. some happy time for fighter pilots.
The distance is to large for escorts, if you try to use carrier based bombers (shudder) they are even less powerful.
So expect lots and lots of experienced crews get killed or captured, also lots of bombers destroyed (either damaged and crashed on their way home or shot down).
German AA guns will concentrate around the ships, so any daylight bombing attack is plain self murderer.
At night they hit nothing... maybe some damage by a lucky hit, but this is a gamble that is not worth the costs.
Why? because if Bismarck hunt - together with S and G they could sink additional 100-300k Tonnage, but with the sinking/capturing of the german supply ships these raids lack range.
Another negative effect - if the british - after got slaughtered in daylight attacks switch to massive night bombing they kill lots of french civillians, that is nothing that gain support in france or for the free french forces.
Could the british damage Bismarck in france? Yes, for sure
Would they cripple him? I doubt it, esp. with a "major target" and lots of concentrated AA guns to protect the "winner" against Hood and PoW Hitler will send more forces to protect his master toy.
But another sortie? If the germans escape untouched by torpedo bombers, maybe. But for sure the germans would want to replace the 33er-10,5cm-Flak by the more modern ones, remove the single loaded 3,7cm by full automatic 3,7cm-twins and the AA guns will get lots of training/excercises...
Such raid could only have short range, maybe 1-2 convoys getting unlucky, but that is the maximum the germans could achive. I can´t see em getting a major victory - compared to "destroy the 2 most powerfull british battleships and move away untouched"....
For the germans it would be even better if the 2 ships turns after the denmark straits... 2 big battleships in norway mean the british can´t send any convoy, only with 4 battleships and 2-3 carriers (after such defeat the shock will be huge)
|
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Mar 28, 2018 16:58:53 GMT
If Bismarck reach Brest and need some dock-time, he will face additional air strikes by the british. Unfortunatly you need a LOT of luck to really hurt the battleship in one of the french ports by british bombers in 1941. Even worse, if they try to bomb at daylight the unescorted bombers will be eaten by german fighters Me109, later FW190, Me110 and german AA guns. In opposition to the claim of stevep, the additional use of bombers to cripple the german ships cost em more crews and planes, because the germans know exactly at what spot the british attack. Much easier as the otl "try and pray"-attitude... if a large blimp nears the french port, it is an attack by british bombers.. some happy time for fighter pilots. The distance is to large for escorts, if you try to use carrier based bombers (shudder) they are even less powerful. So expect lots and lots of experienced crews get killed or captured, also lots of bombers destroyed (either damaged and crashed on their way home or shot down). German AA guns will concentrate around the ships, so any daylight bombing attack is plain self murderer. At night they hit nothing... maybe some damage by a lucky hit, but this is a gamble that is not worth the costs. Why? because if Bismarck hunt - together with S and G they could sink additional 100-300k Tonnage, but with the sinking/capturing of the german supply ships these raids lack range. Another negative effect - if the british - after got slaughtered in daylight attacks switch to massive night bombing they kill lots of french civillians, that is nothing that gain support in france or for the free french forces. Could the british damage Bismarck in france? Yes, for sure Would they cripple him? I doubt it, esp. with a "major target" and lots of concentrated AA guns to protect the "winner" against Hood and PoW Hitler will send more forces to protect his master toy. But another sortie? If the germans escape untouched by torpedo bombers, maybe. But for sure the germans would want to replace the 33er-10,5cm-Flak by the more modern ones, remove the single loaded 3,7cm by full automatic 3,7cm-twins and the AA guns will get lots of training/excercises... Such raid could only have short range, maybe 1-2 convoys getting unlucky, but that is the maximum the germans could achive. I can´t see em getting a major victory - compared to "destroy the 2 most powerfull british battleships and move away untouched".... For the germans it would be even better if the 2 ships turns after the denmark straits... 2 big battleships in norway mean the british can´t send any convoy, only with 4 battleships and 2-3 carriers (after such defeat the shock will be huge) Using Tirpitz as a refrence point, it would be very difficult for the British to sink Bismarck through bombs alone, especially if she is moored in France. It took the British untill 1944 to sink her, and that was only after they dropped two "Tall Boy" bombs at her. With the Benefit of hindsight, using Bismarck and Tirpitz as fleets-in-being in Norway would be the best way to use them. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 28, 2018 17:03:50 GMT
If Bismarck reach Brest and need some dock-time, he will face additional air strikes by the british. Unfortunatly you need a LOT of luck to really hurt the battleship in one of the french ports by british bombers in 1941. Even worse, if they try to bomb at daylight the unescorted bombers will be eaten by german fighters Me109, later FW190, Me110 and german AA guns. In opposition to the claim of stevep, the additional use of bombers to cripple the german ships cost em more crews and planes, because the germans know exactly at what spot the british attack. Much easier as the otl "try and pray"-attitude... if a large blimp nears the french port, it is an attack by british bombers.. some happy time for fighter pilots. The distance is to large for escorts, if you try to use carrier based bombers (shudder) they are even less powerful. So expect lots and lots of experienced crews get killed or captured, also lots of bombers destroyed (either damaged and crashed on their way home or shot down). German AA guns will concentrate around the ships, so any daylight bombing attack is plain self murderer. At night they hit nothing... maybe some damage by a lucky hit, but this is a gamble that is not worth the costs. Why? because if Bismarck hunt - together with S and G they could sink additional 100-300k Tonnage, but with the sinking/capturing of the german supply ships these raids lack range. Another negative effect - if the british - after got slaughtered in daylight attacks switch to massive night bombing they kill lots of french civillians, that is nothing that gain support in france or for the free french forces. Could the british damage Bismarck in france? Yes, for sure Would they cripple him? I doubt it, esp. with a "major target" and lots of concentrated AA guns to protect the "winner" against Hood and PoW Hitler will send more forces to protect his master toy. But another sortie? If the germans escape untouched by torpedo bombers, maybe. But for sure the germans would want to replace the 33er-10,5cm-Flak by the more modern ones, remove the single loaded 3,7cm by full automatic 3,7cm-twins and the AA guns will get lots of training/excercises... Such raid could only have short range, maybe 1-2 convoys getting unlucky, but that is the maximum the germans could achive. I can´t see em getting a major victory - compared to "destroy the 2 most powerfull british battleships and move away untouched".... For the germans it would be even better if the 2 ships turns after the denmark straits... 2 big battleships in norway mean the british can´t send any convoy, only with 4 battleships and 2-3 carriers (after such defeat the shock will be huge) Using Tirpitz as a refrence point, it would be very difficult for the British to sink Bismarck through bombs alone, especially if she is moored in France. It took the British untill 1944 to sink her, and that was only after they dropped two "Tall Boy" bombs at her. With the Benefit of hindsight, using Bismarck and Tirpitz as fleets-in-being in Norway would be the best way to use them. And we all know how that ended for the the Tripitz, sunk during Operation Catechism in 1944 with Tallboy earthquake bombs |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Mar 28, 2018 18:06:42 GMT
Using Tirpitz as a refrence point, it would be very difficult for the British to sink Bismarck through bombs alone, especially if she is moored in France. It took the British untill 1944 to sink her, and that was only after they dropped two "Tall Boy" bombs at her. With the Benefit of hindsight, using Bismarck and Tirpitz as fleets-in-being in Norway would be the best way to use them. And we all know how that ended for the the Tripitz, sunk during Operation Catechism in 1944 with Tallboy earthquake bombs Yes, but how many resources did the Brits waste to keep bombing the ship? And how many ships did they have to keep near home against the potential of a breakout? Two battleships make this a lot worse, which could make reinforcing the Far East even harder, and might indeed also draw numbers from the Med that are really needed there. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Mar 28, 2018 19:18:34 GMT
And we all know how that ended for the the Tripitz, sunk during Operation Catechism in 1944 with Tallboy earthquake bombs Yes, but how many resources did the Brits waste to keep bombing the ship? And how many ships did they have to keep near home against the potential of a breakout? Two battleships make this a lot worse, which could make reinforcing the Far East even harder, and might indeed also draw numbers from the Med that are really needed there. A number of points: a) Its easier to hit Bismarck in Brest than a ship in a Norwegian fjord. Its a shorter distance and the terrain is more suitable to both finding and attacking a target. .
b) As I think I said earlier on the thread I would expect that the vast majority of attacks would occur at night. There's the possibility of some attacks by fast units, thinking of Mosquito's when they become available but the most likely method would be by Bomber Command at Night. This is likely to be far less costly than attacks on Germany and considering the perceived threat to the vital Atlantic sea lines I would hope that its given top priority. Possibly BC would make attacks on Germany periodically to keep the Germans from switching too many night fighters elsewhere, including the Brittany region but for the duration hopefully the bulk of BC would be operating against the three ships in Brest.
c) When Tirpitz becomes available that compounds the challenge but, other than threats to the Murmansk runs, which are bad but not critical, its less likely to reach the Atlantic, let alone link up with the other ships. As airborne radar becomes more developed and the completion of modern ships and a/c increase a repeat of the Bismarck run is likely to be even less successful. Especially if due to the crisis the PoW is kept with the Home Fleet. However bombing attacks on a Tirpitz stuck in Norway is likely.
d) Don't forget that Britain doesn't need to sink the Bismarck. Just keep them damaged so they can't sail. Especially as bombing increases in accuracy and size of weapons there is the chance of a raid such as the one that OTL crippled the Gneisenau OTL - albeit later in the Baltic. Coupled with mining operations it could be difficult for the Germans to get any of the ships, let alone all three ready for a raid into the Atlantic.
e) There is the possibility of a convoy or two being badly damaged but the risk would be high for the Germans, especially after Dec 41 and the German dow on the US. From that point on some of the older USN BBs, which can't be used in the Pacific for supply purposes, could join older RN ships in convoy escort duties and possibly a couple of new one join in any fleet to seek to intercept raiders. Again the increasing resources and technology for airbourne radar mean that locating and intercepting raiders applies in the Atlantic as it does for a breakout from Norway, albeit somewhat more difficult.
f) Its likely that Britain will be forced, especially in 1941, to keep more of the fleet in home waters to protect against the threat. This could actually benefit Britain if as a result no Force Z is sent east and lost at the start of the Far East conflict. Britain from early 42 can't cover all naval threats and only weak, elderly forces were kept in the Indian Ocean for most of the rest of the war so forces in the east will be a bit weaker but not greatly so.
g) Unfortunately, despite the fact its markedly easier to find the target area, there are likely to be significant civilian losses, simply because BC is so inaccurate at this time period. However given the threat that the force in Brest is seen as such a threat its likely to be a price that will be accepted. 
As such overall its likely to worsen things a bit for Britain but not greatly so and could have some unintentional bonuses, such as avoiding the loss of Force Z and reducing the actual BC losses for a period. At some point probably similar to OTL in Feb 42 ships are likely to make a dash back to Germany as OTL, simply because they were seen as at too much risk in Brest. They could be a bigger threat in Norway, although to the markedly less critical Murmansk convoys.
This may be an effective waste of resources, as raunchel suggests but its an affordable one. Its definitely not a waste of resources while such a force are in Brest because even disruption of the Atlantic convoys, let alone actual losses is a serious threat.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 29, 2018 8:42:13 GMT
If Bismarck reach Brest and need some dock-time, he will face additional air strikes by the british. Unfortunatly you need a LOT of luck to really hurt the battleship in one of the french ports by british bombers in 1941. Even worse, if they try to bomb at daylight the unescorted bombers will be eaten by german fighters Me109, later FW190, Me110 and german AA guns. In opposition to the claim of stevep, the additional use of bombers to cripple the german ships cost em more crews and planes, because the germans know exactly at what spot the british attack. Much easier as the otl "try and pray"-attitude... if a large blimp nears the french port, it is an attack by british bombers.. some happy time for fighter pilots. The distance is to large for escorts, if you try to use carrier based bombers (shudder) they are even less powerful. So expect lots and lots of experienced crews get killed or captured, also lots of bombers destroyed (either damaged and crashed on their way home or shot down). German AA guns will concentrate around the ships, so any daylight bombing attack is plain self murderer. At night they hit nothing... maybe some damage by a lucky hit, but this is a gamble that is not worth the costs. Why? because if Bismarck hunt - together with S and G they could sink additional 100-300k Tonnage, but with the sinking/capturing of the german supply ships these raids lack range. Another negative effect - if the british - after got slaughtered in daylight attacks switch to massive night bombing they kill lots of french civillians, that is nothing that gain support in france or for the free french forces. Could the british damage Bismarck in france? Yes, for sure Would they cripple him? I doubt it, esp. with a "major target" and lots of concentrated AA guns to protect the "winner" against Hood and PoW Hitler will send more forces to protect his master toy. But another sortie? If the germans escape untouched by torpedo bombers, maybe. But for sure the germans would want to replace the 33er-10,5cm-Flak by the more modern ones, remove the single loaded 3,7cm by full automatic 3,7cm-twins and the AA guns will get lots of training/excercises... Such raid could only have short range, maybe 1-2 convoys getting unlucky, but that is the maximum the germans could achive. I can´t see em getting a major victory - compared to "destroy the 2 most powerfull british battleships and move away untouched".... For the germans it would be even better if the 2 ships turns after the denmark straits... 2 big battleships in norway mean the british can´t send any convoy, only with 4 battleships and 2-3 carriers (after such defeat the shock will be huge) Using Tirpitz as a refrence point, it would be very difficult for the British to sink Bismarck through bombs alone, especially if she is moored in France. It took the British untill 1944 to sink her, and that was only after they dropped two "Tall Boy" bombs at her. With the Benefit of hindsight, using Bismarck and Tirpitz as fleets-in-being in Norway would be the best way to use them. Well, yes and no. There was one carrier based attack wit 2000pounders that could have destroyed Tirpitz, its deck was "proof" against 500-700kg-AP-bombs (at last that was the calculation of the german architekts, but 1000kg-AP-Bombs would smash that deck. If they hit at the right spot, if they do the damage (high dud rate in the early years of the war) and have the british these bombs allready (? I think they had to develop such big bombs), i can´t say. It isn´t impossible to destroy a ship in port, but the casulties to sink Bismarck, esp. after he destroyed two big british battleships in a 2 BB + 2 Cruiser vers 1 BB and 1 Cruiser (as the germans would see it) without getting hurt would be VERY high, esp. with Hitler wanting "his" ship not sunk by stinky british bombers. With lack of daylight bomber escorts that mean either "flatten the port city and kill tenthousends of french civilians", that could hurt em in the long run - also they could achive nothing with this (as we know british bombers weren´t known for exact hitting something - say in the range of 10miles around the target (exception was the Mosquito-bombers manned by elite crews, unfortunatly, a Mossie with a 2000pound-bomb in 1941 would be way to slow, so the casulty-rate of these exceptional crews would be very high, morale of the crews very low and - honestly, if the british loose 200 crews or 400 (over 6 months) to destroy Bismarck that is much more worth for the germans as a lost battleship. Because if the elite of british bomber crews get lost, these couldn´t lead the night bomber attacks against german cities, causing a "hit radius from the size of belgium" instead the insulting bad one they had otl at night. That alone would benefit the germans. Yes, after destroying both battleships a retreat to norway would be much better for the germans. Reaching norway mean T and B close the Murmansk-route, the british can´t send 4 Battleships of modern style of 6 older ones for each convoy. Also the risk to eat some torpedos would be to great. Or get crippled by bomber attacks. The british would also be VERY nervous about the two "super-BB of the Hun", not knowing how good these are.. .they only know that one of their modern BB (POW) and the mighty Hood had been destroyed by a single german battleship. Even worse, as long as T and B are ready in norway and S and G are in france, what should they do to stop both to enter the atlantic (beside the effective taking out of the supply ships in june 41). With the huge, crippling casutlies (esp. in carriers who need repair) in the mediterain a german breakout in france AND a raid by T and B mean the british have NO counter to this. They have at maximum 1-3 KGV-class battleships, would you - as the admirality - risk your only 3 ships against the 2 hun devils after you lost in a much better situation 2 bb against one of them? the slow Nelson-class is useless, because to slow. Repulse? Really? that is a present for the germans, another firecracker. Renonwn? a bit better Nah, a surviving and returning Bismarck is "the" nightmare for the Royal Navy, for a long time. It would also push the german navy, with this succsess the "mighty battleships made in germany" seem to be superior to anything else. It will not change the result of the war, but the Royal Navy would be really motivated to fix that desaster... this costs ressources and even if succsessfull has a negative impact on the british war actions... The Tallboys were build to sink battleships, after they had the correct bomber for it. But - this bomber is very vulnerable... so if the british send them in 1942 (for example - igoring the fact that they really HARD pushed the bomb), they face a much stronger german air defence -> much more casulties in special trained elite crews. Hit ratio is still low, the british really hard tried to destroy Tirpitz, it was no cakewalk. You can´t push some things to much, there is no "just press this button and everything is okay". A surviving Bismarck reaching either Brest or Norway is one of the rare events that could have an significant impact. The sinking of Roma is something else (as an example). If the ship escape or get sunk, doesn´t matter for the war. The other italian battleships did "nothing" after they escaped. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 29, 2018 9:09:24 GMT
Yes, but how many resources did the Brits waste to keep bombing the ship? And how many ships did they have to keep near home against the potential of a breakout? Two battleships make this a lot worse, which could make reinforcing the Far East even harder, and might indeed also draw numbers from the Med that are really needed there. A number of points: a) Its easier to hit Bismarck in Brest than a ship in a Norwegian fjord. Its a shorter distance and the terrain is more suitable to both finding and attacking a target. .
b) As I think I said earlier on the thread I would expect that the vast majority of attacks would occur at night. There's the possibility of some attacks by fast units, thinking of Mosquito's when they become available but the most likely method would be by Bomber Command at Night. This is likely to be far less costly than attacks on Germany and considering the perceived threat to the vital Atlantic sea lines I would hope that its given top priority. Possibly BC would make attacks on Germany periodically to keep the Germans from switching too many night fighters elsewhere, including the Brittany region but for the duration hopefully the bulk of BC would be operating against the three ships in Brest.
c) When Tirpitz becomes available that compounds the challenge but, other than threats to the Murmansk runs, which are bad but not critical, its less likely to reach the Atlantic, let alone link up with the other ships. As airborne radar becomes more developed and the completion of modern ships and a/c increase a repeat of the Bismarck run is likely to be even less successful. Especially if due to the crisis the PoW is kept with the Home Fleet. However bombing attacks on a Tirpitz stuck in Norway is likely.
d) Don't forget that Britain doesn't need to sink the Bismarck. Just keep them damaged so they can't sail. Especially as bombing increases in accuracy and size of weapons there is the chance of a raid such as the one that OTL crippled the Gneisenau OTL - albeit later in the Baltic. Coupled with mining operations it could be difficult for the Germans to get any of the ships, let alone all three ready for a raid into the Atlantic.
e) There is the possibility of a convoy or two being badly damaged but the risk would be high for the Germans, especially after Dec 41 and the German dow on the US. From that point on some of the older USN BBs, which can't be used in the Pacific for supply purposes, could join older RN ships in convoy escort duties and possibly a couple of new one join in any fleet to seek to intercept raiders. Again the increasing resources and technology for airbourne radar mean that locating and intercepting raiders applies in the Atlantic as it does for a breakout from Norway, albeit somewhat more difficult.
f) Its likely that Britain will be forced, especially in 1941, to keep more of the fleet in home waters to protect against the threat. This could actually benefit Britain if as a result no Force Z is sent east and lost at the start of the Far East conflict. Britain from early 42 can't cover all naval threats and only weak, elderly forces were kept in the Indian Ocean for most of the rest of the war so forces in the east will be a bit weaker but not greatly so.
g) Unfortunately, despite the fact its markedly easier to find the target area, there are likely to be significant civilian losses, simply because BC is so inaccurate at this time period. However given the threat that the force in Brest is seen as such a threat its likely to be a price that will be accepted.
As such overall its likely to worsen things a bit for Britain but not greatly so and could have some unintentional bonuses, such as avoiding the loss of Force Z and reducing the actual BC losses for a period. At some point probably similar to OTL in Feb 42 ships are likely to make a dash back to Germany as OTL, simply because they were seen as at too much risk in Brest. They could be a bigger threat in Norway, although to the markedly less critical Murmansk convoys.
This may be an effective waste of resources, as raunchel suggests but its an affordable one. Its definitely not a waste of resources while such a force are in Brest because even disruption of the Atlantic convoys, let alone actual losses is a serious threat.
Oh my god.... the british could not hope to seriously damage Bismarck at night with conventional night bomber attacks of 1940/41. We do not talk about 1000 bombers in a radar guided stream, we talk about Eyeball Mark 1, in low level bombers with small bombs as a load. You need AP-1000pounders with luck, better 2000pounders to really damage Bismarck. The casulties would be high, VERY high. Why? because the low level 4mots without escort at night face a very bad and hard AA defence, also more and more night fighters. You dream about the BC bombing germany... in early 41? How many such attacks happend in that timespan (say from may 41- nov 41)? How many bombers could be moved against german ships in brest (and other ports - you know, they will move them further south). How many bombers will fell into the sea, with killed crews, who get damaged by the deadly flak, how many got shot down? You know, if you attack the one base in that the "mighty Hitlers Toy that crushed two british battleships" sit, you face lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of heavy and medium AA guns. It is a flak trap... with the british attacking the honey pot the germans can slaughter them. You are right, no daylight attacks.. because the german fighters will have field days. Nope, to find the correct target is not easy, esp. if you fly above the ocean. No navigation points... in 1941 they were VERY bad in navigation... You create a honeypot for BC, that loose its pilots and planes without doing much damage, because the Lancaster isn´t here. If you send them in as early as possible you ruin your core of BC... fine for the germans. They benefit from this. There are no bombs that could destroy Bismarck. Not in 1941. These had to be designed and built! That costs time, time in that the RN wet its trousers because they have nothing to stop Bismarck to "do it again" (crush british battleships without getting hurt). Is this BS? yes, but the british will not KNOW this. THey only knew that Hood and PoW got destroyed without a significant damage to B. 2 BB and 2 Cruisers against 1 BB and 1 Cruiser end with two BB destroyed on your side. I don´t know, i am sure the british will not, repeat not be taking this easy. Esp. with Tirpitz coming online, because suddenly you face 2 "superior" battleships, at distant spots. If Tirpitz fake a raid, the british need to send "the kitchen sink", but then Bismarck can go out without to fear any resistance... and viceversa. The RN had not enough modern battleships that could try to catch a Bismarck-class in 1941. In 42 or 43 it is different, but without an engagement in that they destroy one of them they allways fear to get asswhipped by the hun. Don´t underestimate the morale aspect. OTL - the loss of Hood was a shock, but it was reduced by the succsess in sinking Bismarck. Here you have a worse defeat. Add in the huge casulties of the RN in the mediterain in the same time, you get the message. And no, the port in that Bismarck is fixed will be a flak trap, hitler will cause this, the Luftwaffe will defend him, the Ground and air will be full of fighters, night fighters to kill british bombers. That is infact the perfect scenario for the germans. You have the dictator who 100% support protection for B. You have the Air marshall who will promise it -> and then bring in the ressources to do so. Also, the political consequences of a surviving B is huge. UK got whipped by the germans, again - just like at jutland. In a time in that the british were not looking good at all. More internal prestige for the Navy in germany -> more ressources for subs -> more subs in a time that keeps em effective. About the mines and subs... for sure the british will do the same as they did otl, maybe even more - otl they were 100% ineffective in this. The mines in the dutch sea were the only effective things, these seem to be german ground mines that had gone wild (at last i once read this) in february 42. The ocean is big, asw ships could and did kill subs - also british subs, or ASW planes force em to submerge. The Atlantic is no calm sea, the weather is often quite bad. So no, in percentage bismarck will not get destroyed, will not get sunk by the "superior british submarine force" in this scenario. It is possible, yes. But with a very small chance... THe fallout for the RN would be gigantic. 1) the mediterain will loose carriers and battleships, urgently needed to guard the atlantic. This cost them much in the med, propably lots of supply ships reach africa... 2.) in the atlantic the economic effect will be worse. More battleships to guard convoys, more destroyers and cruisers, too. So more wear and tear for them. Also the fright rate goes up, cost more money.. stretch the british possibilities to do other needed things. Maybe - worst case - the RN start to build 4 lion class battleships instead of Radar-development, or more AA guns or whatever. If the unloved KGVs (underestimated by many) can´t sink a huns BB, we need the 16"-ship we wanted. You get the point. Less destroyers, ASW-Ships, more battleships. 3.) higher casulties in bombercrews, more and more desperate self murderer-actions to harm Bismarck mean the cream of the BC crews get slaughtered. At a single spot with more and more german fighters having field days. Add in more radar stations over time, more night fighters that could kill bombers. With the less then stable british bombers, esp. in their early years most damaged planes got lost in their retreat -> even more killed crews (atlantic is a bad place to swim after your bomber crashed into the sea). 4.) Asia: UK will have less forces, ships, subs, crews, planes and men (because of higher losses, lesser transport capacity, lesser money to build or buy weapons (redirected to battleship building) and so they are even weaker as OTL, helping the japanese. It has no real impact, cause dec.7 is near, but higher british casulties. 5.) Russia: with stronger german forces in norway AND france (or worse - in norway) you see less convoys from UK with LL for russia. It is at first no big impact, but over time it will have significant consequences. Also, ironically less german fighters mean less succsess for the nazis... that could help em in that way that they do not overextend so much as OTL, so their casulties in the winter 41/42 could be reduced. An interesting butterfly... the insane dictator will not send his fighters to the east if they have to protect HIS battleship-toy. 6.) Africa: no real effect. I see less ressources send, but more reach the ports... overall similar strength on the german side. THe british will be weaker, but only in 42. Maybe Tobruk fell in october/november 41, maybe not. Lots of butterflies (and also, even with Tobruk taken in 41, this doesn´t mean "Rommel in Alexandria") |
|
