German Battleships and convoy hunting.

plan_D · 12-18-2005, 03:27 PM

You must remember that the Royal Navy wouldn't lie idle with these developments. While the best approach for Germany was more U-boats, and S-boats, the Royal Navy would be able to counter with an increase in DDs and MGBs. In my opinion, I think the Kriegsmarine had little chance of complete success over the Royal Navy.

Remember that the vast majority of ships destroyed in World War II were actually merchant vessels rather than military ships. The Kriegsmarine suffered heavily at the hands of the Royal Navy - and it really isn't surprising given the scope and the size of the Royal Navy in the 30s and 40s. The Royal Navy actually surpassed the IJN in CV numbers during the 30s but they were all spread out across the oceans. Imagine the what would have happened had the Kriegsmarine faced the full force of the Royal Navy!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-18-2005, 03:39 PM

I think they should have developed these U-Boots and S-Boots before the war. Yes they were limited by a treaty however they did everything else secretly so why not.

plan_D · 12-18-2005, 03:59 PM

Remember that Britain, Germany, U.S.A and Japan were all limited by the naval treaty on tonnage of their navy.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-18-2005, 04:02 PM

Yes and that is why they needed to build S-Boots and U-Boots before the war started in large numbers.

syscom3 · 12-18-2005, 04:49 PM

Sending out a convoy of a battleship and several escorts would require tens of thousands of fuel oil. Considering how short the Germans were of that commodity, I dont think they could have sent the fleet to sea for more than a few times before the Luftwaffe and Panzer forces would screech to a halt because of no fuel.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-18-2005, 05:05 PM

And thats another argument for my U-Boots and E/S-Boots.

plan_D · 12-18-2005, 07:25 PM

I think all arguments point towards a considerable U-boat fleet while reducing the surface vessels to a minimum. More importantly no capital ships as the Royal Navy made short work of any of those that sailed, even if each sinking is a massive story these days.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-18-2005, 07:26 PM

Agreed

Hunter368 · 12-18-2005, 08:14 PM

Could E-boats sail the high seas? In the rough Alantic sea? or were they resicted to costal waters more? Everything I have read on them (not a huge amount) they were always in coastal waters in the channel or on the coast of France.

plan_D · 12-18-2005, 08:48 PM

E-boats couldn't sail in the Atlantic, but they did operate in the North Sea. Their main operation centers were the North Sea, English Channel and French coast. They were useful against convoys moving to the Soviet Union but weren't a massive threat to supply from the U.S going to the U.K - that threat came from the U-boats.

The actual surface vessels of the Kriegsmarine, while famous did not actually cause too much trouble for the Royal Navy. Take, for example, the sinking of HMS Hood. It's a famous story and the hunt was certainly on for the Bismarck but that one 1919 Battlecruiser was hardly a massive blow to the strength of the Royal Navy.

Erich · 12-18-2005, 09:34 PM

we should include the Baltic and the Black Sea as well as the Adriatic for the S-boot arm.

most likely in my opinion besides enlarging the S-boots was to increase knowledge and production of the Walter diesel boots with XXI and beyond boots but of course the protection of the manufacturing/holding factories via Kiel and Hamburg from RAF/US air strikes

plan_D · 12-18-2005, 10:17 PM

The S-boots alone were hardly going to squeeze Britain dry though, and it's not like Britain wasn't countering them. And, as you say, the air was always a threat to any German surface vessel - and by mid-war to any sub-surface vessel too.

syscom3 · 12-18-2005, 10:28 PM

It never happened, but Id like to have seen the Tirpitz one on one aginst one of the US fast battleships. The Tirpitz would have been creamed.

plan_D · 12-19-2005, 01:17 AM

The Kriegsmarine against any of the great naval powers (Japan, Great Britain and U.S.A) in full force would have been soundly defeated. The only reason the Kriegsmarine stood anything near a chance against the Royal Navy was because the Royal Navy was fighting the Japanese and Italian navies at the same time as it was fighting the Kriegsmarine!

delcyros · 12-19-2005, 08:32 AM

A Walter Diesel boat? Never heard of it.
Either a Walter boat (Typ XXVI/VII for example) or a Type XXI and XXIII conventional electric boat (both got operational but the later succeeded in sinking ships).

By 1940 and 41 as well, the surface raiders were very effective because of various reasons:
1.) They were not very easy to detect (Scheer, Lutzow and prinz Eugen remained undetected even with allied forces in high alert) as long as they were operating alone or dually (like Scharnhorst/Gneisenau).
2.) They had a huge range (even in the case of Bismarck, the hunting ships proved to have an invalid endurance for this short task) and once in open waters they can move freely for weeks
3.) If not engaging enemy heavy surface ships (Bismarck was the fist to do so) but concentrating on merchants they sunk a lot of merchant shipping and beeing able to disengage on their own initiative (Bismarck could achieve 30.8 kts at 47.000 tons, this means it would do 30 kts at 50.000 tons or even 31 kts. at 45.000 tons, Scharnhorst is even better. There are no allied ships in this timeframe to keep up with them on equal terms)
4.) -Most important- The Kriegsmarine had quite a good understanding of the effects of raiders. they are not decisive in a strategical means but as a weapon of beeing, they succesfully binded a large part of the Royal Navy, ships which could be active on other theatres (again the example of the Bismarck: Drawing Force H back from the Mediterranean theatre greatly improved the chances to take Crete. Had Ark Royal and others supported it´s defense (what they originally should) the invasion of Crete would become very critical if not (more probable) impossible.