Balance: offensive vs. defensive?

[Terje Langoy]

It's not the discovery of the Century that new technology replaces old technology. And that new strategies conquer old ones. It has been that way for quite some time now. We're always improving things. Swords beat sticks - Guns beat swords - Missiles beat guns - and so it goes. The question was, as far as I recall, not why BB's became obsolete, that's obvious to everyone, but what would be a better compromise building a BB. My apologies if I'm offending anyone but I assume this was a straight up technical question of armour versus guns.

For your reply, Karl... Wouldn't that count for any hilfkreuzer despite carrying torpedoes or guns? Their entire existence rely upon being a hidden threat. Once made, their useless no matter what they carry.

[Tiornu]

The battleship isn't obvious simply because it looks like a battleship. It is also obvious because it is surrounded by a screen of smaller ships intended to protect this vastly expensive investment. Only by utter madness would anyone send a battleship out alone on the sealanes.
The job of the AMC is antithetical to that of the BB. The AMC is meant to be a cheap alternative to a warship. As a raider, it's job is to avoid combat with any genuine warship. The battleship, on the other hand, is intended to seek and crush enemy warships.
I may be a solitary voice, but I disagree with the idea that battleships were obsolete in WWII.

[Bgile]

Perhaps “obsolete” is too strong a word. Rather, as the war progressed they became less essential as an instrument of sea control. The newer US Battleships were very valuable to the fleet as AAA platforms and were not really in any danger of being sunk by Kamikazes. They could also provide effective shore bombardment, as evidenced by the many years of post WWII service provided by the Iowa class. In fact, the Pusan perimeter in Korea may have been saved by one of these ships, making possible the existence of S. Korea.

But they were no longer the dominant force at sea that they were prior to the appearance of the modern aircraft carrier.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Tiornu:

The battleship isn't obvious simply because it looks like a battleship. It is also obvious because it is surrounded by a screen of smaller ships intended to protect this vastly expensive investment. Only by utter madness would anyone send a battleship out alone on the sealanes.
The job of the AMC is antithetical to that of the BB. The AMC is meant to be a cheap alternative to a warship. As a raider, it's job is to avoid combat with any genuine warship. The battleship, on the other hand, is intended to seek and crush enemy warships.
I may be a solitary voice, but I disagree with the idea that battleships were obsolete in WWII.

I have to agree with you in this. I haven´t said that BBs were obsolete but that they still had their chance at the begining of WWII (and much more than in WWI, word by word). I also agree with you about the disguised auxiliary cruisers, even considering that their raids were legendary and real feat of arms. But those cruisers are exactly what you stated: cheap alternatives of a navy in clear disadvantage. A Battleship, on the other hand, is a traditional and honorable machine of war that has for target the supremacy on the seas.
In this order I believe that Bgile comment is more than right: even when technology and military practice made then "old" the BBs still served not as the main naval weapon but protecting the new main one: the CVs.

[RF]

For your reply, Karl... Wouldn't that count for any hilfkreuzer despite carrying torpedoes or guns? Their entire existence rely upon being a hidden threat. Once made, their useless no matter what they carry.

I don't think so. Depends what punching power they have.

Hilfskreuzer were armed merchant ship substitutes for real warships, based on a 1916 ''design.''

What should have been done - and wasn't - was a new design for hilfskreuzer based on the same approach for the troffschiffe supply tankers - specially built vessels to function as genuine warships but with the profile of merchant ships. One improvement in hilfskreuzer would have been, in addition to heavier armament, to have all guns centre line with modern fire control. Ruckteschell for example wanted that for Michel but Kriegsmarine short sightedness and competition for resources wouldn't allow it.

[RF]

The battleship isn't obvious simply because it looks like a battleship. It is also obvious because it is surrounded by a screen of smaller ships intended to protect this vastly expensive investment. Only by utter madness would anyone send a battleship out alone on the sealanes.
The job of the AMC is antithetical to that of the BB. The AMC is meant to be a cheap alternative to a warship. As a raider, it's job is to avoid combat with any genuine warship. The battleship, on the other hand, is intended to seek and crush enemy warships.
I may be a solitary voice, but I disagree with the idea that battleships were obsolete in WWII.

You are not a solitary voice. And battleships still have a role to play today, as evidenced in the wars against Saddam Hussein. What is in the past is any idea of battleships engaging each other, their role and function has changed.

[Tiornu]

I think we'll have trouble assigning the word "warship" to a supply vessel. It is an auxiliary ship which hopefully will never have to fight--that's not something you can say about cruisers and destroyers and such. Warships are meant to fight other warships.
What is to be gained by giving Michel centerline guns and modern fire control? Also, what is to be sacrificed to fit her with this new equipment?
I'm imagining the dialogue in a reconnaissance plane:
>Can you identify that ship?
>It appears to be the Dutch freighter Piet van Huysen.
>I think you're right. When did the Dutch start fitting a 6m rangefinder atop the armored conning tower?
>Probably a recent thing. Well, clearly there's nothing suspicious here. Let's go on our way.
You send out your AMC with the understanding that there's a good chance it's not coming back. Degrading its stealth with a warship outfit makes its loss more likely and more expensive. It has no appreciable benefit for its mission. Perhaps the Germans were right in not wasting their effort.

[ontheslipway]

And battleships still have a role to play today, as evidenced in the wars against Saddam Hussein.

Wishful thinking. Just for the cute shots to fool journalists (and certain battleship fans who think they are actually useful). They are floating cruise missile batteries, nothing more. They used them because they were still floating and hadn't rusted away.

It's like saying the Eifel tower is still a tactical weapon because you can see the enemy come from afar, or mount a radar on top of it.

[RF]

I think we'll have trouble assigning the word "warship" to a supply vessel. It is an auxiliary ship which hopefully will never have to fight--that's not something you can say about cruisers and destroyers and such. Warships are meant to fight other warships.
What is to be gained by giving Michel centerline guns and modern fire control? Also, what is to be sacrificed to fit her with this new equipment?
I'm imagining the dialogue in a reconnaissance plane:
>Can you identify that ship?
>It appears to be the Dutch freighter Piet van Huysen.
>I think you're right. When did the Dutch start fitting a 6m rangefinder atop the armored conning tower?
>Probably a recent thing. Well, clearly there's nothing suspicious here. Let's go on our way.
You send out your AMC with the understanding that there's a good chance it's not coming back. Degrading its stealth with a warship outfit makes its loss more likely and more expensive. It has no appreciable benefit for its mission. Perhaps the Germans were right in not wasting their effort.

I think there is a divergence of opinion here over the role of what a hilfskreuzer is and my alternative of what it could be.

The paramount thing we can agree on is that a hilfskreuzer is a stealth weapon, as such it must look like a merchant ship and not a warship.

What is hilfskreuzer for?

Tiornu says (as Raeder would agree) the destruction of single merchant ships. To do this they are equipped with forty year old guns, an armament sufficient to overcome such a target and nothing else.

RF says - complete destruction of the enemy, be it warship or merchantmen. I would want a purpose built ship, with the profile of a largish merchant ship or oil tanker. Disguise effective at sea and air level isn't difficult. If Commander Kerens could alter the outline of Amethyst to resemble a Chinese junk at close range to communist Chinese guns in a river estuary, then a ''heavily loaded Liberty ship'' or suchlike can conceal gun turrets and all of the gunnery tackle admist rigging, masts, containers etc. topside plus dummy decks below deck level.
Hilfskreuzer fight guerilla warfare - but at sea, the commander has the choice to initiate combat against a warship or not. If action is forced by the enemy then my hilfskreuzer has a better chance than Tiornu's.
Hilfskreuzer are expendable and can be used in larger numbers than they actually were. Losing some of them doesn't matter, I don't believe
in ''no unnecessary risks.''

Why give Michel a better armament? Well, Michel had forty year old guns taken from Widder, with a maximum range of five miles only . Results? Menelaus escapes with a detailed report of the raiders attack, because Ruckteschell tried to stop her at a range of six miles, the minimum range possible. On 17 August 1942 Dutch troopship Marnix Van St. Aldegond, a 19,000 ton ship was chased for 24 hours. Ruckteschell couldn't attack as she was doing 19 knots and his firepower was wholly inadequate; Esau couldn't be used because she too had insufficient torpedo hitting power to bring the Dutch ship to a stop.
On 9 December 1942 Michel picked up a radio report from British ship Matheran, who had just witnessed 24 hours before the Michel's gun attack on Greek ship Eugenie Livanos. Again because of insufficient speed, radar and armament Ruckteschell had to let her go.
On 29 September 1943 Michel, in dense fog, blundered into a small US convoy between California and Hawaii. The American ships passed at about one mile range, and paid no attention whatsoever to Michel, while Gumprich turned his ship away. This was the only occasion in WW2 that a hilfskreuzer got right inside a convoy, and a my proposed raider could have opened fire and caused havoc. OK it could and probably would have resulted in the loss of the raider - but they are expendable. In reality that would have made no difference as three weeks later Michel was sunk by Tarpon. But again my hilfskreuzer might have turned the tables and sink Tarpon, who knows?

I think Ruckteschells' view on hilfskreuzer was the right one. With proper artillery he could also have ambushed Alcantara after sinking George Clymer.
Had he got his way he could have beaten Atlantis' tonnage score by these extra four ships - and still handover to Gumprich for the second cruise.

If you have a cardboard navy you will get cardboard results. Better to have what you really want.
Put it another way - if you were First Sea Lord, which hilfskreuzer would you prefer the Germans to use, the single merchantman gobbler or the one that makes itself a real nuisance time and time again and simply vanishes each time? Would you be more inconvienced if your cruisers had to hunt down the raiders in groups rather than by single ship patrols?

[RF]

And battleships still have a role to play today, as evidenced in the wars against Saddam Hussein.

Wishful thinking.... They are floating cruise missile batteries, nothing more. They used them because they were still floating and hadn't rusted away.

What's wrong with such a role?

It's like saying the Eifel tower is still a tactical weapon because you can see the enemy come from afar, or mount a radar on top of it.

Like the golf balls at Flyingdale? Only here the Russians could see them and make the North Yorks moors target for nuclear attack.

[Bgile]

RF,

So, you are ready to put the same resources into a AMC as a cruiser? Because that is what you are asking. Instead of the Hipper class, you want to build 3 more AMC's? To me, that's a completely ridiculous idea but you can imagine what you want here.

True warships look like they do because their armament and speed dictate it. You can't build one that looks like a merchant ship without serious sacrifices and by definition those sacrifices make it unequal to a warship.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

RF,

So, you are ready to put the same resources into a AMC as a cruiser? Because that is what you are asking. Instead of the Hipper class, you want to build 3 more AMC's? To me, that's a completely ridiculous idea but you can imagine what you want here.

True warships look like they do because their armament and speed dictate it. You can't build one that looks like a merchant ship without serious sacrifices and by definition those sacrifices make it unequal to a warship.

I agree with Bgile. It´s no worth, anyway. An Auxiliary Cruiser is a raider, a pirate if you like, not a warship. The idea, here at least, is to discuss about an ideal warship, that could give and absorb a lot of punishment.

[Tiornu]

"RF says - complete destruction of the enemy, be it warship or merchantmen."
I won't pursue this further, but this idea has no merit. What warship are you talking about? A destroyer that won't know it ought to flee from the tanker with the centerline guns?

"Disguise effective at sea and air level isn't difficult."
One of the AMCs was caught and sunk because a pilot recognized the personnel were naval. One could go ahead and rig Hipper as a junk or some other vessel, to whatever end.

"If action is forced by the enemy then my hilfskreuzer has a better chance than Tiornu's."
Yes. It has a much better chance of having combat forced on it.

"Michel had forty year old guns taken from Widder, with a maximum range of five miles only."
There was no German 15cm gun with a range of only five miles. Providing increased elevation for mounts or, as the British did, enlarged propellant charges is an expedient that costs little and can easily extend gun range to its practical limit.

"Ruckteschell couldn't attack as she was doing 19 knots and his firepower was wholly inadequate"
The RF raider is not going to be any faster than any other ship with a freighter/tanker hull.

"Esau couldn't be used because she too had insufficient torpedo hitting power to bring the Dutch ship to a stop."
?

"while Gumprich turned his ship away."
If you advocate equipping your raider with skippers who know what they're doing, then I would agree.

"But again my hilfskreuzer might have turned the tables and sink Tarpon, who knows?"
How?

"if you were First Sea Lord, which hilfskreuzer would you prefer the Germans to use, the single merchantman gobbler or the one that makes itself a real nuisance time and time again and simply vanishes each time?"
I would be delighted to have the enemy wasting his efforts as much as possible. And the more often this wasted effort has to refuel and thus expose its support vessels, so much the better.

[ontheslipway]

I may be a solitary voice, but I disagree with the idea that battleships were obsolete in WWII.

I'd say it depends if you're sailing in the Pacific or the Atlantic. But even in the Pacific they had their moments. With radar being so primitive in the early days, gun range was sometimes enough to hit the enemy (as it frequently did).[/quote]

[Terje Langoy]

An AMC, carrying the right equippment, could be a first strike weapon. But not dependent of punching power... 15-inches aboard an AMC does not make her resistant to enemy fire. By the time you'll acquire the target, the other ship would probably have blown you out of the water. Gun flashes from a merchant usually indicate that something is out of the ordinary. Besides, any first blow would have to be fatal or it's sayonara for sure.

But if carrying torpedoes and entering ideal conditions at a short distance, imagine four or five torpedoes finding their target in less than a minute. The surprise element! That's what I was thinking of... Sort of a disguised destroyer launching a torpedo attack. Would a cruiser caught unaware be able to respond to that..?