What If...?

[Concorde247]

they would probably go right through & out the other side!

[trackend]

I didn't say that the GZ could have been at operation Sea-lion Del I just was saying that if it had posed any sort of threat it would have been eliminated in very short measure.The fact remains that the German surface fleet in WW2 was small compared to the fleets arrayed against it . This is not to say the German vessels did not pose a threat but compared to the U-boat problem it was of a far more minor nature.
Even if you include the GZ just assuming it had been ready by 1939
the inbalance in navel surface supremacy is obvious therfore the probability of any significant contribution made by the GZ would be minimal before it would have been removed from the scene. This was known by Admiral Donitz hence his concentration on the U-Boat campaign.

For example this is the Royal Navy and German Navy surface fleet strengths in 1939

Royal Navy (surface fleet), 1939.

15 Battleships & Battle-cruisers,
7 Aircraft carriers.
66 Cruisers,
184 Destroyers
32 fleet destroyers
20 escort destroyers of the 'Hunt' class.
source http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

German Kriegsmarine (surface fleet) 1939

Battleships/Pocket Battleships 5
Aircraft Carriers --
Cruisers 6
Destroyers 17
source http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Ca...ables/GerN.htm

(neither of these sets of figures include smaller escort or patrol vessels)

[cheddar cheese]

How many U-Boats were around at the time?

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

How many U-Boats were around at the time?

You can look here, http://uboat.net/

[trackend]

60 British submarines and 57 German U- boats although i was talking surface vessels only

[the lancaster kicks ass]

however U-boats would have little part to play in a surface encounter of the type we're considdering.......

[Nonskimmer]

You never hear much about the exploits of the British submarines in WWII.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i know a bit about the ol' midget submarines..........

[trackend]

May I suggest you take a look at this sight, it is I think one of the better ones with a good easy to follow lay out
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/chalcraft/sm/ww2sm2.html

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am sorry del, but I agree with them. The GZ would not have made it very long. Just the fact that Hitler would have put a Carrier out to sea would have given them another battle cry just like Sink the Bismark, Sink the Graf Zeppelin. She would have been hunted and killed. The Royal Navy was too powerful for her or anyone else. I also dont think Hitler would have risked her anyhow, especially after losing the Bismark.

[delcyros]

That´s exactly why it was never completed, I think. You are right Adler. GZ could only barely hope to survive a encounter at open seas (only by means of pure speed, if even) with the mighty royal navy. But in my hypothesis is no need for such a dangerous sortie. Put it into the harbour as a weapon of beeing. I twas pretty protected in the Fjords. And it could help to intercept weak escorted Murmansk convois (or back other heavy units with air recon/air cover, making the sinking of Scharnhorst much harder for the allies). I do not doubt that a unit of Lancs with Tallboys could do the job. But that would happen late in 1944 (so in this case the GZ last a bit). Swordfishs or Beau´s in an AA-protected Fjord would probably result in bad news for the Brits, even if they can damage the ship. The complete RN would never try to chase the GZ in the Barentsea as long as Scharnhorst and Tirpitz stay in the waters (remember PQ-17?). Russian submarines operating close to the norwegian coast would have a pretty chance to hit her (they claim a torpedo hit on Tirpitz, even!). In the end I think it was correct to let GZ incompleted, that´s why it survived the war as the heaviest german Kriegsmarine vessel. Submarine warfare does also give the KM an offensive capability (GZ would not, as mentioned above) and the loss of the GZ would be a heavy blow to Hitler, I agree.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The only ways I could see the GZ having been an assett to Hitler was pretty much on paper so as to say Germany had an Aircraft Carrier. The way being the British would have done whatever they could to stop the GZ no matter where she was, in the harbor, in a fjord, in open water if she had been completed. This would have tied up some of the RN assets and given the rest of the Kriegsmarine such as the Tirpitz a chance to do something.

[delcyros]

Then we have to discuss, would it have been more important to knock out GZ or to knock out Tirpitz? With a full scale operation they could have sunken both, but losses would be terribly high (think of some Fritz X and Do-217/He-177 in 1943).

[mosquitoman]

I'd go for the Tirpitz personally, it was more of an offensive weapon and, as such more of a danger to the Murmansk convoys

[trackend]

hi Del, its seems we have moved foward some years as you now mention Fritz X ect ect so Ok now we have the might of the US navy and the US air force in the war and the British Navy and the Royal airforce has grown along with the contributions from the Australians,Canadians and all the other allies the inbalance is even greater in 1943 the biggest naval threat was still the U-boat by the end of that year 241 Kriegsmarine vessels had been lost including the Scharnhorst (the Gneisenau had been laid up since 1942) as opposed to 36 Royal Navy vessels. It was the end of the Happy time and the beginning of the end for the Kreigsmarine as a fighting force
PQ17 was not a Battle group there is a big difference between sinking a convoy and taking on a fleet of warships.
I agree with Mossie Tirpitz was more of a threat. with the skies over europe becoming more and more dominated by the Allies the sort of threat that one carrier could mount against these was next to zero
One large surface raider in amongst a convoy was worth 30 U-boats
So its sink the Tirpitz first and let the US airforce with its Mustang escorts sort out the GZ