Tirpitz [Archive]

spmetla

04-02-2006, 09:14

Yeah it was a great ship. Too bad (or good for us) that it was never used. After the sinking of the Bismark Hitler required of the Kriegsmarine that his personal approval was required for the use of capital ships which he was too afraid to do. If it had been allowed to go after some of those convoys heading to the USSR it would have done some major damage, required a larger diversion of the Royal navy's capital ships to help escort convoys to the USSR and if it was successful as I imagine it would upon a large convoy in tight formation would have hampered the Soviets supplies along with hurt relations between the USSR and the Western Powers.

here's the best site I know of about them:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/index.html

Great site with good information and lots of photography, theres also sister sites about the other German Capital ships.

AggonyDuck

04-02-2006, 14:32

Whoah! That's a nice amount of information. :2thumbsup:

Alexanderofmacedon

04-02-2006, 15:46

It seemed that Hitler was too scared to use this beast though at times. If the allies, knew the ship was on the way, he'd simply bring it back to the Noregan (sp?) port where it was staying.

Watchman

04-02-2006, 16:15

Heh. By what I've read of it the bugger somewhat perversely had its greatest impact simply by existing there in Norway, but did not directly manage to get about anything done. The Allies were scared to death of the bugger, full well knowing that if it managed to engage one of the Murmansk convoys they'd have very little to stop it with at hand before it sent the freighters to the bottom. One of its typically soon aborted sorties actually made one of the convoys disperse and duly get severely shredded by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe bombers and subs.

It was like some sort of gravity singularity that made all the operations in the region revolve around itself, and the Allies expended considerable energy in trying to get rid of the pesky thing.

screwtype

04-02-2006, 16:40

Watchman

04-02-2006, 16:57

Well, let's be honest here - the Kriegsmarine never ever actually had the ability to genuinely contest "blue waters" with the RN. The best their surface combatants managed in both WWs was "brown water" defense, ie. looking mean enough the Brits didn't venture into the Baltic. Even the odd WW2 big ships were really more superheavy raiders, and keeping in mind what happened to the Bismarck...

I've gotten the impression the German navy actually had a bit of a schizophrenia. I mean, they made all the same postulations of glory and military honour as everyone else, and in the end their main contribution to both big wars was sneakily sinking cargo ships with subs... Must have been a bit galling.

Kraxis

04-02-2006, 18:54

The Bismarck class was most certainly glorified raiders. Or better yet, super Hipper class ships.

Their secondary guns were also specifically position and constructed to sink merchants rather than protect them from destroyers and light cruisers (which the big guns were supposed to blast apart). Also add the many DP 105mm guns. They were all positioned to be able to fire at ships to the front and rear (as would happen in a convoy) rather than fire out the broadside where any attacker would come from.

Also Bismarck's armour was specifically made for close combat rather than the falsely assumed plunging fire (with which she sank Hood). Her deckarmour was only marginally better than Hood's on the deck. Also her torpedoarmour was just about the best in the world. Bob Ballard proved when he went back to her that not a single torpedo fired at her ever penetrated her armour (the impact-on-deck theory doesn't hold water as the topedoes were set to quite a few meters depth).
The fact that more care was put on vertical belt and topedoarmour indicates that she was meant to meet her enemies so close that she could sweep sailors from the other ship with the barrels of her guns.

A raider in extreme... Never a slugger like the Rodney and Nelson, or the KGV class.

KrooK

04-02-2006, 19:58

But superb cannons didn't save Bismarck.
Anti - destroyers guns didn't save it too.
During hunting on Bismarck polish destroyer "Piorun" was fighting with Bismarck for over an hour until help came. Piorun did not any damages but told everyone where is Bismarck.

Anyway staying in Norway wasn't bad option. Royal Navy was vey afraid of Tirpitz. I heard there was a conwoy who divided itself because they thought that Tirpitz is coming. And during arctic conwoys - divide meant death.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-02-2006, 23:40

Actually, I think most of the surface units in the Kreigsmarine larger than a CL were a waste of tonnage and crew. Replace the expenditures on these units with an appropriate number of Type 7's and 9's and then see about hitting some convoys...

Of course, Kaiser Willy made the same gaffe before round 1, building a second-best navy and draining away the personnel and steel that could have put 3-4 corps (more?) into the line at Tannenberg and the Marne.

AggonyDuck

04-03-2006, 00:54

Kraxis

04-03-2006, 01:39

Actually from what I've read it wasn't even plunging fire from the Bismarck that sunk HMS Hood, but a 8.1 inch shell fired from Prinz Eugen that pierced the deck armour and hit the secondary magazine that caused a chain-reaction.

But what I find impressive about the Bismarck-class was their armour. Simply the amount of pounding that the Bismarck took before being scuttled is quite amazing really. But on the other hand what use is there off battleship that has no turrets or speed left, but just refuses to sink?:inquisitive:
Pure tenacity! If you can't win, then at least you can get the satisfaction that you enemy can't sink you. Typical German.
"So you zink you can sink our ship? Try you weakling British pondsailors! I dare you!":dizzy2:

Anyway, it couldn't have been Hipper that did the damage. The simple fact is she hit Hood a handful of seconds prior to the destructive hit. Given that she was firing entire broadsides and not staggered volleys it can't have been her.
Her hit(s) caused a serious fire just ahead of the bridge where a large crate or stash of flares was held. This is clearly stated.
Besides, her fire didn't plunge enough to be able to punch through to the bottom of Hood. Her shells would at best explode at about sealevel.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-03-2006, 02:13

Krax' your research is right on the money.

Part of the trouble is visualizing it. 24k yards is way long for most of us to get a grip on it. When you go through the geometry/gun firepower a bit, it is obvious that an 203 would be coming in at different angles than a 380 over the same distance -- and a review of Hood's deck armors suggest the near-impossibility of a 203 bopping though all of them at that range (though ironically a 1920 RN study of the Hood specified the exact danger which apparently killed her 20+ years later).

yesdachi

04-03-2006, 03:27

I saw the same show but I fell asleep on the floor about half way thru. Woke up 2 hours later with a leg cramp still curious as to what happened to the Tripitz. Thanks for the link spmetla

Alexanderofmacedon

04-03-2006, 03:40

I saw the same show but I fell asleep on the floor about half way thru. Woke up 2 hours later with a leg cramp still curious as to what happened to the Tripitz. Thanks for the link spmetla

I was laying on the floor too! That's my TV watching position of choice. Nice firm pillow underneath...yeah...

edyzmedieval

04-03-2006, 10:18

Tirpitz was one of my favourite war ships. It was extremely powerful.

Hitler had 3 big war ships, but they weren't properly used. :no:

-Tirpitz
-Bismarck
-Gneisenau

:book:

Kraxis

04-03-2006, 11:58

Tirpitz was one of my favourite war ships. It was extremely powerful.

Hitler had 3 big war ships, but they weren't properly used. :no:

-Tirpitz
-Bismarck
-Gneisenau

:book:
Then you must add Scharnhorst as well since it was the same ship as Gneisenau.

Those two ships were even more raiders than Bismarck and Tirpitz, and actually they worked pretty well until the British sent old battleships as part of the convoys.
They had comparable armour to the Bismarcks, superior speed but lesser main guns. Obviously they were meant to avoid deadly combat and be secure from lesser combat. The smaller guns would be just as good against escorts and merchants. Only they were not so great against battleships.

So if you want a good raider design then the Scharnhorst class would be a good candidate for the top spot.

edyzmedieval

04-03-2006, 13:01

Oh yeah, Scharnhorst also. :balloon2:

What other huge war ships did they have?

Kraxis

04-03-2006, 13:30

No more...

Graf Zeppelin could be counted among them but it never got off to a start.

edyzmedieval

04-03-2006, 14:50

What about the USSR?
Apart from stealing from us a submarine(they stole 1 of our 2 submarines we had)!!! :help: :furious3: :embarassed:

Kraxis

04-03-2006, 15:09

You mean Soviet battleships?

AggonyDuck

04-03-2006, 15:15

Well the USSR had mostly some WW1-era battleships left from the old russians during WW2. From what I gather they had three or four of them left during WW2.

The Wizard

04-03-2006, 17:48

And here I was, thinking this thread was about the German admiral himself, father of the Reichs-/Kriegsmarine...

Great thread nevertheless. :2thumbsup:

KrooK

04-03-2006, 17:55

USSR got very bad situation on Baltic sea. Up to 1944 they couldn't even use a submarine ships. But of course later they got some easy victories:laugh4:

The Wizard

04-03-2006, 18:44

Well, Soviet subs caused the worst civilian disasters at sea, with the death toll peaking around 20000 men, women and children...

Seamus Fermanagh

04-03-2006, 22:02

The Scharnhorst and Gneisnau were, arguably, the best battle cruisers ever built. Though only armed with 280cm guns, they had excellent firepower, speed, and better protection than any ship of their cruising speed until the Iowa class. Had they been re-armed with twin 380cm turrets to replace the 280's (planned, but never got enough of the big tubes built) they would have been even more fearsome. They might even have been capable of the old BC goal of being able to outrun anything they couldn't kill.

SwordsMaster

04-03-2006, 22:43

I've gotten the impression the German navy actually had a bit of a schizophrenia. I mean, they made all the same postulations of glory and military honour as everyone else, and in the end their main contribution to both big wars was sneakily sinking cargo ships with subs... Must have been a bit galling.

Nope. Hitler had a bit of Schizophrenia.

USSR got very bad situation on Baltic sea. Up to 1944 they couldn't even use a submarine ships. But of course later they got some easy victories

I disagree. The russian Baltic fleet is what caused the nazi invasion of USSR in the first place.

Kraxis

04-03-2006, 23:29

I disagree. The russian Baltic fleet is what caused the nazi invasion of USSR in the first place.
Interesting opinon... Would you care to elaborate, as most historians would argue several other points before the Baltic Fleet.

AggonyDuck

04-03-2006, 23:33

Pure tenacity! If you can't win, then at least you can get the satisfaction that you enemy can't sink you. Typical German.
"So you zink you can sink our ship? Try you weakling British pondsailors! I dare you!":dizzy2:

Hehehe, thanks for the laughs.:laugh4:

SwordsMaster

04-04-2006, 01:20

Interesting opinon... Would you care to elaborate, as most historians would argue several other points before the Baltic Fleet.

Yeah, well. Not only the Baltic fleet. But it was the first bell.

Consider this: Why does the USSR need a fleet in the Baltic? There was no coastline worth defending, no trade interests, and the Baltic sea is a trap for a fleet because even a small one can keep a large fleet bottled inside. The germans had enough ships in the Baltic to do that even if the USSR Baltic fleet was of the size of the Royal Navy.

The defences of St Petersbourgh were too impressive to need a fleet to protect the city (by all accounts, the amount of shells and ammunitions stocked there before the war lasted until the last day of the war) and the strip of land around the city had been fortified by every Tsar from Peter the Great. The city was impossible to tae from the sea.

So:

Germany traded with Petsamo (sp) in Sweden for a good bit of fossile materials and wood that was lacking in Germany (I've read accounds of potato leaves being used as substitute for wood in some cases. Of course you can't use potato leaves to build bridges, say). And the Baltic fleet and the islands (Alands) Stalin got out of the peace treaty with Finland, as bad as they were for large-scale naval operations, were more than capable of destroying the german convoys and therefore hidering its possibility of developing a civilised war.

There were also the russian troops stationed just 80km from the Swedish mines where the germans got their metals from, that could receive the order at any minute and cutoff the german supply of (IIRC) wolframium.

And the last bell was the invasion of Bessabaria. See, the germans got most of their oil from Romania. But Zhukov, being the genius he was, instead of patiently waiting, managed a half-assed attempt to threaten the german oil supplies without actually taking them, but alerting Hitler about his supplies being in danger.

Hitler couldn't just ignore all that, so he transferred his divisions from the west where they were preparing to invade Britain, to the East, and took all the russian supplies and planes stationed on the border because that genius Zhukov was preparing an offensive without thinking that an airport 20 miles away from the border and full of planes is going to get hit 2 minutes after the enemy bombers cross the federal bombers. I.e. without a chance at defending itself. And thus the destruction of the Red army in the first week of the german offensive.

And now, I'm of to bed. We'll continue tomorrow.

Pannonian

04-04-2006, 01:30

Yeah, well. Not only the Baltic fleet. But it was the first bell.

Consider this: Why does the USSR need a fleet in the Baltic?

1. Imperial Russia had a fleet in the Baltic, and the USSR inherited it.
2. To prevent enemy fleets from operating uncontested in the Baltic.
3. To protect Leningrad from amphibious attack. Trusting in a city's defences without a mobile component somewhere is generally a bad idea.

Also, the Soviet disposition was Stalin's idea. He was quite upset with himself for days afterwards, and fully expected a coup in response to his incompetence.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-04-2006, 03:47

1. Imperial Russia had a fleet in the Baltic, and the USSR inherited it.
2. To prevent enemy fleets from operating uncontested in the Baltic.
3. To protect Leningrad from amphibious attack. Trusting in a city's defences without a mobile component somewhere is generally a bad idea.

Pan-man You're right about the "inheritance" and since the fleet was the well-spring for the revolution, it had symbolic value as well. Anyway,
Hitler's quest for Lebensraum in the East was written down for more than 10 years before the invasion. I'm sure protecting the ore supply was another factor, but that decision had already been made.

Also, the Soviet disposition was Stalin's idea. He was quite upset with himself for days afterwards, and fully expected a coup in response to his incompetence.

Stalin worried about a possible coup because it was Wednesday, not just because of an actual malf-up. Why do you think he was so busy weeding out anybody with the remotest possibility of becoming opposition?

Pannonian

04-04-2006, 10:01

"Originally Posted by Pannonian
Also, the Soviet disposition was Stalin's idea. He was quite upset with himself for days afterwards, and fully expected a coup in response to his incompetence."

Stalin worried about a possible coup because it was Wednesday, not just because of an actual malf-up. Why do you think he was so busy weeding out anybody with the remotest possibility of becoming opposition?
Ah, but this time he actually expected it. After isolating himself for days, he crept into the meeting room quietly asking the gathered highs and mighties what they wanted of him, probably expecting to be forced into retirement at best and taken out and shot at worst. I recommend the series Russia's War, which has primary sources describing the atmosphere at the time.

SwordsMaster

04-04-2006, 11:15

1. Imperial Russia had a fleet in the Baltic, and the USSR inherited it.

Also, the Soviet disposition was Stalin's idea. He was quite upset with himself for days afterwards, and fully expected a coup in response to his incompetence.

Fair enough. It was still upgraded since 1917. And noone would waste money on something that is too old to fight anyway and is only capable of sinking freighter escorts....

As of Stalin, as I said, his biggest mistake was getting Zhukov to command his HQ.

2. To prevent enemy fleets from operating uncontested in the Baltic.

You yourself just said those ships were pre WWI era. How were they supposed to prevent any fleet (specially the ultra-modern in comparison german fleet) from operating anything?

3. To protect Leningrad from amphibious attack. Trusting in a city's defences without a mobile component somewhere is generally a bad idea.

Nope. Leningrad had a whole Army Front dedicated to it. And mobile defences: cannons mounted on trains, mobile HQs, anything you can think of.
It was impossible to attack from the sea.

AggonyDuck

04-04-2006, 12:20

Consider this: Why does the USSR need a fleet in the Baltic? There was no coastline worth defending, no trade interests, and the Baltic sea is a trap for a fleet because even a small one can keep a large fleet bottled inside. The germans had enough ships in the Baltic to do that even if the USSR Baltic fleet was of the size of the Royal Navy.

Perhaps because the Baltic Fleet wasn't even intended to face off against a modern well trained navy like the Germans, but instead meant to be used against Sweden, Finland or the baltic countries and thus cutting off their trade?

Also the majority of the Russian Baltic Fleet was made of submarines and smaller surface vessels, while only a small number were cruisers or battleships of which a good amount were remnants of the Imperial Russian Baltic fleet.

Germany traded with Petsamo (sp) in Sweden for a good bit of fossile materials and wood that was lacking in Germany. And the Baltic fleet and the islands (Alands) Stalin got out of the peace treaty with Finland, as bad as they were for large-scale naval operations, were more than capable of destroying the german convoys and therefore hidering its possibility of developing a civilised war.

There were also the russian troops stationed just 80km from the Swedish mines where the germans got their metals from, that could receive the order at any minute and cutoff the german supply of (IIRC) wolframium.

Here you pretty much ruined the credibility of your argument. Firstly Petsamo was a finnish territory. Secondly the islands were not Ålands, but were a group of islands at the bottom of the Finnish Gulf close to Leningrad. These little islands were in no way a threat to the trade of metal and rare materials from Sweden and Finland, but they were a good addition to the coastal defense of Leningrad.

Also what actually surprised me was the fact that you even refute your own argument by first claiming that the Kriegsmarine could keep the Baltic Fleet bottled up with relative ease, but still claim that the posed a big enough threat to german convoys to initiate Operation Barbarossa.

Pannonian

04-04-2006, 14:22

Here you pretty much ruined the credibility of your argument. Firstly Petsamo was a finnish territory. Secondly the islands were not Ålands, but were a group of islands at the bottom of the Finnish Gulf close to Leningrad. These little islands were in no way a threat to the trade of metal and rare materials from Sweden and Finland, but they were a good addition to the coastal defense of Leningrad.

Didn't the Soviets offer to exchange around 2000 square miles of land in the north for 1000 around Leningrad? Quite understandable as they wanted security for one of their main cities and the origin of the Revolution. Quite understandable also for the Finns to refuse as the land in the north wasn't worth nearly as much as that in the south.

SwordsMaster

04-04-2006, 21:29

Perhaps because the Baltic Fleet wasn't even intended to face off against a modern well trained navy like the Germans, but instead meant to be used against Sweden, Finland or the baltic countries and thus cutting off their trade?

Also the majority of the Russian Baltic Fleet was made of submarines and smaller surface vessels, while only a small number were cruisers or battleships of which a good amount were remnants of the Imperial Russian Baltic fleet.

What Baltic countries? The only one that wasn't already affected by the USSR was Sweden, and there were never any plans of attacking them.

Here you pretty much ruined the credibility of your argument. Firstly Petsamo was a finnish territory. Secondly the islands were not Ålands, but were a group of islands at the bottom of the Finnish Gulf close to Leningrad. These little islands were in no way a threat to the trade of metal and rare materials from Sweden and Finland, but they were a good addition to the coastal defense of Leningrad.

Leningrad didn't need any more defense. I can bring up numbers if you want them.

Also what actually surprised me was the fact that you even refute your own argument by first claiming that the Kriegsmarine could keep the Baltic Fleet bottled up with relative ease, but still claim that the posed a big enough threat to german convoys to initiate Operation Barbarossa.

If the russians started the war, which is the only explanation for the concentration of forces on the border and the annexation of the baltic republics, the Baltic Fleet would have hit the freighters waay before the Kriegsmarine even made it to sea.

AggonyDuck

04-04-2006, 22:49

What Baltic countries? The only one that wasn't already affected by the USSR was Sweden, and there were never any plans of attacking them.

I am talking of the overall reason why the Baltic Fleet existed, not of the situation in 1940 specifically. The fact remains that the Kriegsmarine could easily contain and deal with the Baltic Fleet if it actually came out of the Gulf of Finland and I'm quite certain that both the Russians and the Germans knew this. But the Baltic Fleet was perfectly capable of dealing with for example the Finnish or the Swedish navy at the time.

If the russians started the war, which is the only explanation for the concentration of forces on the border and the annexation of the baltic republics, the Baltic Fleet would have hit the freighters waay before the Kriegsmarine even made it to sea.

Firstly the annexation of the Baltic countries has to do with the fact that they were within Soviet sphere of influence agreed upon in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Also the annexation of Bessarabia was with the exception of the added demand for Bukovina in agreement with M-R pact. So this was absolutely in no way an aggressive action towards the Germans, but something that had actually been mutually agreed upon earlier.

Also while you are correct that the Baltic Fleet could had hit and stopped the flow of goods in the Northern Baltic if they hit first, but they were definately to actually to stop it for more than a few weeks at most. Also any attempt at sinking Finnish or Swedish freighters or mining their territorial water would have propably resulted in a declaration of war by these two.

SwordsMaster

04-04-2006, 23:11

Correct. But, and here is the catch: Stalin's plan was to start the war, and in a few weeks time, the Red army would be so deep inside Germany, the Kriegsmarine wouldn't be able to make it to sea anyway. As I said, I can dig up the wargames played by Stalin's HQ before the war where the general's took turns with the German and Red armies to see which direction of attack was the best one and where they decided to strike south of Kenigsberg. Ah, and the total absence of intention of attacking USR on Hitler's part as told by his own officers. Until those threatening moves were made.

Firstly the annexation of the Baltic countries has to do with the fact that they were within Soviet sphere of influence agreed upon in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Also the annexation of Bessarabia was with the exception of the added demand for Bukovina in agreement with M-R pact. So this was absolutely in no way an aggressive action towards the Germans, but something that had actually been mutually agreed upon earlier.

Of course. But why do you need to push your border forward if you are not planning a war and that allows you to concentrate more planes and armour closer to the enemy?

And Finland wasn't in the bestest shape for declaring a war on the USSR again, and the Baltic fleet could deal with the Swedish fleet, as you said. So an attack of german freighters in Finnish or Swedish waters would be an opportune "unfortunate accident in open sea" or something similar. Just as the war with Finland was a "defence against foreign provocation". Soviet propagandists knew their job.

Pannonian

04-04-2006, 23:44

Of course. But why do you need to push your border forward if you are not planning a war and that allows you to concentrate more planes and armour closer to the enemy?

Because Stalin's doctrine was to push the frontiers as far from the USSR as possible so that war when it comes will not damage the motherland?

You say that pushing military resources up to the front is an indication of offensive intentions. That would imply an understanding that defensive operations would favour flexibility and depth and hence the storage of such resources in the rear. That wasn't Stalin's understanding. His mindset was still stuck in the era of defensive lines.

The same defensive imperialism can be seen after WWII, when he set up a belt of client states neighouring Germany, thus giving the USSR the long-desired buffer against the west.

And Finland wasn't in the bestest shape for declaring a war on the USSR again, and the Baltic fleet could deal with the Swedish fleet, as you said. So an attack of german freighters in Finnish or Swedish waters would be an opportune "unfortunate accident in open sea" or something similar. Just as the war with Finland was a "defence against foreign provocation". Soviet propagandists knew their job.
Both dictators were capable of manufacturing excuses for wars, and both knew it. Stalin scrupulously stuck to agreements supplying Germany with resources because he didn't want to provoke war with them. Why would he give his enemy the means of making war if he planned to attack?

SwordsMaster

04-04-2006, 23:58

Because Stalin's doctrine was to push the frontiers as far from the USSR as possible so that war when it comes will not damage the motherland?

Nope. A side effect at most.

You say that pushing military resources up to the front is an indication of offensive intentions. That would imply an understanding that defensive operations would favour flexibility and depth and hence the storage of such resources in the rear. That wasn't Stalin's understanding. His mindset was still stuck in the era of defensive lines.

Then why did he ask Zhukov? If he was too stupid and Zhukov too smart, then, Zhukov as head of HQ could have stopped him. Hell, the whole HQ could have stopped him. But instead they put more planes on the airports closest to the german border giving themselves even less reaction time. Can you even get to General thinking that less reaction time means better defense?

Stalin scrupulously stuck to agreements supplying Germany with resources because he didn't want to provoke war with them. Why would he give his enemy the means of making war if he planned to attack?

Stalin needed the time. And IIRC he never supplied Germany with any of the critically important resources: oil, wood, and heavy metals. Or did he? Cant remember... It doesn't change the situation, tanks don't run without oil. And planes don't either. And the oil came from Romania, where Zhukov had been liberating ancient Russian teritory and pissing off the Romanians making them sell more oil to Hitler.

Pannonian

04-05-2006, 00:29

Then why did he ask Zhukov? If he was too stupid and Zhukov too smart, then, Zhukov as head of HQ could have stopped him. Hell, the whole HQ could have stopped him.

What happened to the last batch of military men who disagreed with Stalin?

But instead they put more planes on the airports closest to the german border giving themselves even less reaction time. Can you even get to General thinking that less reaction time means better defense?

At the outbreak of war, there were army commanders calling Moscow asking for orders. There had been explicit instructions that British warnings of imminent German attack was an attempt to provoke war between the 2 dictatorships in order to save themselves, and that Soviet troops were not to fire at German troops under any circumstances. That's the kind of atmosphere that prevailed in the Soviet military.

Stalin needed the time. And IIRC he never supplied Germany with any of the critically important resources: oil, wood, and heavy metals. Or did he? Cant remember... It doesn't change the situation, tanks don't run without oil. And planes don't either.

He supplied Germany with everything that was asked for. If he didn't supply Germany with anything, that's because the Germans hadn't asked for it.

And the oil came from Romania, where Zhukov had been liberating ancient Russian teritory and pissing off the Romanians making them sell more oil to Hitler.
Do you have any sources for any of this? This runs counter to everything I've read on the subject from both sides.

Kraxis

04-05-2006, 00:35

As Hitler rambled on, becoming more and more Soviet unfriendly (in the time leading up to the attack), Stalin sent more and more resources to appease him. That is a fact.
That included quite large shipments of oil and grain (actually a serious issue since Germany can't feed itself, even with Denmark supplying her). And I believe he also sent nikkel and molybdenum, both of which Germany had a very hard time getting hold of.

Rumania, while supplying a lot of oil, could not satisfy Germany's hunger. Why do you think Hitler gunned for the Caucasus when he couldn't cut off the head of the snake in 41? He wanted the oil.

SwordsMaster

04-05-2006, 01:13

What happened to the last batch of military men who disagreed with Stalin?

That is not even the point. The point is, there was even a codename for the invasion of Europe operation, ("Groza" - "Thunderstorm" in russian).

"In total, in an area of 30 by 30 km, 200,000 men, 1500-2000 pieces of artillery, tanks, and automated transports will be concentrated" - Zhukov's speech 23 dec 1940 HQ RKKA

BTW, in spring 1941, Zhukov ordered all hunter planes to airbases located 20-30 km from the border, and bombers to airbases 50-70 km from the border.

This is, with a density of over 170 planes per airbase of size 800 by 900m.

All purely defensive, of course.

Those were Zhukov's orders. On that meeting I quoted earlier Stalin did not express his opinion. He just let his generals speak to know what they think, and Zhukov didn't express his concern about an exposed defensive position.

Rumania, while supplying a lot of oil, could not satisfy Germany's hunger.

Exactly. That is why the germans developed artificial oil. You do not bother with artificial oil (because its crap) if you can get proper oil.

At the outbreak of war, there were army commanders calling Moscow asking for orders. There had been explicit instructions that British warnings of imminent German attack was an attempt to provoke war between the 2 dictatorships in order to save themselves, and that Soviet troops were not to fire at German troops under any circumstances. That's the kind of atmosphere that prevailed in the Soviet military.

Ah, yes, the famous directive number 1. It has nothing to do with atmosphere, btw. And when had the USSR been concerned about the UK anyway?

It was Zhukov's game, and directive number 2 was written too late and was dumb becasue it neither took into account the new situation (this is a day after the german invasion) and gave the army unattainable goals. Suicidal goals is a better definition.

General Pavlov, on the other hand, overrode Zhukov's stupidity, and gave the order "To behave warlike" to all his men. Which didn't do much towards organization, but you will agree is infinitely better than "Under any circumstances do not shoot". Which is the last the soldiers heard from Zhukov...

soibean

04-12-2006, 03:10

all ive ever heard about the Tirpitz was that it was used as a commerce raider in the norwegian fjords... it matched the bismarck but was never used to its fullest potential

Alexanderofmacedon

04-13-2006, 01:34

all ive ever heard about the Tirpitz was that it was used as a commerce raider in the norwegian fjords... it matched the bismarck but was never used to its fullest potential

Yeah, it never really did much damage. It just scared the allies into making rash descisions, which the German capitalized on.

Watchman

04-13-2006, 21:16

Did the big lug actually ever sink a single ship with its own guns...?

Alexanderofmacedon

04-13-2006, 22:42

Did the big lug actually ever sink a single ship with its own guns...?

I think, but I'm not sure. It's deffinetly sure that they didn't use it to full use. Of course, just the mere sight of the Tirpitz made battleships run away and leave supply ships open to bomber attack. So indirectly it did a lot of damage (but I know you didn't ask about indirectly)

Watchman

04-13-2006, 22:47

Wasn't convoy escort more a destroyer - light cruiser axis thing ? Or did the RN actually steam out some of the big capitals to ride herd on the hapless merchantmen and attract stray bombs ?

Kraxis

04-13-2006, 23:16

Wasn't convoy escort more a destroyer - light cruiser axis thing ? Or did the RN actually steam out some of the big capitals to ride herd on the hapless merchantmen and attract stray bombs ?
Yes and yes.

When Scharnhorst and Gneisenau made their troubles the British Admiralty began assigning old battleships to bigger convoys. But the northern convoys don't seem to have gotten this attention. Perhaps it was because so many BBs were prowling the seas between Scotland and Iceland and thus easy on call when Tirpitz steamed out.
After all it was better to lose some 'less' vital supplies to the SU than supplies vital for survival in Britain.