What If...?

mosquitoman · 03-19-2005, 11:42 AM

Or Lancasters with Tallboys

delcyros · 03-19-2005, 12:46 PM

Lancs with Tallboys and Mustangs please in 1944, but we will discuss 1944 later. I completely agree with you all: Take out the Tirpitz first!
In 1943 things are going worse for the Kriegsmarine, it was the turning year, making it even more interesting in my eyes (it makes no sense to discuss the early years, only). So let´s start:
Early 1943 we have pretty air cover in Norway, Tirptz, Hipper, Lutzow, Gneisenau (and GZ in this scenario) as heavy units and some other smaller ones. (hi Trackend, you are right, only 34 RN- vessels but please take the non- british losses also into this calculation, there is one battleship sunk and 3 others put out of action by Fritz X) The US fleet brings in early 1943 the mighty Iowa into patrol position to protect the Atlantic against an outbreak of heavy german units. Barentsea remains the only probable theatre for the heavy german units. The King George V was put out of order for months (by accident). PQ-17 was protected by two battleships-Washington and Duke of Yorck (that is a battlefleet in my eyes). They were ordered back as soon as it was known that Tirpitz left it´s fjord. GZ would have made further damage to the convoi, it could succesfully lead other german units (like Lutzow) into convois. We know that Lutzow had problems to get in contact. Attacks against Tirpitz and GZ would consist of carrier based bombers (no torpedo bombers in fjords) and maybe some x-boats. None of them did manage to sink Tirpitz (while it is true that x-boats did put the ship out of order for months), why should it work on GZ? Possible: Yes. Probable: no. The presence of GZ would bind even more warships on the ETO, reducing pressure at the PTO. The sinking of Scharnhorst later in 1943 would be impossible, if GZ could succesful warn Scharnhorst of the presence of Duke of Yorck out there...Without the loss of Scharnhorst (debatable) Hitler would allow the reconstruction of Gneisenau: In 1943 were plans to refit Gneisenau (new and elonged bow for more lift and better speed, upgrade of its primary weapon (6 x 15 inch/52), radar and secondary weapons (22 x 5,1 inch multi purpose guns), it was even begun. The RN capabilities to take a heavy german ship out would be divided between Tirptz, Scharnhorst and GZ. I do not doubt that it would be more difficult to do the job. Another point has to be underlined: There is defensive for KM and the RN/US are pressing hard.Maybe someone can imagine a scenario between RN/US forces protecting a convoi and KM+Luftwaffe trying to take it out. Just for fun.

trackend · 03-19-2005, 02:51 PM

I get your point Del and concede on PQ17 . However lets say the Washington and the Duke of york and KG V and 30 destroyers and 10 cruisers and 4 aircraft carriers are all sunk by the German navy that still leaves a massive force and which ever way you like to think, it is going to send the GZ,Sharnhorst,Blucher and anything else that shows its face to the bottom you talk as if refitting One ship here and evading detection there would make a huge difference Donitz as I have said knew full well that his surface fleet could at best put up a good show and that's all. The Bismark was one of the most powerful surface vessel he had it lasted 9 days in operational waters the other, the Tirpitz made three brief forays in March and July 42 and Sept 43 total 11 days end result sunk by Lancs after seeking refuge in a fjord any supposition that you make is too unlikely to be credible. But I have enjoyed the thread cheers Del

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-19-2005, 04:29 PM

Well I will agree that the Tirpitz would have to go first, but honestly I really dont think the GZ would have lasted at all. She was a beautiful ship and thats about it. The few fighters she would have had for arial defense were Bf-109T's. Basically Bf-109E's with longer folding wings and an arrester hook to land on carriers. To help defend against other ships she would have had Stukas that were modified the same way. By the time the GZ would have been operational both aircraft would have been completely obsolete and would have been completely outmatched. Now I do believe had the Germans gotten the GZ out the same time the Bismark did, and she went out to sea with the Bismark fleet, she may have been able to keep the Bismark afloat longer then she did and might have been able to make an impact.

mosquitoman · 03-20-2005, 06:04 AM

A carrier on it's own was easy prey in the Atlantic, not so in the Pacific

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-20-2005, 10:52 AM

A carrier alone by itself is easy prey no matter what ocean it was in. If it could not get sufficient warning of attacks from the air it was a sure loss. If it was attacked by a large fleet of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, it was a sure loss. It takes more then a few minutes to start up an aircraft and get it off the carrier deck. In that time the BB's would be shelling it and most likely the flight deck would be damaged to the point that they could not launch aircraft. A lone carrier is also a sure loss if it is by itself and there are submarines in the area. A carrier has zero defences against a Sub.

Carriers however were the main capital ship in the pacific.

delcyros · 03-20-2005, 01:26 PM

Agreed. A carrier alone was pretty prey for surface fleets, no doubt (The HMS Glorius proved that in 1940). I generally doubt that even the refitting of Gneisenau and GZ would have made an impact in 1943. The odds were against them. But we will move later on (and 1945 will be interesting again). At a pure seabattle between large forces (let´s stay with Washington, Duke of York, KGV, four carriers and escorts against Tirptiz, Scharnhorst, Lutzow, GZ (with all obsolete planes, agreed), Hipper and both air cover and bombers operating from Norway) I would like to give the allies the better chances and the higher losses. But such a scenario is unlikely. 1943 would result in heavy german units sitting in the fjords and US/British forces escorting Murmansk convois. Maybe we would see a single operation (let´s say Schanrhorst) against a convoi. That´s it. Probably all german units could survive by inactivity, agreed? Bismarck was not sunk because it has to be sunk by itself. It has to be sunk because it did sank the Hood. That is activity. Still the weapon of beeing concept works (..and Dönitz knew about this concept).

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-20-2005, 01:33 PM

I will agree with what you said there.

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-20-2005, 02:02 PM

apart from the fact you put more emphasis on the americans attacking the GZ than the british, we'd have first bite of the cherry............

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-20-2005, 02:13 PM

How did he put more emphasis on the Americans? Lets see he said the USS Washington, Duke of York, King Goerge V. Thats 2 Royal Navy ships and one US Navy Ship. He did not specify the nationality of the carriers and the escorts. That seems to me he put emphasis on you Brits.