OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

[Orm]

I am not claiming it would have made a difference. I am merely trying to say that it was a change in doctrine. In military thinking. And in other battles such changes are often the reason they call it a strategic win.

My comment on Kiev was the first thing that come to mind where a important change might have had an impact if the doctrine hadn't changed. During the Battle of Kiev (1941) there was still some chaos in the Soviet armed forces. The Soviet air force was not strong at this point. So the German high command might have reasoned that the paras (reinforced) would be enough to close the Kiev pocket. And let AGC continue, at full strength (although they were seriously depleted), towards Moscow. I think that at that point they could drop a division and reinforce it with another light division in fairly short time. Even after considering the loss of air transport at Crete.

Anyway. The point is not whether this operation would work, or not. It Is whether AH would have thought it could work. Hence letting AGC continue its march towards Moscow.

[RangerJoe]

The paratroopers could also have been used near Leningrad to slow down the supplies even more.

[John 3rd]

That video was well done. Any good books on this subject? Would love a recommendation or two!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That video was well done. Any good books on this subject? Would love a recommendation or two!

warspite1

Not read this - but this might be worth a look. I have ordered it today [:)]


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Run-Gauntlet-C ... TZV171YCDR

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Orm

... Does a strategic withdrawal automatically transfer to a strategic win to the opposing side?

Why of course it does. How can you overlook the 1917 German strategic withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line as not constituting a strategic victory to the Entente. In fact just to ensure that the strategic victory was consolidated the Entente had to undertake the tactical defeats of the 1917 Nivelle and Passchendaele offensives. Luckily for the Entente the Germans cooperated with maintaining the strategic Entente victory by achieving their tactical victory in the 1918 Kaiser offensive to ensure that strategic German defeat remained on schedule.

But an even better demonstration is the considerable contribution to the strategic victory of the Entente provided by Italy. Why without those consecutive 11 Bsttles on the Isonso there is no guarantee that strategic victory over the Dual Monarchy would ever have come about. Mind you honourable mentions must be given to firstly Falkenhayen's success in tactically forcing Romania out of the war for that just ensured another strategic defeat on the Dual Monarchy, and secondly the 1916 Bruislov offensive which obviously gave strategic defeats to both the Dual Monarchy and Tsarist Russia.

Get with the program, one only ultimately wins when the opposing side experiences a large tactical victory (think of 1914 Tannenberg) which can only mean it becomes a strategic defeat for themselves and therefore a strategic victory for oneself.

Alfred

Edit:

PS forgot to mention. When in doubt as to whether a battle is correctly categorised as being a tactical/strategic victory/defeat, always rely upon the assessment provided by Capt. Blackadder. Now there is a man who truly recognises the true state of affairs.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Orm

... Does a strategic withdrawal automatically transfer to a strategic win to the opposing side?

Why of course it does. How can you overlook the 1917 German strategic withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line as not constituting a strategic victory to the Entente. In fact just to ensure that the strategic victory was consolidated the Entente had to undertake the tactical defeats of the 1917 Nivelle and Passchendaele offensives. Luckily for the Entente the Germans cooperated with maintaining the strategic Entente victory by achieving their tactical victory in the 1918 Kaiser offensive to ensure that strategic German defeat remained on schedule.

But an even better demonstration is the considerable contribution to the strategic victory of the Entente provided by Italy. Why without those consecutive 11 Bsttles on the Isonso there is no guarantee that strategic victory over the Dual Monarchy would ever have come about. Mind you honourable mentions must be given to firstly Falkenhayen's success in tactically forcing Romania out of the war for that just ensured another strategic defeat on the Dual Monarchy, and secondly the 1916 Bruislov offensive which obviously gave strategic defeats to both the Dual Monarchy and Tsarist Russia.

Get with the program, one only ultimately wins when the opposing side experiences a large tactical victory (think of 1914 Tannenberg) which can only mean it becomes a strategic defeat for themselves and therefore a strategic victory for oneself.

Alfred

Edit:

PS forgot to mention. When in doubt as to whether a battle is correctly categorised as being a tactical/strategic victory/defeat, always rely upon the assessment provided by Capt. Blackadder. Now there is a man who truly recognises the true state of affairs.

And he has a cunning plan, too.

[Alfred]

Copyright infringement.  I think Baldrick might claim copyright on that.
 
Alfred

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Copyright infringement.  I think Baldrick might claim copyright on that.

Alfred

That's Sir Baldrick now. Anyhow he sold the rights to Blackadder for a turnip.

[fcooke]

The Big Mamie is worth a visit if you are ever near Fall River. They still have marked out where I think a French 8 inch shell breached the hull. As to the German navy, I think the the fleet in being paid for itself in creating the dispersal of PQ17 and the ultimate carnage that ensued. And the pocket battleships were a very creative design. The B + T not so much. The heavy cruisers seemed to be good work. And the subs were obviously effective. The light cruisers seemed a little ehhh.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The Big Mamie is worth a visit if you are ever near Fall River. They still have marked out where I think a French 8 inch shell breached the hull. As to the German navy, I think the the fleet in being paid for itself in creating the dispersal of PQ17 and the ultimate carnage that ensued. And the pocket battleships were a very creative design. The B + T not so much. The heavy cruisers seemed to be good work. And the subs were obviously effective. The light cruisers seemed a little ehhh.

warspite1

But PQ17 was one convoy. Just one convoy. I don't think PQ17 can be considered an adequate return for all that manpower and resource spent on manning the ships, trying to keep them safe (Luftwaffe as well as Kriegsmarine), repairing the ships and keeping them supplied with fuel.

The pocket battleships may have seemed like a good idea - faster than any stronger ship and stronger than any faster ship - but they weren't. Aside from the fact that this wasn't true (the British BC's saw to that), when the Dunkerques came along the writing was on the wall. Having all their main armament in two turrets wasn't clever either - as shown when confronted with multiple targets.

The heavy cruisers suffered from temperamental engines, although Hipper made one reasonable sortie. I think the Bismarck and Tirpitz were decent enough for what they were (could have done with a dual-purpose secondary armament) and were more powerful than anything the RN had, but their problem was that time had moved on and BB's had had their day. As for the Scharnhorsts, they were simply under-gunned for the size of ship as the 15-inch gun was not at that time available.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The Big Mamie is worth a visit if you are ever near Fall River. They still have marked out where I think a French 8 inch shell breached the hull. As to the German navy, I think the the fleet in being paid for itself in creating the dispersal of PQ17 and the ultimate carnage that ensued. And the pocket battleships were a very creative design. The B + T not so much. The heavy cruisers seemed to be good work. And the subs were obviously effective. The light cruisers seemed a little ehhh.

warspite1

But PQ17 was one convoy. Just one convoy. I don't think PQ17 can be considered an adequate return for all that manpower and resource spent on manning the ships, trying to keep them safe (Luftwaffe as well as Kriegsmarine), repairing the ships and keeping them supplied with fuel.

The pocket battleships may have seemed like a good idea - faster than any stronger ship and stronger than any faster ship - but they weren't. Aside from the fact that this wasn't true (the British BC's saw to that), when the Dunkerques came along the writing was on the wall. Having all their main armament in two turrets wasn't clever either - as shown when confronted with multiple targets.

The heavy cruisers suffered from temperamental engines, although Hipper made one reasonable sortie. I think the Bismarck and Tirpitz were decent enough for what they were (could have done with a dual-purpose secondary armament) and were more powerful than anything the RN had, but their problem was that time had moved on and BB's had had their day. As for the Scharnhorsts, they were simply under-gunned for the size of ship as the 15-inch gun was not at that time available.

Weren't S & G poor sea boats - the freeboard too low for rough conditions and the stern area always wet? During the Battle of North Cape the Scharnhorst's forward turret flooded out as she was crashing through heavy seas trying to escape.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think the Bismarck and Tirpitz were decent enough for what they were (could have done with a dual-purpose secondary armament) and were more powerful than anything the RN had, but their problem was that time had moved on and BB's had had their day. As for the Scharnhorsts, they were simply under-gunned for the size of ship as the 15-inch gun was not at that time available.

For whats it's worth the Bismarck's design is included among others in Anthony Preston's 2003 book The World's Worst Warships. She had a number of inherent design flaws including but not limited to:

Triple screw propulsion - an undesirable feature of her direct design ancestor, the 1913 Bayern Class battleships;

Twin main gun turrets - three triple turrets would have been about the same weight allowing fewer hull openings while providing an extra tube. the Bismarcks were the only capital ships designed post WW1 where the main battery was exclusively located in twin gun mounts.

The already mentioned single purpose secondary guns - The 15cm twin batteries were exclusively surface weapons whereas all Bismarck's counterparts (except the equally flawed Yamatos) had dual purpose secondary guns and so could dispense with the weight-wasting tertiary 10.5cm twin mounts.

Poor AA gun control and arrangement - the 10.5 cm batteries had separate forward/aft controls rather than port/starboard fire control. Although her only air targets were slow flying Swordfish and a Catalina and despite much shooting, she failed to swat down a single plane. The tired canard that the targets were too slow for the director settings lives on in myth but since the directors were actually dual purpose this excuse seems entirely bogus.

Although Bismarck proved difficult to sink, she proved very easy to disable and she had stopped firing within 20-minutes in her last battle. There is evidence that the design was too rigid and prone to internal shock damage and given her own guns knocked out her forward radar with the opening salvo against Norfolk and Suffolk and the loss of a couple of boilers from one of the non-penetrating torpedo hits from the first air attack this is certainly possible.

In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the Hood was lost fighting a tactically mismanaged but doctrinally sound sea control battle, whereas Bismarck was ultimately destroyed chasing the fantasy of decisive raider warfare.

Bismarck (and Tirpitz) probably would have served the Germans far better had they been melted down and turned into U-Boats.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think the Bismarck and Tirpitz were decent enough for what they were (could have done with a dual-purpose secondary armament) and were more powerful than anything the RN had, but their problem was that time had moved on and BB's had had their day. As for the Scharnhorsts, they were simply under-gunned for the size of ship as the 15-inch gun was not at that time available.

For whats it's worth the Bismarck's design is included among others in Anthony Preston's 2003 book The World's Worst Warships. She had a number of inherent design flaws including but not limited to:

Triple screw propulsion - an undesirable feature of her direct design ancestor, the 1913 Bayern Class battleships;

Twin main gun turrets - three triple turrets would have been about the same weight allowing fewer hull openings while providing an extra tube. the Bismarcks were the only capital ships designed post WW1 where the main battery was exclusively located in twin gun mounts.

The already mentioned single purpose secondary guns - The 15cm twin batteries were exclusively surface weapons whereas all Bismarck's counterparts (except the equally flawed Yamatos) had dual purpose secondary guns and so could dispense with the weight-wasting tertiary 10.5cm twin mounts.

Poor AA gun control and arrangement - the 10.5 cm batteries had separate forward/aft controls rather than port/starboard fire control. Although her only air targets were slow flying Swordfish and a Catalina and despite much shooting, she failed to swat down a single plane. The tired canard that the targets were too slow for the director settings lives on in myth but since the directors were actually dual purpose this excuse seems entirely bogus.

Although Bismarck proved difficult to sink, she proved very easy to disable and she had stopped firing within 20-minutes in her last battle. There is evidence that the design was too rigid and prone to internal shock damage and given her own guns knocked out her forward radar with the opening salvo against Norfolk and Suffolk and the loss of a couple of boilers from one of the non-penetrating torpedo hits from the first air attack this is certainly possible.

In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the Hood was lost fighting a tactically mismanaged but doctrinally sound sea control battle, whereas Bismarck was ultimately destroyed chasing the fantasy of decisive raider warfare.

Bismarck (and Tirpitz) probably would have served the Germans far better had they been melted down and turned into U-Boats.

warspite1

Indeed. All warships are about compromise. As said, there was no way the Germans weren't going to build them (think mid-1930's not 1945) but time and resource was not on the side of the naval designers. Triple turrets, better AA, better propulsion etc etc. Nothing that could have been achieved would have done much to alter their fate.

[Mundy]

An added bonus to using triple turrets would be the ability to shorten the armored belt, saving weight.

What is the disadvantage of the triple screw layout. Just wondering.

[Shellshock]

There's a page at NavWeapons that goes into the pluses and minuses of various screw layouts.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-036.php

Advantages, allows increased power through narrow stern section.

Disadvantages. Inefficient power utilization, high noise and vibration levels. Severe design problems with regard to interaction of power train configuration with other parts of ship.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think the Bismarck and Tirpitz were decent enough for what they were (could have done with a dual-purpose secondary armament) and were more powerful than anything the RN had, but their problem was that time had moved on and BB's had had their day. As for the Scharnhorsts, they were simply under-gunned for the size of ship as the 15-inch gun was not at that time available.

For whats it's worth the Bismarck's design is included among others in Anthony Preston's 2003 book The World's Worst Warships. She had a number of inherent design flaws including but not limited to:

Triple screw propulsion - an undesirable feature of her direct design ancestor, the 1913 Bayern Class battleships;

Twin main gun turrets - three triple turrets would have been about the same weight allowing fewer hull openings while providing an extra tube. the Bismarcks were the only capital ships designed post WW1 where the main battery was exclusively located in twin gun mounts.

The already mentioned single purpose secondary guns - The 15cm twin batteries were exclusively surface weapons whereas all Bismarck's counterparts (except the equally flawed Yamatos) had dual purpose secondary guns and so could dispense with the weight-wasting tertiary 10.5cm twin mounts.

Poor AA gun control and arrangement - the 10.5 cm batteries had separate forward/aft controls rather than port/starboard fire control. Although her only air targets were slow flying Swordfish and a Catalina and despite much shooting, she failed to swat down a single plane. The tired canard that the targets were too slow for the director settings lives on in myth but since the directors were actually dual purpose this excuse seems entirely bogus.

Although Bismarck proved difficult to sink, she proved very easy to disable and she had stopped firing within 20-minutes in her last battle. There is evidence that the design was too rigid and prone to internal shock damage and given her own guns knocked out her forward radar with the opening salvo against Norfolk and Suffolk and the loss of a couple of boilers from one of the non-penetrating torpedo hits from the first air attack this is certainly possible.

In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the Hood was lost fighting a tactically mismanaged but doctrinally sound sea control battle, whereas Bismarck was ultimately destroyed chasing the fantasy of decisive raider warfare.

Bismarck (and Tirpitz) probably would have served the Germans far better had they been melted down and turned into U-Boats.

HMS Vanguard had four twin 15" turrets, to use available equipment.

The Italian Littorio class BBs had 152mm, 120mm and 90mm guns. It seems the Axis did not believe in DP armament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_b ... rio_Veneto

I don't buy the argument that Hood's engagement with Bismarck was tactically bad. The admiral knew that Hood was vulnerable to plunging fire so he raced bows-on to close the range, and to get a better view of the German ships that had the retreating night sky behind them while the British were silhouetted against a lighter dawn sky. Hood was unlucky at the moment she was turning to bring full broadside to bear. How was the British admiral to know that if he kept bows-on that shell would have missed?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

There's a page at NavWeapons that goes into the pluses and minuses of various screw layouts.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-036.php

Advantages, allows increased power through narrow stern section.

Disadvantages. Inefficient power utilization, high noise and vibration levels. Severe design problems with regard to interaction of power train configuration with other parts of ship.

No mention of cramming three screws and a rudder or two into a smaller area for a torpedo to mess with?

[fcooke]

Give me four screws. Better for speed and better to handle battle damage.

And HMS Vanguard was an interesting creature. Were those 15 inch guns left over from what? I think some WW1 project? Anyway a KGV with better guns. The 4/2 set-up did not really work well on the KGVs. And yes, the Hood was incredibly unlucky. But IMO should have have been in that position to start with. Nor the POW. I think she still had contractors on board working things out.

IIRC the B was basically a somewhat improved Bayern.....a lot of hype about her and her sister. But odd luck aside I think any modern BB would have a good chance of taking her down 1 on 1.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: fcooke
.

And HMS Vanguard was an interesting creature. Were those 15 inch guns left over from what? I think some WW1 project? Anyway a KGV with better guns. The 4/2 set-up did not really work well on the KGVs. And yes, the Hood was incredibly unlucky. But IMO should have have been in that position to start with. Nor the POW. I think she still had contractors on board working things out.

The guns and turrets were originally constructed for the battlecruisers Courageous and Glorious during the First World War, and were removed during the conversions of these ships to aircraft carriers in the 1920s. Vanguard was originally supposed to have triple 16" mounts but using these leftover guns saved construction time.

IIRC the B was basically a somewhat improved Bayern.....a lot of hype about her and her sister. But odd luck aside I think any modern BB would have a good chance of taking her down 1 on 1.

A lot of hype indeed. It's sometimes been my experience that posting anything negative about the Bismarck, the darling battleship of the Internet Forums is likely to result in accusations of trolling and flaming but it's a chance to take. For some, the myth of Bismarck seems to makes her into a super-ship in some sort of Wagnerian drama that came within a hair's breadth of winning the war at sea and changing the course of history. Go figure.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

A lot of hype indeed. It's sometimes been my experience that posting anything negative about the Bismarck, the darling battleship of the Internet Forums is likely to result in accusations of trolling and flaming but it's a chance to take. For some, the myth of Bismarck seems to makes her into a super-ship in some sort of Wagnerian drama that came within a hair's breadth of winning the war at sea and changing the course of history. Go figure.

warspite1

Very true! But I don't think there is that danger on this forum - at least I don't think so.

I've actually had it argued on another forum that, because Bismarck was, supposedly, scuttled and not sunk, that the victor of her last battle - certainly in terms of honour - were the Germans.

You'd need your brain wired in a very special sort of way to come to that conclusion.. but they are out there...