What do you think, what would've happened if the Bismarck (the ship, duh) survives the British fleet and continues to operate?
And ties up more assests, both in terms of RN ships via fleet-in-being, and as RAF assests being mowed down over its mooring.
In real life those assets where already tied up for most of the war by the Tirpitz.
Now what would it imply if the RN/RAF had to cover one more fast battleship, ideally stationed at another harbour?
Don't forget that the Royal Navy had smashed the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean by this point in the war. It is likely that the Royal Navy would have refocused some of its strength. To think that a single battleship would vastly alter the war when the battleships were already vastly outnumbered is a bit of a stretch. It might even be that the Prince of Wales and Repulse are assigned to that particular duty instead!If that other harbour was on the Atlantic coast in south western France maybe. If it was in Northern waters or Germany I doubt extra assets would be needed.
Don't forget that the Royal Navy had smashed the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean by this point in the war. It is likely that the Royal Navy would have refocused some of its strength. To think that a single battleship would vastly alter the war when the battleships were already vastly outnumbered is a bit of a stretch. It might even be that the Prince of Wales and Repulse are assigned to that particular duty instead!
Do we really want to descend into details? Do we really want to list all of the Battleships and Battlecruisers, Carriers and Heavy Cruisers of the Royal Navy that could have been assigned to stand off against the Bismarck? Do we really have to go into the detail of the idea that though Bismarck was capable of a speed of 30+ knots, that it's invariably not realistic for a ship to cruise at its top speed and that even if it does, manoeuvring against an enemy force that has enough destroyers and cruisers to box/Canalize the ship will greatly reduce that speed.You mean HMS King George V alone outnumbered the 30knot+ German capital ships*?
After the US entry into the war (roughly when the Rheinübung took place give or take some month) it was the case.
Do we really want to descend into details? Do we really want to list all of the Battleships and Battlecruisers, Carriers and Heavy Cruisers of the Royal Navy that could have been assigned to stand off against the Bismarck? Do we really have to go into the detail of the idea that though Bismarck was capable of a speed of 30+ knots, that it's invariably not realistic for a ship to cruise at its top speed and that even if it does, manoeuvring against an enemy force that has enough destroyers and cruisers to box/Canalize the ship will greatly reduce that speed.
No the Bismarck would have been confined to port and bombed into insignificance. The only reason it ever held any importance was because of that single shot against the hood, and that it was destroyed at sea.
If that other harbour was on the Atlantic coast in south western France maybe. If it was in Northern waters or Germany I doubt extra assets would be needed.
It is well known that 20+ years old ships built for 22 knots are equally good at cruising with 15 knots as brand new ones built for 30 knots. They have the hull form and powerplant optimized for the same cruising speed. Thus top speed is irrellevant. That's why the RN did such a great job during Operation Berlin.
Nothing ever exists in isolation. In the first instance, the British had battleships available at this point in the war - the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean had been all but destroyed and the reconquest of North Africa provided air cover to most of the Mediterranean. Singapore had been lost and Colombo was not suited to support large fleets, and the USA had the larger force in the Pacific area. Further, due to the natural channelling of the North Sea Fleets made a fast battleship far more dangerous than one in the Atlantic.They felt they needed two modern fast BBs on station just to block Tirpitz. If Bismarck is around that will increase.
Nothing ever exists in isolation. In the first instance, the British had battleships available at this point in the war - the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean had been all but destroyed and the reconquest of North Africa provided air cover to most of the Mediterranean. Singapore had been lost and Colombo was not suited to support large fleets, and the USA had the larger force in the Pacific area. Further, due to the natural channelling of the North Sea Fleets made a fast battleship far more dangerous than one in the Atlantic.
I again reiterate my point that a Bismarck which escapes is simply boxed in port and pounded into insignificance.
This is all very well ... But a 1vs1 battleship engagement is highly unlikely. The hunt for Bismarck is probably the only example I can think of which comes close. And yes, in a 1v1 engagement, Bismarck can probably out run most other ships.It's going to be hard, and unreliable, to try and intercept Bismarck with a slow battleship. Once they left Norway Eugen and Bismarck cruised at 24-27 knots. The only way a slow battleship is going to intercept is by being vectored to approach ahead of the target in which case it will get a limited window to do so provided the enemy can't or won't evade. It can't even pull back and remain as scary shadower like Prince of Wales did. Destroyers are also limited. Not only do they have relatively poor endurance, but their top speed is more dependant on weather and may fall below that of a fast battleship.
With all due respect, what exactly do you think a single mid tier battleship was going to do, win the war on its own? The Royal Navy Alone had 15+ battleships, some of them, like HMS Rodney and Nelson, arguably superior to Bismarck in armor and firepower.What do you think, what would've happened if the Bismarck (the ship, duh) survives the British fleet and continues to operate?