WI the KM tried something more ambitious than Zitronella?

[starman]

Long before September 1943 Hitler considered the Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and other surface vessels useless scrap iron. Limited fuel had mostly idled the warships. Evidently, to show the ships still had some value, they were used to raid Spitzbergen (Operaton Zitronella). But the raid accomplished very little.
What if, instead of Zitronella, the KM tried a scheme like this: Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and two other warships (perhaps Leutzow and Hipper) sortie from Norwegian bases at fairly slow speed, followed by all available Arctic U-boats (about 30km behind them) which maintain complete radio silence. The idea is to lure British warships into a u-boat ambush, cripple one or more battleships, and then have the German flotilla turn around and try to finish them off. Of course that would've been risky, especially if the British brought a carrier or two. Maybe a scheme like that would've stood a better chance had it been tried the previous winter, when the Arctic was too dark for flying.

 

[Catspoke]

I guess an immediate danger is the British use submarines themselves against slow moving German ships.

Yes the previous Winter was the best time to have the German fleet be as active as possible (they kind of messed up the Barents sea battle). With Torch going on and the Guadalcanal stuff the Allied fleets were spread thin.

Probably by September 1943 Allied radar advantages would make it hard for Sharn+Tirpitz to win any battle against capital ships except against cripples so as a battle plan its not a bad concept. Danger is that the British know the whole plan thru ULTRA beforehand.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Long before September 1943 Hitler considered the Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and other surface vessels useless scrap iron. Limited fuel had mostly idled the warships. Evidently, to show the ships still had some value, they were used to raid Spitzbergen (Operaton Zitronella). But the raid accomplished very little.
What if, instead of Zitronella, the KM tried a scheme like this: Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and two other warships (perhaps Leutzow and Hipper) sortie from Norwegian bases at fairly slow speed, followed by all available Arctic U-boats (about 30km behind them) which maintain complete radio silence. The idea is to lure British warships into a u-boat ambush, cripple one or more battleships, and then have the German flotilla turn around and try to finish them off. Of course that would've been risky, especially if the British brought a carrier or two. Maybe a scheme like that would've stood a better chance had it been tried the previous winter, when the Arctic was too dark for flying.

Submarines are not so good at sinking Warships - best bet is to use DDs / CLs with the heavier ships and just focus on wrecking Artic convoys and avoid anything remotely peer like

 

[starman]

I guess an immediate danger is the British use submarines themselves against slow moving German ships.

The Germans used several destroyers in Zitronella.

Danger is that the British know the whole plan thru ULTRA beforehand.

Sure. But to my knowledge, the Allies didn't ready an ambush just prior to Zitronella.

 

[starman]

Submarines are not so good at sinking Warships

U-boats did well against Ark Royal, Courageous, another carrier, Royal Oak and Barham. In this hypothetical scheme, it wouldn't be necessary to sink anything just cripple it. DDs might've achieved something too btw.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Also Iowa was in the Atlantic till 1944 to be on hand in case of a Tirpitz breakout so she might have been on hand

Howe and King George V are both with the home fleet and Im at work so I cannot work out who was about to oppose them - but already it looks pretty one sided

 

[Cryhavoc101]

U-boats did well against Ark Royal, Courageous, another carrier, Royal Oak and Barham. In this hypothetical scheme, it wouldn't be necessary to sink anything just cripple it. DDs might've achieved something too btw.

In each case (apart from Royal Oak which was at anchor and U47s crew showed great elan in penetrating Scarpa Flow) - they got lucky - the warship in question literally had to run over the Submarine in order to be close enough for an effective shot and recall that this was in 6 years of war vs a nation that put many hundreds of Uboats to sea.

Warships even a cruising speed are generally impossible to hit - but yes givent eh number of ships and scope of teh war it did happen from time to time

Being reliant on a line of submarines and hoping that the enemy runs over it and that they then are able to get a hit is a poor tactic.

 

[starman]

Being reliant on a line of submarines and hoping that the enemy runs over it and that they then are able to get a hit is a poor tactic.

But the idea was to position the u-boats between the KM surface ships and a pursuing RN task force, so the latter would have to come close to one or more ambushers.

 

[avernite]

I think the concept isn't horrible (you're mostly risking ships that are otherwise just scrap metal on more or less a long shot) - I just wonder how many convoys the U-boats you divert are not going to sink while they hang around with the fleet.

And, of course, how many U-boats might get sunk in exchange for taking out or crippling a major British surface combatant (presumably the British will bring some air support or destroyers).

 

[HMS Warspite]

Long before September 1943 Hitler considered the Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and other surface vessels useless scrap iron. Limited fuel had mostly idled the warships. Evidently, to show the ships still had some value, they were used to raid Spitzbergen (Operaton Zitronella). But the raid accomplished very little.
What if, instead of Zitronella, the KM tried a scheme like this: Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and two other warships (perhaps Leutzow and Hipper) sortie from Norwegian bases at fairly slow speed, followed by all available Arctic U-boats (about 30km behind them) which maintain complete radio silence. The idea is to lure British warships into a u-boat ambush, cripple one or more battleships, and then have the German flotilla turn around and try to finish them off. Of course that would've been risky, especially if the British brought a carrier or two. Maybe a scheme like that would've stood a better chance had it been tried the previous winter, when the Arctic was too dark for flying.

Some historical remarks: -
- Admiral Hipper was out of action in 1943, after her damage in the Battle of the Bartenzsea previous year, which caused the whole idea of the landloving corporal to srap the sufacefleet in the first place.
- A use of U-Boote to strike enemy warships was completely in contradiction of the entire U-Boote Service, which was purposely trained and designed to act against merchant shipping, not warships.
- Hitting enemy battleships was never an objective in the Kriegsmarine, which had the doctrine to avoid any unnecessary confrontation with Allied naval forces, that could potentially cause damage to the limmited surface forces available.
- One very important element is missing entirely: Luftwaffe presence in Northern Norway.

Overall, this is a very, very bad idea, which would result in more damage to the german surfacefleet, already starved of the required support, compared tom other services. Tactical objective is completely missing as well, since the eventual destruction of one or two Allied BB's would do nothing to alter the balance of power as such. The whole objective was in complete contradiction of whatever the Kriegsmarine had been designed, trained and equipped for so far, so why do such a thing at all????

In such a scenario, we could in theory see a phyric german victory, with at best the two Allied BB's destroyed, but at what a price? All german Surface forces out of action for consideable time, either due to damage, or depleted fuelresources. The U-Boote had waisted several boats on non strategic missions and Allied transports got through unhampered by this to Russia mainly. Overal winner: Allies, as the Kriegsmarine was out of action permanently as the damaged ships had to return to German yards for repairs, Norway was abbandoned by the Kriegsmarine and in theory defenseless against a hypothetical Allied Invasion (which Hitler feared most). Likely in his rage, the scrapping of the surfacefleet would be more likely, with the admiral in charge (Dönitz) fired as was his preceding collegue Raeder in late 1942..

 

[starman]

- A use of U-Boote to strike enemy warships was completely in contradiction of the entire U-Boote Service, which was purposely trained and designed to act against merchant shipping, not warships.

Bt this occurred several times and not just at scapa flow.

In such a scenario, we could in theory see a phyric german victory, with at best the two Allied BB's destroyed, but at what a price? All german Surface forces out of action for consideable time, either due to damage, or depleted fuelresources.

But the German ships were already mostly idled due to shortage of fuel. By September 1943 the German fleet had little hope of accomplishing much anyway. Zitronella was just intended to show the KM was still "alive" or still a factor, requiring the tying down of allied assets. But I think the Germans should've tried to accomplish something more damaging to the allies (even if still indecisive). If nothing else, sinking a sizeable warship would've raised German morale.

The U-Boote had waisted several boats on non strategic missions and Allied transports got through unhampered by this to Russia mainly.

What specific convoys went to Russia in August-September 1943? IIRC Churchill stopped convoys to Russia, at least temporarily, beginning in the fall of '42, because they cost too many escorts.

Overal winner: Allies, as the Kriegsmarine was out of action permanently as the damaged ships had to return to German yards for repairs,

But in the OTL Tirpitz was damaged anyway in a mini sub attack soon after its Spitzbergen raid, yet stayed in Norway and continued to tie down allied resources as Churchill was determined to sink it.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Bt this occurred several times and not just at scapa flow.

In 5+ years of war with nearly 1000 U Boats they sunk about 175 allied warships of all types - mostly slower escorts - and by 1943 the Allies have Centimetric Radar deployed in large numbers which more than anything else turned the u boats from hunter to hunted

But the German ships were already mostly idled due to shortage of fuel. By September 1943 the German fleet had little hope of accomplishing much anyway. Zitronella was just intended to show the KM was still "alive" or still a factor, requiring the tying down of allied assets. But I think the Germans should've tried to accomplish something more damaging to the allies (even if still indecisive). If nothing else, sinking a sizeable warship would've raised German morale.

Tirpitz forced the Allies to maintain first class Fast BBs to cover the Arctic convoys by simply acting in the 'fleet in being' role - coming out from her land based defences to fight plays into the allied strengths

What specific convoys went to Russia in August-September 1943? IIRC Churchill stopped convoys to Russia, at least temporarily, beginning in the fall of '42, because they cost too many escorts.

There were 78 convoys between August 1941 and May 1945, sailing via several seas of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, with two gaps with no sailings between July and September 1942, and March and November 1943.

They were stopped after the disaster of PQ17 in July 1942 (fleet assets were then used in Operation Pedestal) and not restarted till Sept 2nd 1942 with PQ 18 (first russian convoy to have an escort carrier HMS Avenger - and the Germans lost 44 out of 200 of their best anti shipping bomber crews and 4 Uboats )

Ops were suspended during the Summer of 43 mainly due to events in the Battle of the Atlantic which the Allies did not realise for several months had been won in May

But in the OTL Tirpitz was damaged anyway in a mini sub attack soon after its Spitzbergen raid, yet stayed in Norway and continued to tie down allied resources as Churchill was determined to sink it.

So long as she existed as a potential threat to the Arctic convoys she tied down several fast BBs that could have been deployed to say the Pacific - being sunk or seriously damaged on the type of op that failed every time in WW1 is not a good use of her

 

[King Augeas]

The U-boats will have to cruise on the surface, where the recon that is needed to spot the battleships will likely also spot them.
Allied units will steam not for the existing position of the squadron, but to cut off its retreat. This likely leaves the U-boats out of position, but maybe if you sit tight then you'll persuade them to come to you. Again, you'll have to hope the recon that you let spot you dodesn't see the U-boats.
As soon as the surface action begins the surface units will need to accelerate and manoeuvre, likely leaving the U-boats out of position. Presumably they will attempt to lure Allied heavies on to the U-boats, but you really have very little control on what's going on.

 

[thaddeus]

could Tirpitz have shelled Murmansk? were there even enough Axis troops in proximity to take advantage and capture it if enough damage done?

 

[HMS Warspite]

could Tirpitz have shelled Murmansk? were there even enough Axis troops in proximity to take advantage and capture it if enough damage done?

For what purpose????

Geography is a somethign you have to consider first as Murmansk is very far inland in an inlet, making such a move suicidal. Better would be to use airpower to hit the docks of a port, which the germans indeed did occasionally.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

For what purpose????

Geography is a something you have to consider first as Murmansk is very far inland in an inlet, making such a move suicidal. Better would be to use airpower to hit the docks of a port, which the germans indeed did occasionally.

One of the reasons No. 151 Wing RAF with 2 Hurricane Squadrons operated from Murmansk in 1941

 

[thaddeus]

could Tirpitz have shelled Murmansk? were there even enough Axis troops in proximity to take advantage and capture it if enough damage done?

For what purpose????

Geography is a somethign you have to consider first as Murmansk is very far inland in an inlet, making such a move suicidal. Better would be to use airpower to hit the docks of a port, which the germans indeed did occasionally.

One of the reasons No. 151 Wing RAF with 2 Hurricane Squadrons operated from Murmansk in 1941

was asking a question not advocating, have not read detailed account of Silver Fox and later efforts to capture Murmansk. to casual reader it would seem a better fjord to be lounging in (Murmansk) if it could have been captured? as the ship's fate historically seemed ordained where it was.