Having a "What if" moment.

Discussion in 'Full Scale' started by Knight4hire, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    And Vanguard was finished well after it would have been useful. Not that I'm down on the Brits (as a good Axis Captain should be), just pointing it out :)
     
  2. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    I'd go so far as to say she was laid down after it was clear she would not be useful. Or just about so. March 1941?
     
  3. Jay Jennings

    Jay Jennings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,435
    Location:
    St. Croix, NS
    I would like to jump in if I may,

    Darren, the Germans were going to use modified 109s and Stukas, both of which were good at what they did. The RN carrier fighters were ok at best until they put the Marine Spitfires on board. They also have the prototype and a few production models of a torpedo bomber, don't know the designation but it was a biplane that had so much lift it could take off at 30 knots. Add a few more knots, (the 30 would come from the speed of the carrier) and the plane flys far, high and fully loaded to sink ships.

    As far as the RNs BBs being able to counter 6 Bismarcks, I don't believe the they would have been overly successful. The German armour was better than the British and the German guns were superior. They had better range on average and better optics. The addition of radar guided guns would have made the whole battle much more interresting as both countries would have had that as part of the fire control system. Since neither country had alot of resources, you have to assume that each side would have gotten it from somewhere.

    I am not saying this would have turned the tide of the war but it would have made the sea battles interresting to say the least. Ship for ship, in my opinion, the German ships were better, they were much more complex which brought many maintenance and break downs, but they did were better. :)

    On a gaming note, I used to play 'Victory at Sea' with a couple of guys and we had some very good games. All the different classes were there and when we put large British and German fleets against each other, we found the British were generally outmatched in the bonuses and modifiers given to each class. The game by the way is made in the UK so it isn't biased.

    J
     
  4. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    German armor was good, but it was in the wrong places. The Bismarks would have been kick ass ships for a Jutland style fight but the RN was planning to fight at long range. The deck armor was not so impressive so plunging fire probably would have mission killed them long before they were sunk.

    This is one of those Iowa vs. Yamato sort of arguments. There is no real way to tell and Fortuna's favors would be critical.
     
  5. Jay Jennings

    Jay Jennings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,435
    Location:
    St. Croix, NS
    Deck armour vs AP rounds has always been a big 'what if" I agree they all could have used some thicker deck armour. German hull armour was good, look at Bis's hull, only 3 holes from shells, 16"s. None of the 14"s penetrated.
    J
     
  6. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    The RN's 14" and 16" guns just were not as impressive as the older 15". The design of the Bismark just lacked the brilliance of the Kaiser's ships.
     
  7. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I'm not sure how you get that the British could not have coped with 6 Bismarcks and a Graf Zeppelin. First of all, the Bismarcks are overrated. Their armor was too low, their shells not terribly reliable, they only had three shafts which makes for reliability and maneuverability problems. Bismarck wasn't even the best battleship in the world in May 1941 (Hello, USS North Carolina), let alone the unbeatable beast that some German worshippers like to make it out to be. She caused a scare, and got lucky vs the Hood. She wasn't some kind of miracle world beater. The Kriegsmarine would have been better off building U-Boats instead...even long range cruisers would have been more useful then the Bismarck.

    as for the Graf Zeppelin..if the Bismarck was bad, GZ was a steaming pile of poo. her design was just poor, and she had no aircraft. Her airgroup was proposed to be 42 aircraft, which is absolutely dreadful. 30 ME 109s and 12 Stukas was the proposed loadout. No torpedo bombers, which are the best shipkillers of naval aviation in 1941. No experience in aircraft carriers or carrier tactics, unlike the Brits who had been doing it for over 20 years at that point. 109s were not well suited for carrier operations, and would have suffered a high accident rate, and a degraded performance due to the strengthening required for carrier operations. Stukas would have been OK, but wouldn't have been killing much, as the pilots were trained to hit stationary targets, not maneuvering warships.

    6 Bismarks and a Graf Zeppelin = a massed British Fleet with 3-4 Brit carriers punching through the inexperienced German CAP, and craptastic German naval AAA and torpedoing the crap out of some German ships. the ones that don't get sunk by aircraft are probably slowed and easily managed by the Home Fleet. if the US jumps in, it's even more laughable as the USN carriers, aircraft and doctrine are better prepared for fighting a carrier war in 1941 then the British are.
     
  8. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    After 20 years of the Versailles treaty their naval architects were badly out of the loop.
     
  9. Jay Jennings

    Jay Jennings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,435
    Location:
    St. Croix, NS
    Never said the Bis was unstoppable, or even the best, just that 6 Bis's and 3 Graf Zeppelins would have made things interresting for gthe British. If you look at the trouble the RN had with the surface fleet that was present, any more big German ships would have sent them into a tail spin. If the torpedo hadn't hit Bis's rudder, the RN would have chased it forever. If there were more, the RN didn't have the ships to cover them all.

    When I first heard about the Zeppelins, I looked into the because I was interrested and I wish I could remember where I read about the torpedo bombers, they were impressive.Ttorpedo bombers were no more effective than dive bombers IMHO. if they got through, the torpedoes were devastating unless there was a torpedo belt, but a 1000 lb bomb that gets through the deck is equally effective (Midway). There were mods for the 109s and Stuka's too, to overcome the known weaknesses. If yopu look at the fighter the RN used on their carriers, the Fairey Fulmers, they weren' t too good. The 109 was far superior inevery way.
    One has to assume that if the Germans were using carriers, they would have learned how to use them.

    I think the German naval architects weren't too bad, they did build some good warships.

    J
     
  10. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I'm not faulting them for their designs...just saying they weren't the world beaters some people like to make them out to be. The Baden was the most recent design that the Germans had experience with, so it stands to reason that a lot of the design features would be related. As for the Graf Zeppelin, she was a good first generation aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, the rest of the world was on 3rd and 4th generation by then, and had 20 years of experience developing doctrine.

    Had she been completed, she could made Atlantic breakouts more effective early in the war, using basic 1st generation carrier doctrine.

    Originally, aircraft carriers were intended to support the battlefleet, and GZ would have been adequate for that (assuming her machinery was up to it) Replace Prinz Eugen with the Graf Zeppelin, and Rheinubung looks much different. GZ can scout 360 degrees far beyond radar range of the day using the Stukas as recon aircraft rather then attack aircraft. The 109's can provide air cover and shoot down snoopers. Yes, there will be a high accident rate, and yes the FW-190 would have been a better choice...but 109s are what was available. There British had no experience in carrier vs carrier operations (that I am aware of...I know the USN wargamed some carrier v carrier actions and had an idea of how the battle should develop), and so likely would not mass their carrier forces, and would be throwing their swordfish and fulmars at ME-109s piece meal...where 30 109's would be sufficient defense. Later in the war, GZ would likely be hunted down and killed by superior USN forces, but early on, she could make a difference.

    That's really the problem with giving the Germans MORE in 1941 in order to justify them getting a win on the RN. The RN has no choice but to mass their own forces should the Germans have stronger numbers, which pretty much ensures a German defeat. They certaninly will not have Hood and PoW all by their lonesome in Denmark Strait, more likely there's a battle cruiser squadron providing support for the massed battleships of the home fleet, using Ark Royal and Victorious (and land based aerial recon, not to mention RF/DF) to locate the German force, and allow the Home Fleet to make an intercept, mid Atlantic.

    The Stukas locate targets, and allow the Bismarck to intercept and kill them making more efficient use of Bismarck's fuel.
     
  11. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Using Midway as an example isn't really fair. The USN hit the IJN carriers while their decks were loaded with fueled and armed aircraft, and ordanance that was improperly stowed after a second emergency rearm. The stats are pretty clear if you look at every carrier duel other then Midway:

    Coral Sea: Lexington hit by torpedoes, sunk. Shoho, hit by torpedoes, sunk. Yorktown hit by bombs only, survives. Shokaku, hit by bombs only...survives.
    Midway, Yorktown again hit by Bombs, patched up and operating aircraft again UNTIL hit by torpedos in a second strike. Yorktown killed.
    Eastern Solomons: Enterprise, hit by hombs, survives
    Santa Cruz: Hornet hit by torpedoes, killed. Shokaku, Zuiho, Enterprise, hit by bombs only, but survive
    Philippene Sea: Hiyo, hit by torpedoes, killed. Zuikaku, Junyo, Chitose hit by bombs, survive.

    The proof is on the scoreboard. Bombs maim, torpedoes kill.


    As for the British, if they mass their carriers even with their crappy aircraft, they will be able to overwhelm German fighter defenses with sheer numbers. Some of them will get through. Giving the Germans an extra 5 BB's and 1-3 carriers and you HAVE to give the british some too who will not be sitting idly by while the germans build all those extra ships...even if you only give them Americans which were already just short of war with Germany, and deployed battleships to block a potential breakout by Tirpitz in October 1941 IIRC

    Give the brits two USN carriers with F4F-3's (out in 1940) and it's going to be a laugher. the -3 F4F's will wipe the floor with 109T's (which were based on 109E's). I know you aren't going to believe that but the Wildcat is much better then people give it credit for. It could out turn and out dive the 109, and was more rugged, not to mention better range, which is very important in a sea fight. The F4F was actually a very maneuverable aircraft...it just couldn't touch the Zero. It was quite capable of handing every 109 up to the F model, which was not navalized nor planned to be navalized.

    the USN has the second best torpedo bomber in the world in the TBD and the best dive bomber in the world in the SBD. the older torpedoes actually worked (as seen in Coral Sea vs Shoho)...the upgraded ones sucked which is why the USN quit using Torpedoes until 1944...they had no faith in them, and mistakenly thought that bombs would be sufficient. had the USN continuted on with arming it's torpedo bombers with torpedoes instead of bombs (the USN airgroups fought Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz mostly using 4 500 pound bombs in their Avengers instead of torpedoes...At least from Enterprise, I can't speak for Saratoga's and Hornet's armament off the top of my head without checking books) they might have performed better at Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons and maybe put Shokaku down.

    Even the SB2U Vindicator is respectable in early 1941, and especially so vs the Germans in a sea fight.

    In Short...no, the Germans do not stand much of a chance under any circumstances in a large naval battle vs the Allies.

    EDIT: the British also had Sea Hurricanes available in 1941. The Sea Hurricane Mk1B's first kill (launched from HMS Furious) was 31 July 1941.
     
  12. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Actually the Japanese aircraft at Midway were still in the hangers. Even worse than them being on the flight deck.
     
  13. Jay Jennings

    Jay Jennings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,435
    Location:
    St. Croix, NS
    I just reread the first post here to make sure I had read it correctly the first time. The extra German capital ships would have given the RN a hard time, not the US Navy. They weren't in the war at that time and what they had or didn't have was irrelevant since they were not in the war. As I recall the Enterprise was hit by a torpedo or two and survived as did the USS North Carolina, torpedo belt like I said. As for the 109s, they were a very good fighter and until the Spitfire came along, they out classed the RAF fighters, even the Hurricane. I know the Wildcat was a good fighter and I know it was tough as hell but it was underpowered, thats the only problem with it. But it certainly wouldn't have walked right through the 109s, not even the Spitfire did that.

    I did not mean to offend you, as it appears I have. I simply think the addition of the extra 4 BBs and 3 CVs would have played havoc on the RN and I do believe the German ships were better than the British ones, ship to ship. No one disputes the US Navy had the best CVs or the fact that mass carrier battles were very effective or that the addition of the extra German ships would have changed the outcome of the war at sea.
    I am done in this thread as I think the spirit of it has been lost.
    J
     
  14. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    No, I wasn't offended at all. It seems like every time the German navy gets brought up though, people are trying to figure out how to make them win. It was simply never going to happen. They never had the material, they didn't have the location, and they didn't have the logistics to support them. For my money, I prefer the KGV's over the Bismarcks for the record, and I don't care for the KGV's that much. The Bismarcks are definitely one of the COOLEST looking designs out there, but as a combat design they had huge flaws, and really the KGV's didn't. The KGV's were butt ugly too, imo. They were a little under gunned, but were very balanced treaty battleships. I just don't really understand the German navy worship. None of their ships were really all that impressive, outside of the late war U-boats. I just don't get it.

    The original thread's premise was giving 5 times the number of Bismarcks to the Germans. Nothing to the British at all? The British would KNOW the ships were building, it's a bit unfair to give THAT much to the Germans and nothing to the British. They'd have been building up Lions to match the Germans. I threw in the US, simply because it was more expedient then throwing Lions at people.

    Enterprise was hit by only one torpedo IIRC, and it was a dud (dropped from a betty at night in 1943 IIRC). I know she definitely never was hit by a torpedo that worked. NC is the only design that had a decent torpedo defense system. The other battleships used different systems, and the carriers didn't have them at all. They had some anti-torpedo blisters but they were relatively ineffective. Some other carriers were hit by sub torpedoes, but being hit in the middle of an air attack is an entirely different animal.

    As for the carriers, I'm not saying that you disputed that US CVs were the best (imo they were not in 1941, the IJN was the best...nobody knew it yet). I've done a lot of reading about carriers and carrier operations, and having done that research, the weaknesses of the Graf Zeppelin design become more apparent. It had some strengths too, (such as an armored flight deck and 35 knot speed) but the low air group size on a ship that size is a killer. 42 aircraft simply isn't enough, especially when most of them are fragile 109s. The 109 was a great land based fighter for it's day, but simply inadequate as a naval fighter. The FW-190 would have been a lot better fighter to convert had the Germans ever completed their carriers, but the Germans didn't have the experience to know that yet.

    As for the 109 vs F4F question they rarely fought. We know the Spitfire and 109 were about equal. I read that the Aussies mocked a few dogfights between a P40 and a Spitfire, and the Spitfire was never able to "kill" the P40, although all agreed the Spitfire was the superior plane and was never in danger; it couldn't handle the P40's disengagement maneuver. The US mocked a few dogfights with the F4F and the P40; and the Wildcat won 3 of 3.

    Now that's not saying that F4F was unbeatable; I'm saying it's better then a lot of people give it credit for. People always talk down to it because it flew against Zeroes and the Zeroes flew circles around it. The Zeroes stomped on Spitfires too. In the scenario discussed, old E model 109's would have been flying from the Zeppelin, and would have had degraded performance due to being navalized. The E model wasn't that super. The F4F likely would have had problems with a land based F model which was quite superior...but the Germans weren't putting those on carriers.

    Once again, I was not offended at all. Over the years I've done a lot of reading and research on this stuff because I am interested in Naval History. That's how I originally got interested in this hobby. The more I've learned, the more I realized there was more to it then speed and gun caliber. I simply tried to pass on what I have learned, and apparently my presentation left quite a bit to be desired.
     
  15. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,318
    The Saratoga was hit by a sub torpedo in early 42. She was in no danger of sinking but had to stay in dry dock to repair the damage and had motor issues because of the hit. Missed out on Coral Sea and Midway.
    Lexington was hit by two torpedoes and was back into the fight getting her planes back on board. She would have survived if not for the gas fume explosion.

    But both of these ships were built on BC hulls, they were bigger and had more armor then a typical CV of the day.

    Torpedoes would sink a CV by themselves. Fire from bombs would make the ship useless, needing to be put away by torpedoes (Midway).

    WWII could have been all the other countries vs. USA and the USA would still have won. We had more people, more material and better tech. We fought a two front war on land sea and air and still had the means to build THE BOMB. By the end of the war we were just starting to get production into high gear. Think of all the material we could have made he the war gone on for another couple years and if we had tried harder. By 45 all the other countries were spent from the years of fighting, the USA was just getting warmed up.
     
  16. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I definitely don't believe this. The US needed time to win, and I don't think that if we had anymore on our plate then we hard, I dont think we could have pulled it out. After Santa Cruz, the US was down to 1 operational carrier in the Pacific (Enterprise) and she was damaged from Santa Cruz. She simply couldn't be taken off the line because there was nothing left to hold it.

    Lexington certainly could have survived, but she didn't. Hornet was close to restarting her engines at Santa Cruz after a torpedo hit, but...a Junyo strike hit her again, and that was that. the bottom line is, no carrier ever survived a torpedo hit in a carrier v carrier action from either side.

    Also, we learned a LOT from the Brits. We couldn't have won without what we learned from them. We got our radar from them, and we learned fighter direction from them as well. Our navy's CAP performance increased dramatically after the Enterprise paired with the Victorious for a while and learned their fighter direction techniques (learned from the RAF after the battle of Britain). no, the US was lucky to get out of 1942 vs the IJN in the state they were in. the US couldn't have beat them all. no way. We did a lot of stuff right, but we had a lot to learn too.

    And for those who don't think I can say nice things about the german navy...replace the ships of the IJN with equivalent German ships in the night battles in the Solomons, and things look a lot different. those close range knife fights were PERFECTLY suited to the way the Germans designed their ships. A prime example, is 1st guadalcanal: San Fransisco knocked out the BC Hiei's steering with a well placed 8 inch shot. Trade Hiei (and her 9 inch belt) for Scharnhorst (and her 14 inch belt) and change the IJN's 14" guns for the DKM's faster, flatter shooting 11"ers and it looks a lot different. The DKM would have pounded US tail in those fights. Bismarck vs Washington a 9400 yards is certainly a much different animal then Kirishima vs Washington at 9400 yards.

    At those close ranges, the DKM's heavy belts and high muzzle velocity, flat shooting guns were perfectly suited.
     
  17. buttsakauf

    buttsakauf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Posts:
    695
    Location:
    Waycross, GA
    There is a page out there somewhere that shows the USA's industrial capacity and resource (manpower and material) utilization during WW2. It also shows shipping tonnage and other facts and figures. If someone knows the one I am talking about then post the link. One thing that still sticks out is that by the end of 1943 we were producing more than the rest of the world combined. And our merchant shipping production was off the charts... truly rediculous!
    Mike Butts
     
  18. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    The figures that I have seen puts US GDP at 51% of global GDP in 1945. Truly amazing.
     
  19. Knight4hire

    Knight4hire Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    By the time the war had ended, the US was building ships faster than they could be sunk!
     
  20. irnuke

    irnuke -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,079
    Location:
    York, SC
    I realize this thread is dormant, but I just read through it while waiting for midnight (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!)...

    All of these "what if's" are interesting. Germany's best use for it's naval resource budget would have been to not build any of the capital ships (Deutchland on up), but instead churn out U-boats by the hundreds. In late 1939- early 1940, Donitz had 12 (!!) modern U-boats that could be used in the Atlantic. Most of the rest were obsolete or good only for trainers / North Sea. Give him 200-300 in 1940 and England would have sued for peace before Pearl Harbor.
    For those of you interested in comparing performance or doing hypothetical surface / carrier combats, check out this rule set for Naval miniatures: www.seekrieg.com
    Fantastic, highly detailed set of rules, stats for every ship built, including gun penetration and performance.
    The newest version, Version 5, is pricey. Version 4 can be downloaded from their site for free & includes all the ship data.
    http://www.seekrieg.com/Seekrieg4InfoPage.htm