Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by Kyler »

Also known as the “Channel Dash” this daring event by the Kriegsmarine during WW2, allowed the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Prinz Eugen return to Germany waters after being stuck in Brest for a considerable period of time. To the German’s the operation was a victory, and to the British a blunder. Though depending on the point of view or opinion some say it’s a major victory or a major blunder.

The operation itself was undoubtedly a success with all three ships returning to Germany. Hitler’s propaganda machine hailed the event as major victory against the Royal Navy and the RAF. In the scope of time and information, the operation was nothing more than a tactical victory. The Germans did do an outstanding job of secretly planning the dash. In one of the few moments of coordination during the war, the Luftwaffe’s air cover did a good job of protecting the ships against the RAF. The Kriegsmarine’s also E-boats did an outstanding job of protecting the large ships against the British MTB’s.

In my opinion, the operation was really a major blunder for the British on many levels. First the British Intelligence was made aware of that something was afoot by receiving reports of the Luftwaffe using airfield closer to the coast, and activity in Brest itself. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had done a pretty bad job equipping Royal Coastal Command with the proper equipment and materials to carry out their necessary duties including giving them ancient MTB’s and aircraft. The Royal Air Forces bomber force once again showed its general ineffectiveness in attacking capital ships as it had done to that point in the war. The Royal Navy seemed unprepared with only a small force of ancient destroyers that were not even on station during the dash. They arrived late on the scene only to be able deliver one ineffective torpedo strike in return one of the destroyers got quite the mauling from Gneisenau. The biggest example of failure was the horrible communication protocols and procedures that kept the British from quickly responding to the dash thus their efforts were never really coordinated and proved useless. The British were not even able to capitalize on the lucky instances when both the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau struck mines. This was caused impart by the gallant efforts of both crews in getting their shipping sailing quickly again in dangerous waters. In no way am I denigrating the valiant efforts of RN, RAF, and RCC pilots and sailors in trying to take out all three ships. The gallantry of those pilots and sailors were not only admired by their fellow countrymen but all also by the Germans.

Future events would later prove the event pretty useless for the Germans, but in those few days Operation Cerberus was the biggest news in the world.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by RF »

Given that the Scharnhorst almost sank in the operation and that the Gneisenau was so neglected in dock afterwards that it was effectively written off in an air raid, the only real German success was the return of the Prinz Eugen to the Baltic.
The withdrawal of the German ships was an inevitable in view of the scale of British bombing attacks against them, nevertheless it was a strategic blunder. The only failure on the part of the British was the interception in the Channel, but then the end results made up for that.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by Gary »

A young Luftwaffe officer named Adolf Galland was instrumental in planning Operation Cerberus.
But as RF pointed out the Kriegsmarine didnt achieve much with the 3 ships afterwards.
Gneisenau got bombed in port (ironically this is the very reason she was moved from France).
Scharnhorst was lost the following year and Prinz Eugen didnt do alot apart from maybe shelling the advancing Russians in the Baltic in early 1945 (did PG ever sink a ship in her warlife? - I dont think she did)
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by lwd »

I've read (on a forum somewhere so take it for what it's worth) that the Dover guns were order to hold fire while a air raid went in and the German ships were almost out of range when they finally got the clearance to open up. Delaying the air raid while the big guns could fire might have been a better option. So this might be regarded as a minor blunder. Especially if the extra time were taken to launch a coordinated attack.
User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by Kyler »

While the operation was a short lived victory, in the few shorts days it was a victory nonetheless, and it definitely showed some of the problems on the side of British. The RAF's completely stupid policy of strict radio silence, helped a set a series of events in motion that the British we never able to recover from.

While the RAF had grown more effective in recent months before the operation, they still have never lived up to their claims so far by the RAF Bomber command. Hundreds of sorties had been sent against the two ships with only 8-10 hits on either ship with most of the those being minor. Their move back to Germany was impart to Hitler's notion that the invasion of Europe may come through Norway, thus wanting Kriegsmarine surface units there to best defend against a possible invasion.

Scharnhorst was never near being sunk, she was unlucky in being hit twice, but both times her engineers had her sailing again in 30-45 minutes. The first time sailing at 27 knots, and the second at 14 knots. This did make her easier prey, that the British didn't not capitalize on.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)
User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by Kyler »

lwd wrote:I've read (on a forum somewhere so take it for what it's worth) that the Dover guns were order to hold fire while a air raid went in and the German ships were almost out of range when they finally got the clearance to open up. Delaying the air raid while the big guns could fire might have been a better option. So this might be regarded as a minor blunder. Especially if the extra time were taken to launch a coordinated attack.
You are correct, but again the lack of communication and strategy was probably the largest blunder committed by the British during the operation.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by dunmunro »

At that time, the RAF had hundreds of Hurricane fighter-bombers arrayed in Southern England. These were the aircraft that would have been most survivable in the face of the Luftwaffe CAP, and the RAF should have had them on call, and have provided minimal anti-shipping training to the FB pilots. The RAF really dropped the ball on that operation, but, as has been pointed out, it was a Pyrrhic victory, for the KM , at best.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by RF »

Gary wrote: Scharnhorst was lost the following year and Prinz Eugen didnt do alot apart from maybe shelling the advancing Russians in the Baltic in early 1945 (did PG ever sink a ship in her warlife? - I dont think she did)
Some people still think PG sank the Hood.

In reality the PG severly mauled the Hood and damaged a battleship in return for no damage. Not many cruisers can claim an accolade of taking on capital ships and surviving unscathed.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by RF »

Kyler wrote:
You are correct, but again the lack of communication and strategy was probably the largest blunder committed by the British during the operation.
Yes, but the basic problem for the British was that they never expected the Germans to run the Straits of Dover in daylight, and were unable to react properly when they did.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by Dave Saxton »

The British were relying mainly on radar to apprise them of any channel dash. The Channel was covered by several over lapping radars, mostly on the 150cm wave band but some at 50cm and 10cm. To apprise them of the German ships leaving harbor in the middle of the night (as was required for a day light dash) they sent a patrol bomber with ASV (150cm) radar to patrol the Brest area nightly. The radar on the bomber didn't work this night and the warships passed unseen below. Most likely it was being jammed instead of a malfunction. The Germans had slowing introduced jamming of the channel covering radars in small doses in the days leading up to the dash, and cleverly it mimiced regular atmospherics. One of the British techs was suspicious, but by the time his questions cycled up through the chain of command the dash was already completed. The Germans also successfully jammed most of the British radio communications.

To prevent the British from picking up radar transmissions from the warships themselves and giving away what was up, for the first time, the warships were forbidden to use their own radars. Instead the coastal Seetakt sets, which were normally in operation anyway and so it would not be anything out of the ordinary, would monitor things for the Germans, and the radar sations ashore would relay data to the warships. To help the radars determine friend from foe, the Germans put into operation their new ES system for Seetakt. This was the first operational use of naval radar IFF in WWII.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by RF »

Dave, I take it that this operation could be regarded as the single most successful use of radar by the KM in WW2?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by Dave Saxton »

I guess it could in the sense that they over came the British radar surveilence covering the channel.

As far as utilizing their own equipment I would put Kranke's outstanding use of radar during the Scheer's 5 month cruise ahead of this. Marschall had also used it quite well, especially considering its relative newness and unproveness at the time. There are surprizingly quite a few highlights, as well as the low lights.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by RF »

I believe Detmers in Kormoran had a good appreciation of radar, he did have a bit to say about it in his book, and was furious when the new experimental radar installed on Kormoran wouldn't work when it was tested in the Baltic.

I would also mention that Gumprich also made good use of radar when he commanded Thor on its second cruise in 1942, using it to locate and track target ships at night, as well as for gunnery ranging.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Operation Cerberus: Great Victory or Major Blunder?

Post by aurora »

HMS Sealion was given discretion to patrol the Brest Roads every night from 7th to 11th February at 1900 to 2200. This was done, including recharging her batteries on the surface, and proceeding to sea every day. On station at 1900 / 11th, but forced out to sea at about 2135 to recharge batteries.
iv. Brest, 2030 / 11th, order given to German ships to raise steam.
v. ~2035 / 11th air raid warning sounded, followed by an air raid.
vi. 2100 / 11th, all clear sounded.
vii. 2245 / 11th, German ships weighed anchor.
viii. 2200 / 11th, HMS Sealion recharging her batteries.

Were the Germans aware of Sealion's presence-it certainly would appear so IMO ???
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
Post Reply