Why did the Germans think commerce-raiding in the North Atlantic using battleships was a good doctrine?
They could triumph for a day but it only needed your capital ship to sustain moderate damage to be fatally slowed and facing a huge run home with superior forces on the hunt for you. Why didn't they leave it to the U-boats or, if you must use surface ships, cruisers?
The Bismarck - why?
Cooper Nguyen
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Isaiah Lee
is it true she had guns the size of steers and shells the size of trees?
James Flores
They were successful with it but the Bismarck later was alone because the other ship was sent home. While it's true that she wasn't made for commerce raiding it's still better than the Tirpitz that didn't have any fuel and couldn't leave the harbour.
Jaxon Watson
Because the Kriegsmarine only had a few large surface combatants (battleships and heavy cruisers.) They were never going to compete with the Royal Navy in a fight between fleets, so the only option for using them was to send them after convoys; where they had clear advantage over what was typically expected in the escorting forces, and if they did run into a British battleship or battlecruiser then they had the speed to get away. The only other option for the Kriegsmarine was to not use their large ships. Which became the plan after losing multiple surface raiders.
I've never gotten this. Aren't trees bigger than steers? Or steers are larger in diameter than most trees. I know it's hyperbole for a song but it always seemed like an odd choice of words.
Angel Wood
Tirpitz was being hunted by six battleships and battlecruisers, two aircraft carriers, thirteen cruisers, and twenty-one destroyers. If Prinz Eugen had been present it too would have been lost.
Michael Morgan
Tirpitz was the most successful "fleet in being" ever. One ship binding so many assets while doing noting. Meanwhile the Japanese go berserker on Asia.
Anthony Mitchell
Yeah but in the end the Royal Navy shat their pants and only bombed it because they didn't want to lose more ships and even that proved very difficult, pretty much proving that turtleback armor wasn't shit as brits try to make it look like.
Dominic Kelly
>bombed it
They torpedoed it; they didn't bomb it, and in doing so they crippled its ability to evade pursuit and in the end it was blasted into uselessness despite its armor.
Logan Turner
Duh I mean Bismarck of course.
Joshua Morgan
The Soviets were defeating the Germans on their own. Protecting the supply lines to them was a priority as it would save countless British, American and Canadian lives in the long run.
Samuel Hernandez
Bismarck was silenced in a few minutes when KGV caught up with her and scored not a single hit.
Jacob Wood
>designed as a commerce raider
>sinks no merchantmen
what did they mean by this
Christopher Perry
Two obvious reasons that interact with another:
The KM could never have hoped to meet the RN in terms of basic numbers and the pursuit of having at least a Fleet in Being that would give, for example, Italy a bigger chance of dominating the Mediterranean.
If the KM can not rival the RN, it would require more well protected capital ships that can operate alone or with a small number of escorts, like CL/CA which have higher range and stronger AAW capabilites than DD, in the Atlantic. The existence of capital ships would directly support the Fleet in Being idea as well.
Generally speaking, the Bismarck was not a mistake at all. What was a mistake is the fact that essentially all countries till Taranto failed to (fully) realize the immense power of Naval Aviation.
Michael Russell
The construction of the battleships was never about commerce raiding. The Kriegsmarine simply pursued its self-interest, and that was their love for classic warships.
They did in no way optimise their navy expansion for war with the UK.
At first the Kriegsmarine became powerful enough to dominate the Baltic Sea with Luftwaffe support, and in late inter-war years it was concerned with the French, who could attempt a far blockade in the North Sea (and sustain this effort with maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of their fleet).
Jace Thompson
So you mean the Bismarck then? It was scuttled even when brits don't want to acknowledge it because some sailor who sat on his toilet said it would've been sunk any picosecond now. Now to the Prinz Eugen. If it would've faced a numeric superiority and bigger guns yes, but otherwise no. When they tested it against 2 nukes, it held out and didn't sink as opposed to the British built ships that sank after 1 nuke shockwave. Face it, British ships were inferior and the only thing facing them was superior numbers, same as with WW1.
If you mean with few minutues 4 hours and scuttling, sure.
The Bismarck was a showoff ships of the Anglo-German naval treaty and did infact sink mearchent vessals. Why do anglos always lie to feel better about themselves?
Henry Ramirez
They hoped that with these large capital ships loose, they could keep the Home Fleet all over the Atlantic in some sort of frantic chase and relieve pressure off of the u-boats, while sinking merchant ships in the process. It wasn't an unfound idea, the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst did just that with some success.
What the Germans underestimated, like so many others, was the value of naval aviation. If Bismarck wasn't struck by the Swordfish, she would have escaped easily. And the cycle would begin anew.
Another, less obvious reason, was that the Kriegsmarine could justify larger budgets with these battleships. Simple pragmatism really.
Ian Peterson
Because Hitler was an impatient cunt and started war too early before the Kriegsmarine had enough U-boats and surface ships.
Jaxson Richardson
>and did infact sink mearchent vessals
Incorrect, her first op saw her immediately get jumped on with denmark strait and her eventual 16" enema being the result.
Josiah Diaz
youtube.com
>en.wikipedia.org
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sunk 100.000BRT while being really careful
imo they should have picked up the fight with HMS Malaya and HMS Ramillies (both would have been a 2:1 engagement) and sink both convoys (adding ~800.000BRT to their list by sinking/capturing)
Parker Jenkins
your mom swims after troop ships
Thomas Lewis
Justin Morales
>If you mean with few minutues 4 hours and scuttling, sure
her guns were silenced within minutes, her main battery went first, a 14 inch shell from KGV penetrated one of the forward turrets and blew the back out, that blast wreckked parts of the fire control and shrapnel from it fucked the bridge. after 45 minutes not even a single gun on bismarck was capable of firing.
sure it took a few hours for her to sink, but even before the torpedoes an 'scuttling' she was sinking
>imo they should have picked up the fight with HMS Malaya and HMS Ramillies (both would have been a 2:1 engagement)
not a great idea
malaya and ramillies mounted 15 inch guns and could penetrate the scharnhorst or gneisenau easily at any range at which the germans could hope to pentrate them and the 15 inch gun once its shell got through armor was much more powerful than the 11 inch gun of the german ships in terms of bursting charge. they would have suffered heavy damage at the least and probably been left unable to continue even if they were successful, and success was by no means assured