Tirpitz

[SwordsMaster]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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]

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]

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.

[Atilius]

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

Here's what looks like a very complete operational history.

Apparently the Tirpitz never even fired upon an enemy ship. The only time its main battery was discharged with hostile intent was on Sept 8, 1943 during an attack on an allied base on Spitzbergen when it brought the base's 2 3" guns under fire.

[Watchman]

Huh. I'll bet the crew got frustrated as Hell. Nevermind bored to death, that little anchorage somewhere in Norway likely wasn't the liveliest of locales.

[yesdachi]

Is there a good reason why the Germans didn’t just confiscate the northern convoys rather than sink them after their protectors ran away? There seems to be some indication that they were carrying some hot commodities.

[AggonyDuck]

I think the problem there was the fact that the Home Fleet always had a distant escort of heavy units protecting them. Those convoy ships were hardly the fastest ones around and thus you give the Home Fleet ample time to catch up with them.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Huh. I'll bet the crew got frustrated as Hell. Nevermind bored to death, that little anchorage somewhere in Norway likely wasn't the liveliest of locales.

About a hundred of them were killed in one of the air raids of the Tirpitz. I'm sure they were 'bored', but I think they're bored in a happy way. I mean, they're not in the trenches somewhere