tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post6291890199061440028..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Historical crappy ideas. Today: Battleship "D"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-37135159332600507712012-06-10T21:39:11.379+02:002012-06-10T21:39:11.379+02:00Actually, 1,000 km fast bomber mission radius with...Actually, 1,000 km fast bomber mission radius with 1 ton bomb load has been feasible during the 1930's and guided munitions have been under development as early as 1917.<br /><br />There was no need for ships in order to exploit the potential of air power for German military purposes.<br /><br /><br />To break a blockade between Scotland and Norway regularly was impossible against the British anyway (they could have blocked the region with subs and bombers even if they had no surface warships left) and the French weren't able to maintain a tight blockade there anyway.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-64755432460353054512012-06-10T20:26:11.742+02:002012-06-10T20:26:11.742+02:00To elaborate my point about "battlefleet"...To elaborate my point about "battlefleet" capabilities, aircraft carriers offered the option for re-running Skagerrak in an even more asymmetric setting setting that was winable without investing as much as the RN.<br /><br />The new thing were the aircrafts that could operate from carriers.<br />Preparing this plan could be done by constructing dual use ships that could be wartime converted into planned designs of mid-sized carrier-escort warships and fleet aircraft carriers, both with high cruise speed (to avoid being caught), while armour and resilence measures would have been less and simplified in comparison to normal warship design. Torpedoes and dive-bombers would have been the primary threats, with guns taking a very secondary threat role. The emphasis would have been on speed to avoid surface battles and dictate aerial combat. The use of compareably heavy guns on the escorts would have been for kill-runs against enemy ships prepared by the aircrafts. The Allies had this with tin-can warships and escort-carriers at the famous battle of Leyte Gulf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf. <br />You didn't have to be a genius to figure out that seaborne aircrafts enabled to fight battles of choice and conduct most efficient sea-mining campaigns. The question was whether aircrafts could destroy ships with their air defences. As long as this was unanswered, you needed other methods for destruction like guns and torpedoes, but dive bombers were absolutely certain to disable much of enemy armament (their job description anyway).<br />This dual use design of ships to be transformed into rather ill-protected warships, by naval gunnery standards could have provided a lot more force for the money. The tactical idea of using sea-mines delivered over short distances to the British harbours and attacks on Britain from more unknown angles would have negated the RAF defensive advantages of enemy predictability as well as reduced submarine requirements for a blockade.<br />I know, Sven is a naval warfare sceptic, but with the British Isles free every occupier of Europe faced the same problem of excellent supplies for the resistance.<br /><br />So while the RN could be bled by re-running Skagerrak in small doses or by sea-born naval mining, additional to the land based mining effort (suggested by Sven), the sea-basing would allow less predictable vectors of attack (more surprise) on located enemy airfields and fighters (on the ground) from the sea over much shorter distances (better for fighters).<br /><br />Against the French Navy, a surface backed blockade with good intelligence would have been more effective, but not terribly crippling as Sven correctly pointed out. The real advantage would lie in improving the sea side flank of all German army battle plans against France by providing a very forward deployed and well-suppplied number of airbases to support the operations on land. <br />The Channel would likely be blocked by naval mines, limiting the speed of further advance. If the Channel could be occupied by any chance, aircraft carriers would be the tool to totally negate France the ability to bring their reserves into the fight on land in time.<br /><br />That's my point that aircraft carriers unlike battleships were a game changer that created totally new capabilities, but the structure of the German gouvernment and armed fores was not able digest these changes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-83403294323191349702012-06-03T18:10:18.292+02:002012-06-03T18:10:18.292+02:00The tough nut would have been the RN. Best choice ...The tough nut would have been the RN. Best choice would have been not to fight them, second best wage to a cruiser war against them. This in order to create small force concentrations that allow for a number of limited surface engagements. In case of denial the RN would be forced to diminish their naval supply by increased convoi size with more protection. An extreme case would have been creating British vulnerability for German raids or an invasion.<br />Problems was that the RN knew that and would do all to prevent an escape and supply in the North Atlantic while the North Sea presence was of limited to no value for a German naval force not capable of raids or an invasion of the British Islands.<br />Several coclusions could be drawn from this, keep the navy small, we won't fight the RN, just annoy the French an block the Russians.<br />To go for the RN would require a strong emphasis on logistics of surface fleets in the North Atlantic. The breakthrough could be achieved by small surface combatant groups around a carrier capable of enduring a high cruise speed while denying localization through superior aerial surveillance en route.<br />The vulnerable section remains with the logistics. Doing the same run with supply ships doesn't work and the first carrier centered group out won't lower RN blockade before running out of supplies. The only chance for supply are false flag convois to occupied harbours in remote unsettled areas, Greenland and Spitzbergen or technology for complete resupply and repairs at sea.<br />The only other option would have been to rely on the "neutrality" of the Soviet Union for running supplies. That did work, despite running counter to proclaimed ideology(although the "ideology" was in a flux because the NSDAP was a movement, not a party with a program) and later war plans. During the early stages before the invasion the cooperation with the Soviets worked fine in ruining any British blockade despite Soviet "neutrality". After the overwhelming victory in France the idea of fighting a SLoC denial with combined subsurface, surface and airborne platforms was in the realm of the possible, but the money had been sunk elsewhere, into what was considered a safe investment in communis opinio worldwide. You were a lunatic if you proposed something like the above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-49969592240540596142012-06-03T18:10:01.234+02:002012-06-03T18:10:01.234+02:00These carriers would have required fighter-bombers...These carriers would have required fighter-bombers for air defense & precision bombing(with airbrakes?) and long range observers that could double as torpedo and large guided missile delivery crafts. This is a concept not pursued for the Zeppelin carrier with the increasing torpedo bomber and diminishing fighter component. <br /><br />The problem with this plan was quite large and called Göring, plus the remnant of the old guard Hochseeflotte that wanted to be a little bit proud again. After still reading Mahan they were convinced that only big guns could settle issues at sea.<br /><br />The problem of all German naval forces was breaking out to threaten enemy SLoC. In a war against France this was a given. SLoC attacks would do the French the greatest possible harm the navy was capable of. Support by surface combat vessels with an airwing would further limit their ability to defend against these submarines by threatening the usual cheap ASW escort tin cans.<br /><br />Re-running the zeppelins in the navy, but this time for different purposes, would have amplified capabilities early on.<br /><br />One use would have been long range deployment of observation posts on Greenland and Spitzbergen because the air route couldn't be blocked by sea. Zeppelins were never of much use in battlespace, but they had long range and endurance while being able to transport a small group with supplies and equipment.<br /><br />Another use could have been trying to set up a mobile torpedo supply service in case a sub ran out of amunition sooner than fuel or targets. Such a supply could have included other critical components and exchanging the crew to better relieve them from stress.<br /><br />Zeppelin design could have been much improved, even back then, by looking at them as very slow speed flying wing with low density (not as high as for gliders or even fixed wing aircrafts), but not lighter than air (airships already had much dynamic lift).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-60133744721622867612012-05-09T19:48:37.917+02:002012-05-09T19:48:37.917+02:00Its fine to say so much equipment could have been...Its fine to say so much equipment could have been bought for the cost of the heavy surface ships, but there would still be the problem of industrial capacity to produce the equipment for the land forces.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-15959404426847389662011-12-16T23:50:39.772+01:002011-12-16T23:50:39.772+01:00I think winning the last war was one of the reason...I think winning the last war was one of the reasons for this naval build-up. During the Weimar Republic an interesting concept for warships had developed, outrunning anything heavier armed and outgunning anything faster.<br />If hypothetically such a fleet of medium sized ships had been combined with aircraft carriers and submarines it could have posed a credible interdiction threat because it would have been able to spot RN ships and slow their advance as well as disarm some of their turrets. A slowed advance also means less defense against gunnery. A thoroughly prepared fleet of surface ships could be gunned down by lighter vessels (the Bismarck is a good example). So a medium sized vessel surface fleet with carriers could have probed attacks on the RN and in case of success against their maneuverability and guns allowed it's own surface component to close in for the kill (a risky, but not suicidal mission after good preparation).<br />Futhermore aerial reconnaisance and fighter wings in case one of the carrier groups broke through would have amplified submarine capabilities by spotting convois and coordinating attacks between submarine and air forces.<br />Fortunately this didn't happen and even the Z-plan didn't develop this idea, but rather a fleet with fuel requirements Germany couldn't meet. This has probably to do with the mindset that came along with the Nazis who wanted to create something solid and magnificant for their 1000 years Reich and not a naval force reminiscent of Mongol tactics. That they did turn to a large submarine fleet has to do with the failure of the surface fleet to achieve the promises they could never keep. Dönitz was the odd one out among the admirals to whom Hitler turned after the naval establishment seemed to have failed big time. And well, Dönitz was a specialist who didn't turn to experiments or utilizing allied Japanese knowledge (there were significant problems of cooperation).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-5981722682175602192011-02-22T16:05:22.799+01:002011-02-22T16:05:22.799+01:00Flo
Yes, the majority of an administrative unit ca...Flo<br />Yes, the majority of an administrative unit called a "fleet", stripped bare for war in other quarters was destroyed.<br />The universes little joke there being Bismark also sank, a battle cruiser and a battleship.<br /><br />My point remains.<br />Had the German Fleet have massed (in either war) and taken on the Royal Navy, also massed, there is a chance, that better crews and equipment could have won the day for the Germans.<br />Obviously, odds were better the first time round, but if Bismark had waiting until Tirpitz was ready, and went with the remainder of the pocket battleships and the battlecruisers, theres at least a reasonable chance they would have taken the Revenge, Nelson and Battlecruiser fleets with them, who knows what effect that could have had on the wider war.<br />Had they sank the home fleet and made it back to port, I dread to think.<br /><br />In either war, the German Navy had a chance to sink 75% of the Royal Navies Capital Ships and half its tonnage.<br /><br />Thats an entirely different proposition to sinking 5% of its capital ships, or forcing a dozen capital ships to retreat from rescueing a beleaguered ground force.<br />(Rough guess on numbers).]<br /><br />Its equaly possible the outnumbered Germans would have been wiped out, but preserving the High Seas Fleet accomplished nothing, and the Kreigsmarine was destroyed in portDomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-85343438524214265652011-02-20T12:06:51.518+01:002011-02-20T12:06:51.518+01:00@ The Raging Tory
"Two Cruisers is not a fle...@ The Raging Tory<br /><br />"Two Cruisers is not a fleet..."<br /><br />How about a battleship, a battlecruiser and four destroyers? The majority of firepower of the Eastern Fleet.Flonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-70961026357643535252011-02-16T09:16:03.339+01:002011-02-16T09:16:03.339+01:00That would qualify, ok, so we have one example in ...That would qualify, ok, so we have one example in history of the Royal Navy being beaten in a fleet engagement.<br />This defeat was pretty much the nail in the coffin of the US colonies.<br /><br />So, given my original point was, a severe beating given to the Royal Navy would almost certainly shatter UK morale, whereas a severe German Navy loss changed little, I dont think I was far wrong....<br /><br />Die Alt<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake_(1799)<br />I though you were refering to the ship named for the battle.<br />The United States Navy gave the Royal Navy a run for its money in single ship actions during the war of 181.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Single-ship_actionsDomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-24310067781212384012011-02-15T17:14:25.677+01:002011-02-15T17:14:25.677+01:00Tory,
I was referring to the Battle of Chesapeake,...Tory,<br />I was referring to the Battle of Chesapeake, 1781, as it happens.Die alte Aechzenerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294141940637952687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-25097539229083493452011-02-15T10:42:02.471+01:002011-02-15T10:42:02.471+01:00Flo
Two Cruisers is not a fleet...
Die Alte
The C...Flo<br />Two Cruisers is not a fleet...<br /><br />Die Alte<br />The Chesapeake (and indeed, the entire US Navy) won quite a lot of single ship engagements, but no fleet battles.<br /><br />I was careful with the words I used...Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-59418995558860633362011-02-10T17:32:41.773+01:002011-02-10T17:32:41.773+01:00*cough* Chesapeake *cough**cough* Chesapeake *cough*Die alte Aechzenerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294141940637952687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-50545956525425778972011-02-09T17:50:44.010+01:002011-02-09T17:50:44.010+01:00@ Raging Tory "[...]I cant think of a single ...@ Raging Tory "[...]I cant think of a single time the British Fleet has formed up, taken battle to an enemy, been thrown back in defeat and pursued to port[...]"<br /><br />Force ZFlonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-43680958470093277882011-02-08T13:59:41.524+01:002011-02-08T13:59:41.524+01:00I forgot the battle of Java Sea, although that was...I forgot the battle of Java Sea, although that was a joint fleet.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-45694204511653546862011-02-08T13:16:32.385+01:002011-02-08T13:16:32.385+01:00Not really a fleet action though, but the worst de...Not really a fleet action though, but the worst defeat for a century none the less.<br />If the same situation had been repeated at Jutland, The Grand Fleet destroyed and the HSF escaping without loss, its possible the British Public could have simply become ever more commited to the war, but I believe it far more likely they would have jumped out.<br /><br />In any event, trying and losing would be no worse than not trying and losingDomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-28664830922847311572011-02-08T12:46:55.280+01:002011-02-08T12:46:55.280+01:00It clearly lost the Battle of Coronel.It clearly lost the Battle of Coronel.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-57493652848250643052011-02-08T09:00:59.710+01:002011-02-08T09:00:59.710+01:00Sven
"Hardly. The mood in ruling/rich circles...Sven<br />"Hardly. The mood in ruling/rich circles of 1916 was rather tilting towards becoming greedy (adding demands, such as the annexation of a East French iron ore mining region)."<br /><br />Thats my point, in 1916, Germany could make a believable claim to be winning the war.<br />By 1918 it was clearly lost.<br />Agressive and risky actions by the High Seas Fleet in 1916 can make a claim to being a daring push to deliver a knock out blow to British Morale.<br />The same is simply not true by 1918, even if the fleet had sailed and scored a stunning victory, Germany would have still collapsed a few months later and if anything, it would have just made the peace much harsher.<br /><br />"And again, even a destruction of the Royal Navy's battlefleet (which was clearly not in the realm of the possible) would not have kicked the British Empire out of the war."<br />On Manpower, Tonnage and virtualy any other measure you'd like to quote, Germany won Jutland.<br />The British victory was that the High Seas Fleet gave up.<br /><br />In many ways, the Royal Navy IS the British Empire.<br />To be the best of my knowledge, the Royal Navy has never lost a fleet engagement. A lt of ship duels went badly during an American war, but I cant think of a single time the British Fleet has formed up, taken battle to an enemy, been thrown back in defeat and pursued to port.<br />The effect on British Morale would have been quite extreme I think.Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-50413024940540026922011-02-08T07:00:15.823+01:002011-02-08T07:00:15.823+01:00Didn't most Kriegsmarine battleship sailors en...Didn't most Kriegsmarine battleship sailors end up as coast artillerymen on the Atlantic Wall??mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-38104588209297832792011-02-08T06:57:13.348+01:002011-02-08T06:57:13.348+01:00Fascinating discussion!
My two cents is that us...Fascinating discussion! <br /><br />My two cents is that using the RM 290Mil for more artillery or APCs or submarines would also have been a waste. <br /><br />But 2900 additional fighters (long range) would have been a damned fine investment. Perhaps the Kriegsmarine could have gotten a small portion of those aircraft to establish their own air arm instead of depending on the Luftwaffe.<br /><br />Another good investment might have been a lot more additional R&D in electronics such as in radar, ECM, counter-ECM, passive sonar, and in other arts such as cryptology.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-88703001870973698162011-02-07T20:28:53.319+01:002011-02-07T20:28:53.319+01:00Hardly. The mood in ruling/rich circles of 1916 wa...Hardly. The mood in ruling/rich circles of 1916 was rather tilting towards becoming greedy (adding demands, such as the annexation of a East French iron ore mining region).<br /><br />And again, even a destruction of the Royal Navy's battlefleet (which was clearly not in the realm of the possible) would not have kicked the British Empire out of the war.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-44334903570930809532011-02-07T20:19:33.425+01:002011-02-07T20:19:33.425+01:00not from a military perspective, unless your going...not from a military perspective, unless your going to retrain them as infantrymen.<br />True they mutinied in 1918, the war was lost and nothing they could do would change that. It was a suicide mission launched for vanity.<br /><br />In 1916, that wasnt the case, a determined naval push with current resources could have won the war, or at least a better peace.Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-66573296216816917952011-02-07T20:01:54.060+01:002011-02-07T20:01:54.060+01:00The lives of the seamen had some value. Besides, t...The lives of the seamen had some value. Besides, there was a high seas fleet mutiny in 1918 when the navy intended to seek another useless battle.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-47311658796468846192011-02-07T17:09:54.410+01:002011-02-07T17:09:54.410+01:00Jutland was a complete disaster for the Germans, b...Jutland was a complete disaster for the Germans, but they could (and I argue should) have tried it again and again until either the RN was beaten or the High Seas fleet was destroyed. If the HSF was sank in battle, the worst outcome was, it no longer drained more resources.<br />The best, well, perhaps I have underestimated the UK's litoral defences, but if the Grand fleet was knocked out and The HSF set about bombarding ports and the like, the cruiser fleets would have to be sent into battle.<br /><br />The most likely outcome is, as you say, the High Seas Fleet (or WW2 equivilant) is destroyed en masse, but since its of little use anyway, wheres the harm.Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-70680515626318025422011-02-07T16:17:33.291+01:002011-02-07T16:17:33.291+01:00If there was something the money could have been b...If there was something the money could have been better spent on it was long range aviation = bombers. Reminds me of the discussions in the U.S. before the war and again in the 1950's ...Distillernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-17088467526613862922011-02-07T16:15:37.184+01:002011-02-07T16:15:37.184+01:00Such a close blockade was impossible. The coal con...Such a close blockade was impossible. The coal consumption would have been prohibitive and sealing off the southern approach into the Irish Sea was totally out of range. London and Edinburgh would have been the only affected harbours.<br />A blockade close to ports would also have been prohibitively dangerous in face of british submarines and MTBs.<br /><br />The destruction of the Royal Navy's cruiser fleet in major battles was never up for debate. The British simply didn't commit their cruiser fleet to the point that they could have lost it.<br />Besides; it was the German battlefleet that barely escaped destruction in 1916. The eight British 15"-armed super dreadnoughts were overpowering by 1916 and the U.S. battlefleet was added by 1917. Germany had not even attempted to keep the pace with super dreadnoughts.<br />The RN lost some ill-protected battlecruisers at Jutland, while the German battlefleet barely escaped from the threat of being cut off from its ports and destroyed.<br /><br />Finally, I think you underestimate the littoral fighting power of the RN during the World Wars. There were minefields, MTBs and submarines - good enough to enforce careful actions by the Germans.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.com