Scharnhorst. Was it an avoidable disaster?

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Scharnhorst. Was it an avoidable disaster?

Post by miro777 »

hey

whenever i read something about the Scharnhorst, i must think how senseless the sinking of this great ship was!

If u assume that the decision of the attack of the convoy was already made...how could the Scharnhorst still have survived???

the aid of the destroyers?
the tirpitz?
the Luftwaffe?
U-Boots??

adios
miro
Die See ruft....
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Schranhorst

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Miro and all,

Scharnhorst could have survived the war only if Tirpitz was still undamaged and no 'stupid' operation orders were going to be issued to the North Waters navy group from Berlin.

Norway underground was very active on 1943 and the ships were daily controlled in KaaFjord and LangFjord by 3 different groups of agents not knowing the existance one each other ( for security reasons ).

So the British did had very accurate daily informations about their movements, even about their camouflages.

The Royal Navy task forces were ready to attack in case of Tirpitz coming out with airplanes from aircraft carriers and some battleships.

But on 1943 that was still a problem because Tirpitz was forcing them many ships to be used only for that potential occurrence.

With Tirpitz damaged by X-Crafts on September 22nd 1943 and out of action for 6 months everything changed.

Now Scharnhorst was alone, the British could use the aircraft carriers and the best battleships on other war scenarios, but leaving there to control Scharnhorst only 1 battleship ( the HMS Duke of York ).

They knew that the convoy to Russia were going to bring Scharnhorst out of the Fjord were she was protected, and in fact it happened as planned.

From Berlin Adm Donitz wanted to demonstrate to Hitler that KM warships were still good fighting units and the plan for a total disaster was set up in Berlin, called Operation Ostfront.

Tirpitz was a powerful unit ( more powerful that any single British battleship and for this reason they used lots of precautions ) .. but this was not true for Scharnhorst that was well under the performances of a KG V class battleship like HMS Duke of York.
Only problem was the speed delta( 33 vs 26 knots ), but once damaged it could be easily taken by HMS Duke of York.

They prepared a trap, get trained using HMS Jamaica as dummy Scharnhorst for the destroyers torpedo attack training in Island waters, and waited till the Norwegians told them that Scharnhorst was sailing out of the Fjord.

Than 13 ships ( 1 battleship, 1 heavy cruiser, 3 modern light cruisers and 8 destroyers ) divided in 2 groups against 1 ship plus 4 destroyer was an easy task.

The British executed well and Scharnhorst had no chances, .. plus you have to consider her poor engine maintenance status, .. which could have been another cause of her speed drop on the fatal moment when she almost escaped the trap ( it happened often on Scharnhorts before ).

If you want to read more, I wrote a summary time ago :

http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnh ... front.html

and reading thru Op. Juno I re-constructed as well you can verify yourself that once on the top speed run, .. Scharnhorst had engines problems :

http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnh ... njuno.html

and that happened on Op. Cerberus ( English channel dash or Kanaldurchbruck ) as well, ... so it is more than a feeling.

Plus you can read what was Scharnhorst engine status on 1942-43 :

Scharnhorst on 1942 in the Baltic
At the end of Operation Cerberus Scharnhorst arrived at Wihlemshaven and was put into the 40.000 tons drydock on 14 February 1942.

Damages caused by the 2 mines to the hull were far superior than first thought.
The outher and double bottom required and extensive re-plating on 2 areas for more than 90 meters length on the first and more than 35 m length in the second.
Several turrets had been dislodged from their roller beds.
Main engine foundations and some auxiliary plant were in such a bad condition to suggest a complete overhaul; most of these recommendations were postponed.

Scharnhorst got transferred for the repairs to Kiel some days later, after Adm Schniewind and Gross-Admiral Reader visited the ship at Wilhelmshaven on the drydock.
On March 1942 Kpt zur See K.C Hoffmann got promoted and was substituted by Kpt zur See F. Huffmeier.

After some unsatisfactory sea trials Scharnhorst got transferred to Gotenhafen ( Gdynia ) for working up.
During this period any type of accident occurred to the ship.

She run on a sandbank close to Gdynia, she was refloated by moving some oil from one bunker to another.
She escaped with some luck to a mine explosion after an air raid at Gdynia.
The airplane catapult started working badly and dropped the Arado 196 instead that on the sky on the sea, one crew member died, the other survived.

On October 1942 Kpt zur See F. Huffmeier got substituted by Kpt zur See F. Hintze.

When carrying out exercise with some U-Boot’s out of Kiel she collided with U-523, causing to the submarine minor damages.
Scharnhorst keel was harmed and during November 1942 she got drydocked again.

On 22 December 1942 a severe damage occurred on Scharnhosrt main machinery , which can be close correlated with the recommendations by the technical experts during previous inspections.

While this was occurring and Scharnhorst can only run effectively with only 2 shafts out of 3, the ship was ordered to Norway.

Adm Donitz wanted to save Scharnhorst from de-commissioning and demolition after Op. Regenbogen ( Hipper and Lutzow ) disaster against a convoy on December 1942 and Hitler decision to dismatle all big ships.

It is clear that Scharnhorst sailed to Norway on early 1943 in those critical conditions.
Now you put together all the above, and add the command of ViceAdm Erich Bey which already showed is performances before in Narvik with the destroyers on April 13th, 1940 (all sunk with no enemy damage).

Adm Donitz pushed him up telling him that this was his occasion to show his fighting attitudes and the disaster was complete.

Adm Bey was never going to come back with a failure, he was going to stay there against all odds, and in fact despite been radar blind and with no destroyers anymore he remained there exposing his ship and his crew to the mortal danger.

British could not hope for a better situation, and they closed the trap as planned.

The poor crew of Scharnhorst had no hope once out of LangFjord on those conditions, but they put together a gallant fight against uneven forces and showed how they died with dignity and honor including Adm Bey as far as I know.

Meanwhile Prinz Eugen, Adm Hipper, Adm Scheer and Lutzow plus the light cruisers were de-commissioned in Germany,... Gneisenau works stopped and no aircraft carriers completed ( Graf Zeppelin and Seydlitz ) ...... :?:


Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

hey antonio

haha again GREAT
thanx u r really helping me
u got an answer on all of my question eh?

well i agree that the Scharnhorst did fight with dignity....
and for me it is my favorite ship

also one of most beautiful ones....(wit Hood)

thanx

miro
Die See ruft....
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Scharnhorst

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Miro and all,

OK, glad you liked the informations.

YES, she did fight with honor and dignity and there is not more honor than the one recognized by the enemy.

On this I have to applaude :clap: the fairness of Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser for his famous words about the Scharnhorst fight spent during his Officers briefing after the battle.

Chapeaux guys, .. a great man :clap: .

Ciao Antonio :D
Orville H. Larson
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Post by Orville H. Larson »

SCHARNHORST was ordered to sea by Grand Admiral Donitz against the advice of Naval Group North--and against every tenet of military sense. The weather was horrendous, and there was a lack of intelligence about British movements. In short, everything was against SCHARNHORST's sortie.

Donitz, however, had promised HItler that he'd take the next opportunity to attack a convoy, and SCHARNHORST was, in effect, sacrificed. Tragic loss of a good ship and her crew.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary »

Hi Miro
and for me it is my favorite ship
Snap :cool:

The Scharn is my favourite too.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
Danelov
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:42 am
Location: Bern-Switzerland

Post by Danelov »

I think the sole way to avoid the disaster for Bey was to run with good speed to home after the initial info of the Luftwaffe recco about the presence of enemy heavy units in the area.

But ,we muss considered the pressure of the Kriegsmarine at this time; Doenitz need something of positive to shown the utility of have a surface fleet after the disaster at Barent Sea.

And a retreat without combat was not specially "positive".Loss the ship at sea in combat or loss the ship under bombardement ,like the Tirpitz latter ,few alternatives were available.
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

hey...
i think the Scharnhorst was just a really tragiv loss.

The way the sailors repaired the engine room after the first encounter, to gain speed again, the way she fought against the weather and their superior enemies..was just great.

Antonio, i also :clap: to the British commander.

Respect for your enemy is the greates respect you can ever give anyone.

and i must say, i have the deepest respect for the RN
in all times, they have fought and won.
RESPECT...

adios
miro
Die See ruft....
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Orville H. Larson wrote:SCHARNHORST was ordered to sea by Grand Admiral Donitz against the advice of Naval Group North--and against every tenet of military sense. The weather was horrendous, and there was a lack of intelligence about British movements. In short, everything was against SCHARNHORST's sortie.
I agree 100%. A Luftwaffe plane even picked up the Duke of York on its radar (per Richard Garretts book 'Scharnhorst and Gneisenau') and although this information was passed on by the Luftwaffe, Donitz' staff ignored it. Scharnhorst could have been recalled back to base at this point, nobody wanted to give the order.
Orville H. Larson wrote:Donitz, however, had promised HItler that he'd take the next opportunity to attack a convoy, and SCHARNHORST was, in effect, sacrificed. Tragic loss of a good ship and her crew.
The sacrifice merely served to re-inforce Hitlers' view. His comment to Donitz afterwards: ''I told you so''.
Orville H. Larson
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Post by Orville H. Larson »

Donitz never accepted any responsibility for SCHARNHORST's sinking. To quote from his biographer Peter Padfield:

"Donitz felt the disaster keenly--yet he was unable to accept even a measure of personal responsibility. In his report to HItler, he advanced tactical errors by the force commander--which were indeed made--as the whole cause of the loss. Before long he had convinced himself that 'the idea of using SCHARNHORST during the Arctic night was basically correct.' Taken with other indications--his tendency to try and impress young officers with his collections of paintings or with his closeness to the Fuhrer--Donitz's inability to admit the slightest degree of error suggests that beneath his taut, spare, diamond-hard exterior he was very unsure of himself. This was no doubt why he needed the Fuhrer, and the Nazi creed. On 1 January 1944, he addressed a characteristic New Year message to the navy: 'The Fuhrer shows us the way and the goal. We follow him with body and soul to a great German future. Heil our Fuhrer!'"
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Orville H. Larson wrote:Donitz never accepted any responsibility for SCHARNHORST's sinking. To quote from his biographer Peter Padfield:

"Donitz felt the disaster keenly--yet he was unable to accept even a measure of personal responsibility. In his report to HItler, he advanced tactical errors by the force commander--which were indeed made--as the whole cause of the loss. Before long he had convinced himself that 'the idea of using SCHARNHORST during the Arctic night was basically correct.' Taken with other indications--his tendency to try and impress young officers with his collections of paintings or with his closeness to the Fuhrer--Donitz's inability to admit the slightest degree of error suggests that beneath his taut, spare, diamond-hard exterior he was very unsure of himself. This was no doubt why he needed the Fuhrer, and the Nazi creed. On 1 January 1944, he addressed a characteristic New Year message to the navy: 'The Fuhrer shows us the way and the goal. We follow him with body and soul to a great German future. Heil our Fuhrer!'"
This illustrates the whole problem - that of politics. Donitz can easily explain away the loss of Scharnhorst to his Fuhrer, as he knows that Hitler isn't going to debate tactics with him.
Donitz was the Kriegsmarine C in C. He had the means to be in possession of the relevant facts, namely the radar sighting report from the Luftwaffe officer Marx. Nothing was done, Donitz wanted a political victory - his personal feelings afterward suggest to me that he realised that.

The quotation from Padfield shows a very different Donitz to the one of 1938 when he (and Lutjens) conveyed to Raeder their disgust at the Reich Krystallnacht (Ludovic Kennedys' book refers).
Post Reply