WI Bismarck sank both adversaries and withdrew?

SsgtC

Banned
I think US and German battleships getting in a gunfight might change that. Depending on where the Germans operate and how close they get to US forces, it could happen. In the summer of 1941 before FDR issued the shoot on sight order in 11 September, King told his captains that if they encountered a German ship or submarine, they were to take whatever action they felt necessary and their chain of command would back them up.
Agreed. I think we sometimes forget that in the days before cell phone cameras, 24 hr news cycles and the internet, it was almost ridiculously easy to cover things up. With King having told the fleet that, there would be almost no way to prove a Captain a liar if he said the German ship fired on him first and all he did was return fire and defend his ship.
 
If the Bismarck and her escorts met an American battleship or aircraft carrier I doubt they would engage and cause an incident. If they met a smaller American warship said American ship will most likely turn tail and get out of there rather than play chicken with a battleship.
 
If the Bismarck and her escorts met an American battleship or aircraft carrier I doubt they would engage and cause an incident. If they met a smaller American warship said American ship will most likely turn tail and get out of there rather than play chicken with a battleship.
Agreed. The most probable situation generating shots in the air is a German mis-identification of a vessel or flag and opening fire on what they believe to be a beligerent ship by accident, not realizing it is a neutral.
 
I think US and German battleships getting in a gunfight might change that. Depending on where the Germans operate and how close they get to US forces, it could happen. In the summer of 1941 before FDR issued the shoot on sight order in 11 September, King told his captains that if they encountered a German ship or submarine, they were to take whatever action they felt necessary and their chain of command would back them up.


NO the weekly polls repeatedly made that clear, no involvement in European war!!!!

From what I read FDR followed the polls.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The German navy has some additional prestige in Hitlers eyes.

With Bismarck and PE possible in Norwegian waters, less need to bring back S+G from Brest.

Agree no Lend Lease convoys (independents would sail though). Butterflies away 2nd Barents and the scrap the fleet order.

The effects would be little:
Independent sails could make up much of the Lend Lease tonnage.
The Germans might try sending Lutzow on a raid in winter of 1942.
The Allies have to contend with more active warships in 1942.
A big German warship might be around when the war ends.

The only military effects would be if the Allies can't do a Malta convoy in 1942, or Torch is delayed, or Guadalcanal is delayed due to the extra naval strain.

I think, like most of these Nazi do better in surface warfare POD, the winner in Japan. UK kept two or three ships around to deal with each German capital ship, so we are pulling 4-6 ships out of Singapore or the Indian Ocean. So if I am writing this ATL with a detail towards honest butterflies, we have the following type ATL.

  • I have a naval battle or two in the Arctic Convoy arena, probably after the USA enters the war.
  • Battles in Russia go a bit worse until US navy beats opens up Arctic route. Not sure that decisive, but might do something like loss of 6th Army at Stalingrad is a bit less decisive, and good portion of German forces break out. Then bit longer, tougher Kursk for Soviets.
  • I have to deal with the diplomatic butterflies in Asia. Will the UK take a softer tone towards Japan? I will say "No" here. Both yes is a good answer too, just different ATL.
  • Then have to deal with Japan having more naval assets freed up compared to OTL. Since Japan did so well IOTL and since the British lost two capital ships so quickly, probably not a lot of effect in first 6 months of war. Maybe Japan does another major raid or two in Indian Ocean. Burma goes a bit worse for UK.
  • USA will keep ships in Atlantic longer to help UK. Solomons campaign was barely approved anyway. I would switch to Central Pacific strategy instead.
  • I am not sure all this will extend the war in Europe but by a few weeks to a couple of months compared to OTL. But we see a massive change in the Pacific as the USA changes strategy to adjust for fewer resources.

Lots of potential types of ATL, but I think this illustrates the idea. For every interesting butterfly in Europe, there will be 2-3 in the Pacific/India area. It just has to do with the UK and USA strategy of putting Germany first. Better German performance ends up slowing down attack against Japan by USA.
 
I think, like most of these Nazi do better in surface warfare POD, the winner in Japan. UK kept two or three ships around to deal with each German capital ship, so we are pulling 4-6 ships out of Singapore or the Indian Ocean. So if I am writing this ATL with a detail towards honest butterflies, we have the following type ATL.

  • I have a naval battle or two in the Arctic Convoy arena, probably after the USA enters the war.
  • Battles in Russia go a bit worse until US navy beats opens up Arctic route. Not sure that decisive, but might do something like loss of 6th Army at Stalingrad is a bit less decisive, and good portion of German forces break out. Then bit longer, tougher Kursk for Soviets.
  • I have to deal with the diplomatic butterflies in Asia. Will the UK take a softer tone towards Japan? I will say "No" here. Both yes is a good answer too, just different ATL.
  • Then have to deal with Japan having more naval assets freed up compared to OTL. Since Japan did so well IOTL and since the British lost two capital ships so quickly, probably not a lot of effect in first 6 months of war. Maybe Japan does another major raid or two in Indian Ocean. Burma goes a bit worse for UK.
  • USA will keep ships in Atlantic longer to help UK. Solomons campaign was barely approved anyway. I would switch to Central Pacific strategy instead.
  • I am not sure all this will extend the war in Europe but by a few weeks to a couple of months compared to OTL. But we see a massive change in the Pacific as the USA changes strategy to adjust for fewer resources.

Lots of potential types of ATL, but I think this illustrates the idea. For every interesting butterfly in Europe, there will be 2-3 in the Pacific/India area. It just has to do with the UK and USA strategy of putting Germany first. Better German performance ends up slowing down attack against Japan by USA.
I like this a lot, but for long term decisive consequences, its now more a what would happen without arctic convoys.
Having B&T and S@G, with B a proven killer of two Capital ships the RN self-confidence Will be badly shaken. Can 4 British BB’s do the job? No-one knows ITTL.
The other option is that there are no arctic convoys AND we see more raids. Here it is likely that an over confident Germany overplay their hand and BB’s get lost. But untill then we Will see a worse battle of the Atlantic.
 
One of WW2 questions? Why didn't the Bismark close the range and sink outright the new British Battleship? The Nazi Admiral had everything going for him. The British battleship was in bad shape.

Yet it was in good enough condition to stay in contact with the Bismarck after the action in conjunction with the two heavy cruisers, does that sound like a ship in bad shape?
 
Even if Bismarck makes Brest how long does she survive? There's now three capital ships there, you don't think the RAF will send over hundreds of bombers every night? That many bombs guarantees some hits, and 1000 lb HE bombs will cause a lot of topside damage. The repairs will never be finished and there will be new damage every night, both to the ships as well as the surrounding infrastructure...
 
I believe you are right. But if Bismarck joins them it's just too tempting a target to ignore...

You are likely right, though they'd probably flatten Brest before any serious damage to Bismarck, Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. If I were Goerring at that point, I'd build the place into a flak and fighter trap, and try to break the back of Bomber command.
 
Hitler might continue with the German capital ship programs. This would be a massive waste of limited meterals and time, something Germany didn't have.
Reider would retain command of the Krigsmarine keeping the focus on surface combatiants rather than U-Boats.
The war could be shortened by a few months.
 
Hitler might continue with the German capital ship programs. This would be a massive waste of limited meterals and time, something Germany didn't have.
Reider would retain command of the Krigsmarine keeping the focus on surface combatiants rather than U-Boats.
The war could be shortened by a few months.

The problem was that by late '42 Adolf was getting annoyed by the inaction of the big ships, inevitable due to lack of fuel. Under the circumstances, I don't think Raeder (or any big ship enthusiast) would've survived far into '43. Already early that year Adolf wanted the big vessels decommisioned.
 
I believe you are right. But if Bismarck joins them it's just too tempting a target to ignore...


Sure they'd bomb it periodically just like they did to Tirpitz. But the results (prior to November '44) weren't stellar; Tirpitz remained OK until naval commandos attacked around September '43.
 
Hitler might continue with the German capital ship programs. This would be a massive waste of limited meterals and time, something Germany didn't have.
Reider would retain command of the Krigsmarine keeping the focus on surface combatiants rather than U-Boats.
The war could be shortened by a few months.

Would this shorten or lengthen the war? In OTL the submarine programme got a lot of resources in later years of the war with virtually no historical returns after Spring 1943. It might be well argued that investments in surface combatants would be more efficient. At least they would take away some RN & USN resources which could be used against Japan.

As for OP, the best strategy for Bismarck would be to remain in the Baltic with some feints towards Norway. It could have some marginal support role against the Soviets, would be relatively safe from attacks, and would soak up capital ships as it could provide a legitimate threat against Atlantic, and later, Murmansk convoys. In effect, a giant Flak trap.
 
Hitler might continue with the German capital ship programs. This would be a massive waste of limited meterals and time, something Germany didn't have.
Reider would retain command of the Krigsmarine keeping the focus on surface combatiants rather than U-Boats.
The war could be shortened by a few months.

Uhm.. IMHO unlikely. While at the time, the 2 h-39s were at least started, finishing them would have taken years - out of my posterior, late 44 earliest maybe? Now, finishing up the GZ and the Seydlitz - as a cruiser - is more likely, but everything else not to mention new builds.. nah.

Now, the mere status - Hood and Pow gone, Bismarck still around maybe in Brest - could have stressed the situation for the RN: they have to bite one of their fingers, and my bet it would have been the Med: decreasing some pressure from the Italians. Should they go more aggressive and start sortieing ASAP - and doing it right pretty much all the time - they could have about a year to influence every theatre: north LL, LL general due shipping issues and of course, BoA in general, so Britain again and of course the eastern front, Med, Africa, and even the Far East.

But on the long run, they must win every encounter, make the right decisions all the time and that something of a rarity.
 
Uhm.. IMHO unlikely. While at the time, the 2 h-39s were at least started, finishing them would have taken years - out of my posterior, late 44 earliest maybe? Now, finishing up the GZ and the Seydlitz - as a cruiser - is more likely, but everything else not to mention new builds.. nah.

Now, the mere status - Hood and Pow gone, Bismarck still around maybe in Brest - could have stressed the situation for the RN: they have to bite one of their fingers, and my bet it would have been the Med: decreasing some pressure from the Italians. Should they go more aggressive and start sortieing ASAP - and doing it right pretty much all the time - they could have about a year to influence every theatre: north LL, LL general due shipping issues and of course, BoA in general, so Britain again and of course the eastern front, Med, Africa, and even the Far East.

But on the long run, they must win every encounter, make the right decisions all the time and that something of a rarity.


Only problem is by the time of HOOD/KGV clash- the H-39 battleships had been scrapped and their yards were being converted to build U-Boats. Agree about finishing SEYDLITZ as is- by early 1942. Best option for KM at this point would be focus on completing as many Zerstroers as SPAH-1 Spähkreuzers to act as a force multiplier for the remaining capital ships.
 
Only problem is by the time of HOOD/KGV clash- the H-39 battleships had been scrapped and their yards were being converted to build U-Boats. Agree about finishing SEYDLITZ as is- by early 1942. Best option for KM at this point would be focus on completing as many Zerstroers as SPAH-1 Spähkreuzers to act as a force multiplier for the remaining capital ships.

Oh, somehow i was under the impression it happened later... well, here goes any chance at all for new BBs.
 
Prinz Eugen has torpedoes, perfectly suited for finishing off a wreck.
Prince of Wales had one of the best comprehensive side protection regimes in the world. Absent a lucky hit like the IJN got historically, she will not go down quickly or quietly.
 
Top