Why bring kriegmarine?

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

The amount of stupid in this thread is astonishing...

 

 

Mauled left and right? Oh right. The only opponent which truly mauled them were the Japanese. The Germans? Not so much. The U-boats kicked off the war pretty effectively, but I'd hardly call a submarine campaign with a 75% loss ratio successful.

 

Why are you even complaining about the decisions the RN made? They were perfectly logical. They sent what they had available against Bismarck (FYI Prince of Wales finished fitting out almost a year after Bismarck - who's the old ship now?). Did they sink Bismarck? They did. Did they lose a ship (that was at risk of being sunk anyway - because that's the nature of a naval engagement, dummy! - and was scheduled for a complete overhaul)? They did.

They sent older ships along for the too, why may that be? Oh right. Because they had older ships. Because they had already beaten the Germans once on sea. 

 

Something you don't seem to grasp here: Ships aren't selected for engagements based on their age. They are selected based on capabilities. 

 

 

The only opponent ? ....lol you mean the Japanese were the only opponent which was in a similar historical island position as UK, and thus invested truly in its navy, unlike Germany which was still an Air ground power....

 

Are we really going to boast about fighting the Italians.....or maybe shooting some French ships in ports.......

 

Ships aren't selected for engagements based on their age.

 

Of course they arent but If you think that such a time gap between ships isnt a reason for concern, than things for RN get even worse, so arrogance and incompetence.... or we live in a parallel universe where Hood and PoW pulverised Bismarck and P E ?  

 

They were perfectly logical. 

 

Logical from the POW of the RN the Germans were inferior seamen using inferior ships....HOOD crew begs to differ.....even the young German state with its super young navy gave them extremely hard time screaming at the US for help.

 

Nope they got mauled, and for a nation which loves to boast about its navy i would expect something more.....but obviously the RN was not as good, nor the Krimarine as bad as some people claim.

 

The Atlantic was won in USA shipyards not with RN  big ships, and when they DID got into direct action their performance was less than stellar......or are we really going to boast how ganging upon individual ships is a great example of skill and not sheer numbers the RN had because it didnt had to scuttle its navy after WW1....also ww1 was won on ground, not sea, the Brits flopped even there, in both cases it was "we have a bigger navy than them, and the US"....

 

 

Lets face it, RN in the 20th century is barely a shadow of the RN of the Nelson era....

 

 

[Historynerd]

Are we really going to boast about fighting the Italians.....or maybe shooting some French ships in ports.......

 

The Regia Marina may not have had the result that on paper could have been expected, but it's out of discussion that fighting it was not one of the last priorities of the Royal Navy, and that, while the majority of the engagements fought against it proved successful, some reverses were known, some tactical, and some even strategical (for example, the Regia Marina managed to keep open the supply lines for the Axis forces in North Africa up to the end of the campaign there).

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

The Regia Marina may not have had the result that on paper could have been expected, but it's out of discussion that fighting it was not one of the last priorities of the Royal Navy, and that, while the majority of the engagements fought against it proved successful, some reverses were known, some tactical, and some even strategical (for example, the Regia Marina managed to keep open the supply lines for the Axis forces in North Africa up to the end of the campaign there).

 

The point is the Brits were in front of their noses in their backyard and failed.  Best example is Malta.  Fliegerkorps X did more than the Italian navy gah.........

 

PS i exclude Italian frogmen, these guys were supreme.

[Historynerd]

 

The point is the Brits were in front of their noses in their backyard and failed.  Best example is Malta.  Fliegerkorps X did more than the Italian navy gah.........

 

PS i exclude Italian frogmen, these guys were supreme.

 

Really? Did the Fliegekorps force the Royal Navy to keep quite a substantial part of their fleet in the Mediterranean, preventing it from being used elsewhere? Did the Fliegekorps stop any British convoy to resupply Malta?

The Regia Marina may not have been successful in fleet-sized battles; however, its mere presence had a deeper effect than it is normally believed. It should be taken into account that only after the Regia Marina was neutralized, and the Kriegsmarine's capital ships as well, was the Royal Navy able to send a sizable fleet in the Far East, capable of going to the offensive there.

Also, while it failed to use properly its considerable numerical superiority during the Second Battle of the Sirte, the Regia Marina's main forces disrupted the convoy's timetable enough to allow Axis aircraft to inflict considerable casualties on the convoy bound for Malta; and during Operation Vigorous, the convoy braved serious aerial opposition, but was recalled when the Italian fleet sortied to meet it. And while the convoy of Operation Harpoon managed to get through some supplies to Malta, the intervention of two Italian cruisers and some destroyers meant that a lot more supplies that might have arrived went to the bottom, instead.

And even if German aircraft did help quite a bit in the escort of Italian convoys bound for North Africa, it was the Regia Marina that shouldered the majority of the efforts and the majority of the losses; and in what it can be defined as its true battle (as in the Mediterranean pretty much everything revolved around convoys), managed to send the majority of what was being sent through, despite the best effort of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

 

In my opinion, you're selling the Regia Marina a bit short; apart from the frogmen and their well-known exploits, the Italian capital ships, while not nearly having the success that one might have expected, weren't exactly as useless as it's commonly thought; and the Italian destroyers (and other escort ships) fought a long, extenuating and grueling campaign to keep the supplies going, defending them from surface ships, aircrafts and submarines, and sacrificing themselves in it.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

Really? Did the Fliegekorps force the Royal Navy to keep quite a substantial part of their fleet in the Mediterranean, preventing it from being used elsewhere? Did the Fliegekorps stop any British convoy to resupply Malta?

The Regia Marina may not have been successful in fleet-sized battles; however, its mere presence had a deeper effect than it is normally believed.

 

Nothing impressive, if the only thing  the Italians could do is keep them occupied, it means something is terribly wrong.  The convoys always suffered heavy casualties from the air, mostly German bombers....

[Historynerd]

 

Nothing impressive, if the only thing  the Italians could do is keep them occupied, it means something is terribly wrong.  The convoys always suffered heavy casualties from the air, mostly German bombers....

 

While the list of losses inflicted on the Royal Navy by Italian forces is somewhat underwhelming, it's not exactly small. That means that they did more than "keep them occupied". The very degree of effort aimed at the Regia Marina (the same attack at Taranto, for example) is proof that it was seen as more than just a nuisance.

But it is true that there were several things wrong, absolutely. The Regia Marina did not have the adequate preparation and equipment for the kind of war it would fight, and for various reasons it was unable to completely adress such delays and issues.

 

While it is true that the Luftwaffe had a considerable degree of success against convoys, these convoys didn't always suffer losses from them. During the "Tiger" convoy, for example, the only loss was a single merchantman out of six, that struck a mine and sank. Due to inclement wheater, all air attacks against it were ineffective.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

 

As ReinhardVonUhlig notes above, we British are arrogant and incompetent. I won't deny it. I could also list some other major faults that we have, but this post would get far too big. 

 

We should have had a better Navy in World War 2, but several things conspired against it:

- The difficulty in justifying arms expediture in a Democracy (unlike more *cough* authoritarian governments)

- The unwillingness to keep a large military establishment after the horror of World War 1

- Following the limitations of the Washington Treaty too long after other countries had abandoned them shamelessly ( *cough* authoritarian governments again)

- Strategic miscalculation in relying on the French fleet to look after the Mediterranean, which meant that the Royal Navy had to cope with an extra theatre of operations which stretched it too thinly (1)

- Some poor design/production failures in the ships themselves

 

World War 1 was a different story, the RN did its job in blockading Germany perfectly well. She was starved of resources and ultimately the fleet mutinied at Kiel. The German Navy had some excellent ships & men but were numerically inferior and only challenged the RN once. They sensibly retreated and the expected second major fleet clash never happened.

 

The bottom line is that - on sheer numbers and breadth of ship types alone - the Royal Navy deserves full ship tech trees in WoWs sooner rather than later. As do the Ialian & French fleets also. 

(1) Both Britain and France were overwhelmed by the superb German Army and Air Force in 1940, so no blame is attached to our gallant allies the French. They did not have the benefit of a protective moat like we did. 

 

 

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

While the list of losses inflicted on the Royal Navy by Italian forces is somewhat underwhelming, it's not exactly small. That means that they did more than "keep them occupied". The very degree of effort aimed at the Regia Marina (the same attack at Taranto, for example) is proof that it was seen as more than just a nuisance.

But it is true that there were several things wrong, absolutely. The Regia Marina did not have the adequate preparation and equipment for the kind of war it would fight, and for various reasons it was unable to completely adress such delays and issues.

 

While it is true that the Luftwaffe had a considerable degree of success against convoys, these convoys didn't always suffer losses from them. During the "Tiger" convoy, for example, the only loss was a single merchantman out of six, that struck a mine and sank. Due to inclement wheater, all air attacks against it were ineffective.

 

I could talk about the Italian effectiveness but this documentary just shows how pathetic the Italian navy was....all feathers, and no muscle.

 

[Historynerd]

 

I could talk about the Italian effectiveness but this documentary just shows how pathetic the Italian navy was....all feathers, and no muscle.

 

 

A British-made documentary... of course it will say that.

 

Given that you've resorted to documentaries to support your views, I believe there is nothing else to say. I only encourage to try and look at this matter more closely, with more adequate and informative sources (because if you learn your history from documentaries, your knowledge will probably be sorely lacking), before limiting yourself to old perspectives that recent historians have begun to put in question.

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

The bottom line is that - on sheer numbers and breadth of ship types alone - the Royal Navy deserves full ship tech trees in WoWs sooner rather than later.

 

I think no one sane would disagree....i was kinda surprised and dissapointed RN  was not ingame....maybe too op for soviet navy

 

Cmon give me King George V !!

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

A British-made documentary... of course it will say that.

 

Given that you've resorted to documentaries to support your views, I believe there is nothing else to say. I only encourage to try and look at this matter more closely, with more adequate and informative sources (because if you learn your history from documentaries, your knowledge will probably be sorely lacking), before limiting yourself to old perspectives that recent historians have begun to put in question.

 

Still better than loosing time on long walls of texts no one will bother to read on these forums.

 

Yes it has errors, but the main fact remains....Italians were a joke.....you can spin ti and grasp straws, it wont change that simple fact.

[MudMonkey]

 

I think no one sane would disagree....i was kinda surprised and dissapointed RN  was not ingame....maybe too op for soviet navy

 

Cmon give me King George V !!

 

I remember that I saw a WG thread here in the forum stating that the RN will be introduced at the end of the next year. So I guess we all have to wait a little bit longer.

[Historynerd]

 

Still better than loosing time on long walls of texts no one will bother to read on these forums.

 

Yes it has errors, but the main fact remains....Italians were a joke.....you can spin ti and grasp straws, it wont change that simple fact.

 

At least I'm thorough and I strive to be as objective as I can, instead of easily wallowing in a complacent ignorance, as you admitted yourself, since you cannot be bothered into reading something that might be a challenge and force you to form your own opinions or re-consider them, waiting instead to be spoon-fed with easy and simple answers. That is not history, that is a caricature of history. But if it makes you happy, keep it; I prefer the hard way.

 

Have a good day.

[olmedreca]

Albion operation was a "succesfull" one - in terms German fulfilled their task - taking Moon Islands. But in grand scheme of things - it was just a "muscle flex". It didn't change anything. They applied a lot of force (withdrawing a lot of precious ships from North Sea btw - an important fact, often glossed over). 

 

There was no use for those ships in North Sea, just inactivity and degradation of morale. While Albion wasn't anything too spectacular, it was best use Germans could get from their surface fleet at that point.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

 There was no use for those ships in North Sea, just inactivity and degradation of morale. While Albion wasn't anything too spectacular, it was best use Germans could get from their surface fleet at that point. 

It depends. Now we know it, cause we're thinking about it from a perspective. What if Jellicoe actually used that and ventured on another sortie or demonstration at the same time, given the knowledge they had from SMS Magdeburg? Now, we know they didn't, but German High Command took a risk.

 

[psl_58]

Any one who is interested in Naval conflict in WW-II should read all three of Vincent O'Hara volumes on the various theaters.

The German fleet at war 1939-1945. Excellent, I had no idea the KM was so much  better than the RN in the first couple of years of the war...should have built more PBS not BB.

 

The USNAVY against the AXIS . I had no idea the IJN was so much better than the USN in the first year of the war. It was not until 1944 that the USN exerted its true power.

 

The Struggle for the Middle Sea. I had some idea of the extent to which the allies dominated the Med - but its clear the signals played a vital role in this advantage. There is a saying about the Italian Navy that rings true in this book. 'The quality of the warship commander was inversely proportional to the displacement of his ship'. Some of the GTB skippers out classed their own cruiser and battleships skippers as well as their RN counterparts.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

 

Any one who is interested in Naval conflict in WW-II should read all three of Vincent O'Hara volumes on the various theaters.

The German fleet at war 1939-1945. Excellent, I had no idea the KM was so much  better than the RN in the first couple of years of the war...should have built more PBS not BB.

 

The USNAVY against the AXIS . I had no idea the IJN was so much better than the USN in the first year of the war. It was not until 1944 that the USN exerted its true power.

Not really.

Atlantic Ocean was dominated by RN, and any opinions that "state" the RN was tragic, arogant etc. are just silly. Their ships overrated? Colony class cruisers being one of the absolute best - protection, durability, radar tech, seaworthines, firepower - hard to match. Vanguard being top notch BB, much better then Iowa in many regards (shame on the guns though). Tribal class DD? Damn elite. And german navy? Bismarck - biggest BB in the whole world at that time? Sunk. Admiral Graff Spee? 280 mm guns? Sunk. Basically, every vessel the RN tracked down was sunk sooner or later, or confined to it's port with minimal impact on war itself. There was talk how RN engaged Bismarc despite having "inferior" ships. Well, that is called duty and understanding what you have to do. Demise of HMS Hood is more an tragic accident, then sure outcome of battle. Now, casualties were indeed high. But RN did what it should - dominated the Atlantic Ocean and made sure that Mediterrean Sea was still under more or less control of the allies. And it is no small feat, bearing in mind the vast space that RN had to secure - including the Pacific Ocean. They did their job, that's what matters at war. You can't just belittle RN and go on with arguments that "lulz but they only fought Italians" - this alone makes any discussion hard. 

 

Pacific Ocean was a vastly different theater of war. First few months of the war were dominated by IJN because of the Pearl Harbour attack. But very soon the USN were back in the fight, which is also an success that is often overlooked. But more or less, from night fighting around Guadalcanal the IJN supremacy is over. There are of course battles that shows the capability of IJN tactics (Tassafaronga), but it doesn't change the fact, that after night fighting around Savo island IJN couldn't show cobat prowess they did shortly after Pearl Harbour - their enemy had tools to fight them this time. 1943 is USN finishing tactics and replenishing fleet, 1944 is just a cleanup. Fun fact - did you know that Japanese tried to get oil from potatoes cause of the fuel shortage in 1944? 

 

All in all, it's easy to get biased or subjective in your opinion, and fanboyism is a common thing - everybody is a fanboy though. Key is to look at the facts.

 

[Jadefalken]

In all fairness 2v2 and Britain was forced to retreat losing a ship. You cannot claim that German ships were inferior and the Royal navy was the only nation in the world with "stronk sheps" when every encounter the Royal navy had against the German navy and won involved fleets v 1 ship.

[Gatt]

 

Still better than loosing time on long walls of texts no one will bother to read on these forums.

 

Yes it has errors, but the main fact remains....Italians were a joke.....you can spin ti and grasp straws, it wont change that simple fact.

 

OMG, another KM-Luftwaffe armchair general. Do yourself a favour and read some (even small, you can do it) recent book about the mediterranean air and naval war.

 

Sadkovich, Massignani & Green ... you choose. Stop learning history from TV, it burns your brain. Well, at least whats left.

 

[Marlekin]

 

Nothing impressive, if the only thing  the Italians could do is keep them occupied, it means something is terribly wrong.  

 

There was.

 

The Italians were, on paper atleast, more or less on par with the Royal Navy in the mediterranean sea. Italy was however extremely carefull with their ships and fleet commanders were always required to double check with HQ before making any kind of decision when taking action. This delay caused the italian fleet to lose a golden opportunity at operation halberd.  

[Historynerd]

The Struggle for the Middle Sea. I had some idea of the extent to which the allies dominated the Med - but its clear the signals played a vital role in this advantage. There is a saying about the Italian Navy that rings true in this book. 'The quality of the warship commander was inversely proportional to the displacement of his ship'. Some of the GTB skippers out classed their own cruiser and battleships skippers as well as their RN counterparts.

 

Do you mean intelligence and ULTRA? Yes, those had quite a bit of a role.

 

While it is true that the smaller Italian warships (especially destroyers, escort vessels and submarines) tended to be more active, aggressive and to have a bit more success than their colleagues of the big cruisers and battleships, I think we have to remember a few things. Smaller warships (even destroyers, to a degree, especially the older ones) were considered expendable, while cruisers and battleships weren't; in the directives for the main forces, every time it set sail, there was always the phrase "engage only under favourable circumstances", a big and continuous reminder not to risk the capital ships and especially the battleships. Not just for their fighting value, but also for political reasons (it was mainly for the latter that the battleship Cavour, sunk at Taranto, was to be repaired, instead of being left alone somewhere, even though its fighting value was very limited in the least). At the very least, it was hoped that having a strong battleship force would help get more favourable peace terms when the war would end (but I leave the discussion about the truth in this mentality to others).

Also, the operative command of the Regia Marina issued very specific orders, detailing when to leave port, when to change course, and when to do pretty much everything. In such a situation, single ship commanders and even senior admirals found difficult to exercise a credible degree of initiative, and if they did, they would face some trouble later. Admiral Da Zara during Operation Harpoon engaged in a way that was not in accord with the tactical regulations, and when he got back there was more than one nasty comment about it, despite him having managed to get a bit more results than the usual. In such a centralized and rigid structure, there was little way for single commanders of cruisers and battleships to express their virtues, even when they were competent and respected (for example, the commander of the battleship Cesare at Punta Stilo, Captain Angelo Varoli Piazza, was more or less universally respected and appreciated by everyone).

[ReinhardVonUhlig]

 

OMG, another KM-Luftwaffe armchair general. Do yourself a favour and read some (even small, you can do it) recent book about the mediterranean air and naval war.

 

Sadkovich, Massignani & Green ... you choose. Stop learning history from TV, it burns your brain. Well, at least whats left.

 

 

 

read some (even small, you can do it)

 

Yeah sorry i wont even bother to reply in a proper manner, as you sure didnt try to even give a YT link let alone anything else, while boasting about superior intellect ..... go suck on your moms tit while trying to build up on your ego ....

 

 

 

 

[Tigger3]

In all fairness 2v2 and Britain was forced to retreat losing a ship. You cannot claim that German ships were inferior and the Royal navy was the only nation in the world with "stronk sheps" when every encounter the Royal navy had against the German navy and won involved fleets v 1 ship.

 

I assume you mean large surface vessels and not the U Boats.

 

There were relatively few naval engagements between German surface units and British and not all were British winning with overwhelming odds. 

 

Narvik 10th April 1940, five British H Class destroyers attacked Narvik Harbour, the Germans had ten destroyers for defence.

 

Two British destroyers were sunk and one damaged, two German destroyers were sunk with four damaged alongside eleven merchant ships in the harbour and one (ammunition ship) when the remaining British destroyers were heading home. 

 

The damage to the German destroyers coupled with their expenditure of fuel and ammunition sealed their fate when the British returned on the 13th and finished off the rest of the ships and one U Boat.

 

These two battles cost the Germans half of their destroyers at the time. Only the 13th could be said that the British had more powerful ships. The German destroyers (5 x 1936 Class, 4 x 1934A Class, 1 x 1934 Class) theoretically outclassed the British H Class on the 10th. 

 

 

[MudMonkey]

 

I assume you mean large surface vessels and not the U Boats.

 

There were relatively few naval engagements between German surface units and British and not all were British winning with overwhelming odds. 

 

Narvik 10th April 1940, five British H Class destroyers attacked Narvik Harbour, the Germans had ten destroyers for defence.

 

Two British destroyers were sunk and one damaged, two German destroyers were sunk with four damaged alongside eleven merchant ships in the harbour and one (ammunition ship) when the remaining British destroyers were heading home. 

 

The damage to the German destroyers coupled with their expenditure of fuel and ammunition sealed their fate when the British returned on the 13th and finished off the rest of the ships and one U Boat.

 

These two battles cost the Germans half of their destroyers at the time. Only the 13th could be said that the British had more powerful ships. The German destroyers (5 x 1936 Class, 4 x 1934A Class, 1 x 1934 Class) theoretically outclassed the British H Class on the 10th. 

 

 

 

Hmm, the only "quality" I can see in that battle was the surprise in favor for the British. It is not as if it was a long battle. It just took them a few minutes to sink those DDs with Torps.

I dont think that the quality of ships was that important as I dont believe that the difference was that big. More important was luck and information. And if you have superior information you can make your own luck. And the British were always a few steps ahead of the germans considering that part.

[Historynerd]

read some (even small, you can do it)

 

Yeah sorry i wont even bother to reply in a proper manner, as you sure didnt try to even give a YT link let alone anything else, while boasting about superior intellect ..... go suck on your moms tit while trying to build up on your ego ....

 

So, your idea of giving sources for your claims is giving YouTube links?

 

 

The ignorance... the ignorance...

 

Also, the insulting behavior. But that's a cliché, when one cannot reply in a serious manner.