The German Navy Versus England

As we know, the WWII German surface navy never accomplished anything significant and most of it was expended in piecemeal fashion with little to show for the effort.  Many historical observers believe that there was little else the German navy could have done beyond what they did but is that true?  Let’s take look at how the German navy could have been employed and what lessons their actual and possible employment holds for us, today.

 

To ever so briefly review, following is the state of the German and British navies early in the war (around 1940-42 or so) or, at least, what they could have been without losses.

 

11 Aircraft carriers

3 Glorious class commissioned around 1916

1 Argus class commissioned 1918

1 Eagle class commissioned 1924

1 Hermes class commissioned 1924

1 Ark Royal commissioned 1938

4 Illustrious class commissioned 1940-1941

 

22 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1.

 

5 Queen Elizabeth dreadnoughts commissioned around 1915

5 Revenge class dreadnoughts commissioned around 1916

2 Nelson class battleships commissioned 1927

5 King George V battleships commissioned around 1940-1942

2 Renown class battlecruisers commissioned 1916

2 Courageous class battlecruisers commissioned around 1916

1 Hood class battlecruiser commissioned 1920

66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties.

184 Destroyers of all types and eras.

 

Note that the British carriers were barely worthy of the name, employing WWI era bi-plane Fairey Swordfish torpedo planes, Blackburn Skuas, and, later, Fairey Fulmars.  The carrier air wings were generally quite small by US standards.  That said, they accomplished some amazing feats.

 

In comparison, in the same 1940-42 or so time frame, the German naval order of battle could have consisted of the following.

 

4 Battleships

 

Bismarck
Tirpitz
Scharnhorst
Gneisenau

 

3 Battlecruisers

 

Scheer
Graf Spee
Deutschland (renamed Lützow)

2 Dreadnought Era Battleships

 

Schlesien (dreadnought)
Schleswig-Holstein (dreadnought)

3 Heavy Cruisers

 

Admiral Hipper

Blucher
Prinz Eugen

6 Light cruisers

11 Auxilliary cruisers

30 Destroyers

 

Comparing the two forces and, in particular, noting their ages, we see the following table which demonstrates the numbers and ages of the ships.  For this purpose, a modern (at the time) ship is considered one which was built post-1930.  Note not only the numbers of the two fleets but also the relative degree of modernity.

 

 

 

British – German Fleet Comparison
	British	German	British Post-1930	German Post-1930
Carrier	7	0	1	0
Battleship	17	6	5	4
Battlecruiser	5	3	0	3
Cruiser	66	20	?	6
Destroyer	184	30	?	30
E-Boat / PT Boat	115	100	115	100
Submarine	60	200	40	200

 

 

It is understood that various combat losses afflicted both fleets but for the purpose of this post, that is immaterial.

 

One aspect that jumps out from this comparison is the ages of the two fleets.  The German fleet is significantly more modern than the British, many of whose ships are obsolete or nearly so.  This makes the comparative strength much more even than a simple numerical comparison would suggest.

 

However, there is more to the table.  Recall that the UK had worldwide commitments and  ?half?  of the British naval strength was dispersed around the world. 

 

If we arbitrarily divide the British fleet size in half to account for the large, worldwide dispersion we get the following comparative table.

 

 

 

British – German Local Fleet Comparison
	British	German
Carrier	4	0
Battleship	8	6
Battlecruiser	2	3
Cruiser	33	20
Destroyer	92	30
E-Boat / PT Boat	57	100
Submarine	30	200

 

 

At this point, we see that the effective, local strength of the RN was roughly comparable to the local German strength and the German fleet retains the age advantage.  Further, we note the overwhelming German advantage in submarines.

 

The historical question, then, becomes, what could the German navy have done to take advantage of this roughly comparable size comparison and actual advantage in age?

 

Well, some possible operations might have included:

 

Destroy the British Home Fleet using combined surface navy and submarines.  There are any number of ways the Home Fleet could have enticed/coerced into a decisive fleet battle.  For example, a surface ship sortie against British ports along the English Channel would likely have sufficed to draw out the Home Fleet.  The larger point is that a major German surface action, coordinated with multiple wolf packs of submarines could have decimated the Home Fleet.

 

Blockade British ports to seal off convoys.  There would have been no need to try to destroy convoys at sea if they can be prevented from unloading at their destination ports.  It would have been much easier to seal British ports with mines and submarines than to try to find and engage convoys at sea.  The closer distance to the U-boat’s home ports would have also facilitated the support efforts for the submarines.

 

Seal the English Channel.  Had the German U-boats and E-boats been concentrated in the English Channel, it could have been sealed off with fairly minimal effort and resources.  Combined with mining, both ends could have been sealed thereby allowing the Germans to conduct cross channel naval bombardments, raids, and, ultimately, a cross channel invasion, all unhindered by English naval forces.

 

Bombard English coastal ports/cities.  The German surface navy could have devastated British ports, again, denying British resupply efforts.

 

Prevent the D-Day build up.  As we discussed in a previous post, the Germans could have prevented the Allied assault at Normandy by attacking the ports, camps, depots, etc. that were necessary for the Allied invasion effort.

 

Bismarck and Tirpitz - Operate As A Massed Force

Admittedly, all of these efforts would have required the support of the German air force but, early in the war, this was not only possible but the German air forces would have enjoyed parity, if not superiority, in aircraft performance.  By coordinating their efforts, the German navy could have operated with air cover and eliminated air bases and radar stations on or near the coast.  In turn, the German aircraft could have benefited from the concentrated anti-aircraft fire of the German ships.

 

What was not a good operational use was solitary commerce raiding. The allies had, for all practical purposes, an infinite supply of merchant ships. Sinking a handful was not going to impact the war.  In a similar vein, the submarine attacks on convoys was a hopeless effort.  The German submarine fleet could have been much more effectively employed, as described above.

The point of this post is not to discuss what specific missions the German navy could have or should have performed but to examine how Germany used its navy, what it could have done differently, and what lessons their actions, or lack thereof, offer us today.

 

So, what lessons can we take from this that apply to us, today?  Consider these:

 

Fleet In Being – Some historical observers have claimed that Germany’s surface fleet was most useful as a ‘feet in being’ by tying up Allied resources.  Is this true?  Absolutely not! The point of a military is to destroy the opponent's assets, not make them consume renewable resources. The allies, supported by the industrial might of America, had an infinite amount of resources, for all practical purposes. The Germans needed to use their naval forces to impose operational and strategic defeats on the allies - which they failed to do or even attempt to any great degree.  This should serve as an important lesson as we contemplate war with China and their resources.  Our Navy cannot become a ‘fleet in being’, unwilling to engage and unwilling to seek victory.  We must become offensive-minded as opposed to our current defensive mindset.  This starts with building a fleet that is cheap enough to risk in combat.  A $15B+ carrier is not an asset anyone is going to risk.  Billion dollar destroyers are not expendable assets.  And so on.  Currently, we have a 'fleet in being' rather than a combat fleet.

Solitary Ships Will Be Destroyed - Distributed force cannot succeed unless the sensing and communications network works flawlessly and the massing of firepower can be achieved.  Even then, the individual ships are subject to defeat in detail.  Germany’s commerce raiders demonstrated this.  Before we irreversibly commit to distributed lethality (if we haven’t already), we need to seriously wargame the concept of distributed operations using realistic conditions, not scripted games skewed to support a pre-determined conclusion.  We need to be 100% sure that distributed operations will work and I am certain that any realistic and unbiased assessment will demonstrate the folly of such operations.  History conclusively supports this.  The handful of distributed operations that were conducted in WWII pretty much uniformly resulted in disaster.

 

Offense – “The seat of purpose is on the land.”  This adage is the fundamental truth for navies but is too often lost in the fascination with ship-to-ship battles.  Navies exist to support land operations and they do that by conducting offensive operations oriented toward impact on land.  The Germans forgot this and never made any serious effort to support the strategic land operations and never made any serious attempt to conduct offensive operations.

 

Our Navy, today, is almost exclusively focused on defensive operations.  Consider the small, anti-ship Marine units.  Those aren’t offensive, they’re purely defensive.  Consider our aircraft – they’re short ranged, defensive assets intended to protect the fleet.  Consider our major surface ship, the Burke.  It’s main purpose is defensive anti-air warfare.  Consider our entire Marine Corps which has devolved from a middle weight, amphibious offensive force to a lightweight, defensive force.  Consider our major weapons development efforts like ballistic missile defense, Standard SM-6 anti-air missiles, LCS ASW and MCM which are defensive in nature, an FFG(X) which is supposedly focused on ASW and AAW, both defensive in nature.  Where’s our long range, hard hitting new weapons?  There essentially aren’t any.  We’re a defensive Navy.

 

 

Summary

 

Germany had a reasonable powerful and numerous fleet – or could have – that was squandered in piecemeal fashion.  Does this sound ominously like our current plans for distributed lethality?  WWII demonstrated that lone ships, or small groups of ships, are subject to defeat in detail and modern missile warfare will only exacerbate this trend.  Naval survival and victory will go to the side that can mass both offensive and defensive firepower.  Too many people, including the US Navy, forget about the need for defensive firepower as a mandatory adjunct to offensive operations.  We need to abandon the fantasy of a few scattered units bringing a powerful enemy to their knees through the magic of networking. Instead, we need to refocus on single purpose, powerful, survivable, ships that can conduct offensive operations in large groups.