Who was the best Kriegsmarine surface ship commander?

RF · Post by RF » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:05 pm

Well here it is.

You are a sailor on board a WW2 German surface ship, it doesn't matter which one, the only question for you is.... who would you want as your commanding officer?

What we are looking for here is not the best ship but the best leader.

Specifically:

Who got the best out of the ship and crew he was given?

Who was the most savvy when it came to battle tactics?

Who combined best the need for aggression without taking too many
risks?

And who was best at ship handling and seamanship?

Your choices: Any of the commanders of the ten major German warships plus any of the hilfskreuzer commanders....

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:50 pm

Rogge of Atlantis and Krudder of Pinguin were both held in high regard by their crews.

Kaptain Topp of Tirpitz was a good commander.

I dont know much about the others to be able to make accurate comments.

So based on what I've said I will initially go for Bernard Rogge.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:19 pm

I´ll vote for Theodor Detmers. If he could sunk the Sydney with his quite ugly "cruiser" then what could he have been done in Lutjens place? Or at the helm of Tirpitz and orders to attack...

RF · Post by RF » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:29 pm

Interesting that the hilfskreuzer commanders are mentioned and none of the big ship commanders - no Lutjens, Lindemann or Brinckmann.....

What about names such as Marschall, Krancke or even Hoffmann????

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:42 pm

Marschall for admiral. Detmers for ship commander.
About Lindemann: as far as the baron´s said he was a superb commander and a great artillery man. The problem was that he wasn´t able to distinguish himself at Rheinubung: only a week at sea when his marvelous ship was sunk.
Lutjens? Nope. Sorry because I know there are people who regard him highly but I´m not one of them.

RF · Post by RF » Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:14 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Marschall for admiral. Detmers for ship commander.
About Lindemann: as far as the baron´s said he was a superb commander and a great artillery man. The problem was that he wasn´t able to distinguish himself at Rheinubung: only a week at sea when his marvelous ship was sunk.
Lutjens? Nope. Sorry because I know there are people who regard him highly but I´m not one of them.

I think Lindemann's problem was that he had to defer to Lutjens which limited his command options. Hoffmann in Scharnhorst and Fein in Gneisenau had similar ''problems'' during Operation Berlin.

It poses an interesting question, perhaps taken up best in a new thread.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:16 pm

Lindemann had to obey Lutjens orders? At DS I believe Lindemann didn´t wait from Lutjens to order to comence firing. If he had waited his "commander" order it´s likely that PoW would had damaged seriosly Bismarck and Hood would had never blew.
Maybe Lutjens was the Colin Powell of the Kriegsmarine, don´t you think?

RF · Post by RF » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:13 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lindemann had to obey Lutjens orders? At DS I believe Lindemann didn´t wait from Lutjens to order to comence firing. If he had waited his "commander" order it´s likely that PoW would had damaged seriosly Bismarck and Hood would had never blew.
Maybe Lutjens was the Colin Powell of the Kriegsmarine, don´t you think?

Lutjens didn't have political ambitions.

The whole agenda changes when you have political generals, it is career that matters and determines decisions.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:47 pm

Neither Colin Powell. After his "great performance" in the Gulf War and in Irak he could never run for US President even with Jesse Jackson or Will Smith as Vice Presidents.
Oops, again off thread. Eh, yeah, it was lucky for Bismarck´s crew and the KM reputation that Lindemann was the skipper and that he didn´t waited too much before ordering to open fire by himself.

RF · Post by RF » Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:56 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Neither Colin Powell. After his "great performance" in the Gulf War and in Irak he could never run for US President even with Jesse Jackson or Will Smith as Vice Presidents.
Oops, again off thread. Eh, yeah, it was lucky for Bismarck´s crew and the KM reputation that Lindemann was the skipper and that he didn´t waited too much before ordering to open fire by himself.

Colin Powell was a leading member of the US Republican Party and given his background was certainly electable as a Republican presidential candidate. However he deferred in favour of Bush.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:49 pm

RF:

Colin Powell was a leading member of the US Republican Party and given his background was certainly electable as a Republican presidential candidate. However he deferred in favour of Bush.

Oh, man: what a choice! It´s like to vote for Krusty the clown or the Boston Strangler.

Let´s return to the thread. I still say the Detmers was a good candidate and, being fair, Lindemann also. Any of those two for skipper.
Marschall for admiral.

Terje Langoy · Post by **Terje Langoy** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:09 pm

Wow, this is one of the most entertaining topics so far... Krusty the Clown as president...

But I'd rather vote good old Homer as president. Drawing the political discussion back to WWII, maybe Powell have some of the qualities that Chamberlain did. A very peaceful man, indeed. Just like Miss Universe, he sincerely want peace on earth. But you must remember that US foreign politics is not a playground for the shy and modest fellows. Powell believe in diplomacy and building bridges while Bush believe that God has embarked him on a mission to save, or at least bring democracy, to the not-so-fortunate parts of the world. (And I've never mentioned the words economical and strategical interests) The words of Rudyard Kipling ring in my ears, that's for sure. But you go ahead and choose the favourable approach. After all, it's a free and democratic world. At least some parts of it...

I see that Lutjens don't score high on this ranking. Imagine being Lutjens in the DS at the very moment when the two British ships emerges on the horizon. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that instant minute as he realize that the entire operation just went down the drain. Just to see his reaction to this compromising menace. Lindemann didn't live under the same expectations as Lutjens did. He accessed the situation entirely different. Simplified! He shoots at me, I'll shoot back! Simple as that! And while Lindemann only had to concern about his ship, Lutjens had to consider both ships and the operation as well. I think personally that in this very minute Lutjens was twisting his brain trying to find a way to rescue the mission. But at the same time even Lutjens knew that he was forced to respond, no doubt about that. You most not forget the objective of the mission. It could be crucial to the British if the Bismarck made it into the Atlantic, and Lutjens most probably was aware of that. It's not too hard to imagine. I see him more as a character like Jellicoe, not taking any risks despite that he possible could succeed. He didn't know the outcome and I guess any reluctance on his behalf would partially be justified by his further intentions. And as for the Pow, I guess she wouldn't be allowed to do THAT much harm to the Bismarck before even Lutjens would be standing in the bridge door shooting at her with his sidearms. Any sane Admiral would defend themselves. But Lutjens wouldn't seek unfavourable battle if there was ANY way to avoid it. A good commander knows when to stay and fight or take the hat and leave. DS was forced upon him and they fought successfully but given a choice, Lutjens would be somewhere else. In the big picture, accessing the KM numbers with the RN, that would at least make him a fair commander if you'd ask me.

By the way, wasn't Admiral Cilliax the designer behind operation Cerberus? And a former commander of the Gneisenau? Very well then. I'd go for him!

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:25 pm

A question: there isn´t any account from Bismarck´s bridge of what happened between Lutjens and Lindemann at DS? What we know is from Mullenheim-Rechberg and what he heard from the voice pipe, isn´t it? No direct account that could tell us exactly what they said, how they look like in that moment... nothing, ah?

RF · Post by RF » Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:47 pm

Terje Langoy wrote:
By the way, wasn't Admiral Cilliax the designer behind operation Cerberus? And a former commander of the Gneisenau? Very well then. I'd go for him!

Ciliax was captain of Scharnhorst from January to September 1939, when he was succeeded by Hoffmann.
It is believed that was why Ciliax had Scharnhorst as flagship and not Gneisenau, as Marshall and Lutjens had before him; Ciliax had never been captain of Gneisenau.

RF · Post by RF » Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:50 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:A question: there isn´t any account from Bismarck´s bridge of what happened between Lutjens and Lindemann at DS? What we know is from Mullenheim-Rechberg and what he heard from the voice pipe, isn´t it? No direct account that could tell us exactly what they said, how they look like in that moment... nothing, ah?

None of the bridge crew, officers or ratings, survived the final battle to be able to disclose what they witnessed.

Indeed one major difficulty on the subject of Lutjens is the fact that none of the people in close regular contact and proximity to him survived.