German Battleships and convoy hunting.

syscom3 · 01-08-2006, 07:45 PM

I should have made my statement clearer, that prior to the entry into the war, the US would not have tolerated German raiders operating past that mid ocean demarcation line.

Of course there was nothing we could have done about the subs. But then, a sub is hardly ever seen.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-08-2006, 07:54 PM

No German raiders operated frequently past the mid atlantic point.

delcyros · 01-09-2006, 02:10 PM

And so did the Prinz Eugen. It´s journey also showed that it was very difficult to detect a single ship in the Atlantic. With the means of 1941, even with those of 1943 it proved to be very difficult.
I am just thinking of the degree of advantage the allies gained with the destruction of the Bismarck, since for political reasons raiders could not enter the Atlantic afterwards.
Some say now the raiders were more safe operating in norwegian waters, some say they could have supported the Med. theatre with their deployment in the Atlantic. I personally have not concluded an opinion so I would like to hear your thoughts.

syscom3 · 01-09-2006, 02:53 PM

Any raiders operating in the med would have fodder for allied aircraft.

The raiders were far safer operating in the North Atlantic where they could have some modicum of success in hiding.

Glider · 01-09-2006, 05:38 PM

I suspect the end of the raider in the N Atlantic had a lot to do with the development of the escort carrier. They wouldn't have the means to sink a large raider but they would have had the means to spot them at long ranges and to follow them.
Depending on the situation there would also be the possibility of one or more escort carriers from different convoy's joining up and being a real danger. Remember that the carrier didn't have to sink the raider, damage was just as likely to send the raider home which would be the first priority.

syscom3 · 01-09-2006, 05:52 PM

British aerial torpedo's were more than capable of sinking any raider. You might need a whole lot of them, but in the end, the raider would be sunk.

Glider · 01-09-2006, 06:27 PM

Escort carriers escorting convoys didn't carry torpedo's. If they did, they still wouldn't have enough torpedo carring aircraft on board, to quote 'drop a whole load of them'.
What they did carry were A/S aircraft with A/S radar, ideal for tailing and tracking the raider.

syscom3 · 01-09-2006, 08:42 PM

If German raiders were a threat, then the escort carriers would carry them torpedo's as a standard munitons load. The Avengers could carry depth bombs or torpedo's.

delcyros · 01-10-2006, 03:21 PM

I am not sure in that. Even first line torpedo bombers had a lot of problems with the raider. Bismarck was doing 26 kts, full power was denied due to fuel problems (because of hit #1) hits were rare (3 in two waves). Tirpitz was attacked by two waves torpedo bombers of the carrier Victorious but it proved to be able to defend herself pretty well (...with her Ar float planes doing a little CAP). No torpedo hit´s occurred. (However, Tirpitz was able to perform full power)
And I personally disagree that airborne torpedo´s alone could ensure to sink a raider (except CA and pocket battleships). The TDS of Bismarck and Scharnhorst were excellent, the best executed in ww2 (with the possible exception of HMS Vanguard). Keep in mind that Scharnhorst was hit by 11+ ship based torps plus 14+ 14 inch hits by DoY, nethertheless it´s powerplant #2 and #3 were dry when it went down. Repeated hit´s may ensure to sink such a raider, but this is more a matter of luck (a torp finds the way through the hole of a sooner impact or so) than anything else. A combination of cruisers/ BB and air power alway is the best solution as demonstrated in Rheinübung.
Escort carrier flight ops were harder to sustain in bad weather, this might reduce the effect, also.
I do think the allies would track the raiders with airforces (whether land or sea based is equal), as suggested by Glider, and use task forces to hunt them down. Richelieu, Iowa, Washington, Duke of Yorck and King George V were suitable for this task. Not to denie that damages alone could be inflicted by planes, which may force the raiders to return.

syscom3 · 01-10-2006, 05:14 PM

Torpedo hits would slow it down. Enough torpedo hits would stop it completely. Even a lucky hit could rupture any number of internal bulkheads and cause flooding.

The slowed down ship would then be an easier target to hit with bombs.

No ship built was ever unsinkable.

delcyros · 01-10-2006, 06:06 PM

Agreed. No ship was unsinkable.
Make Your idea clearer: Where exactly has a torp hit the chance to sink the ship? A fluke hit like that of Bismarck may jam the steering controll (as in any other warship). The ship may be slowed down, esspeccially by bow hits, but there is no point in the ship where a single hit may cause flooding and rupture some bulkheads, never. Not with the torpedo warheads avaiable for the allies in 39-45.
Keep in mind that the two other aerial dropped hits of Bismarck caused no drop in her speed. after examination of the wreckage none of the 7 torpedo hits (including those of Dorsetshire) did any damage to the main torpedo bulkhead of Bismarck (vitals were dry).
Or are You going to relie on fluke hit´s?

syscom3 · 01-10-2006, 07:36 PM

I base it on how many torpedo's it took to sink the Musashi and Yamato.

Considering that the Bismark and Tirpitz were far better protected, it would take quite a few.

I would consider any torpedo hit as causing the loss of fuel oil, plus shock damage to the ship, that becomes cumulative. Eventually all those voids are also going to fill with water which means extra tonnage of water that weighs down the ship.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-11-2006, 05:11 AM

Yes but no torpedos penetrated the Bismarck, they just jammed the rudder and basically doomed her.

syscom3 · 01-11-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes but no torpedos penetrated the Bismarck, they just jammed the rudder and basically doomed her.

If enough torpedo's struck her, then she would have lost a lot of her fuel, undoubtably would have been slowed down, and become an easier ship to sink.

delcyros · 01-11-2006, 01:13 PM

I share Your opinion. Repeated hits cannot be contained by any TDS.
If a torp hits the belly of the ship one void cell will be filles with water and the secondary torpedo bulkhead may fail (in case the explosive ordenance is high enough), making the ship loose oil from cell 2. A later torpedo hit in the same region (subdivision limits it to +-6 m) will send the blast effect right through the now filled cell 1 and 2 and -taken into account that liquid filled cells only shift the blast- rupture the secondary torpedo belt or what is left from it (20 mmWh) as well as cell 3 (void), if not already made by hit #1. The main torpedo bulkhead may fail if there is no void cell in front of it to contain the blast effects, depending on the warhead used. At least the third torpedo hitting the same region will set the room behind the main bulkhead under water, sure. If you continue this procedure for at least 10 compartements you will sink the ship. The TDS in the very bow region is not that extensive as well as the stern region (the shafts of the screws may be deformed by an impact, so water could theoreticly bypass the TDS in compartment XIX). However, more than 80% of the substructure are covered by it´s TDS and this gives pretty much protection.