No Tirpitz or Bismarck

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if these ships were never built? As much of a prestige boost these ships were, they were nothing really that special in comparison with their competition and basically sunk for a fraction of their cost.
So, if the Germans do not build these ships, but maintain the rest of their ships what resources are made available? I know that not building them does not free up factories for making more AFV or planes, but it does free up the money and resources used to make the ships.
This would also mean that Plan Z is not implemented, as it would be foolish to compete with the Brits who would be able to outproduce any nation, expect for the US, in ship building.
So, do the resources go towards Uboats? This would alarm the Brits more than the Battleships would and be viewed as a direct threat to the Allies. Also they would take steps to counter this build up by building more destroyers. However, this would help create the infrastructure for more Uboats in the most vital period of the battle of the atlantic.
How does it change the war?
 
The German big boys were more than prestige pieces. They tied down a lot of British (allied) capability. I mean, the Bismarck sank the Hood, formerly considered as invincible, then managed to tie down huge amounts of British naval power that could've been better used elsewhere. The Tirpitz tied up airpower and prevented at least one possible convoy of Lend-Lease to the USSR.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Bismarck Class, two ships-
50,000 tons
Crew 2,100
Allied ships sunk - One total 48,000 tons

Type VII U-Boat
780 tons
Crew 50
Allied ships sunk (U-48 only) - 52 total 308,000 tons

No Bismarck class provides the Kreigsmarine crews and materials for 80+ boats. The German capital ships tied down the RN heavies.

If they hadn't been tied down, what could they have provided the war effort?

Sunk a few more freighters headed for Africa and Rommel? No difference in the outcome.

Been very impressive escorts for convoys? No difference in the outcome.

Any substantial difference in the war with Germany? Not a bit.

Building TWO battleships while your opponent already has 17 is beyond a waste of time. Building anything bigger than a Heavy Cruiser (and even that's a stretch) when you have NO overseas possessions, any merchant marine worth discussion, and are facing an opponent with 60+ cruisers already in the water, is insane. In other words, it was exactly one would expect of Hitler's Germany.
 
Consider what does the RN do if Germany doesn't lay down the two BB's but instead starts mass production of U Boats pre-war? Don't people think the RN might start building more DD's, DDE's and other escorts? Such a move could only be directed at the UK.

Michael
 
How many British capital ships does this free up for use against Italy and Japan and how do either of those German allies feel about this?
 
Well you would have more RN battleships in Japan, which could indeed mess things up for the very lucky Japanese in the beginning of the campaign. Perhaps they don't manage to grab all of South East Asia that quickly and that succesfully, like in OTL.

I am not sure if more British battleships would cause real trouble to the Italians in the Med. Theay rarely actually sortied out with their heavy units, wanting to meet and fight the RN. They were much more of a fleet in being. Which means that substantial RN forces are still tied down in the Med.

80 U-Boats are a lot. Even if the British do decide to build more DDs, can 20 DDs actually make up for 80 U-Boats? I am not so certain.
 
Top