Prev: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding Next: RE: [GZG] [CON] Six weeks to GZG ECC IX

Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:02:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

On 1/16/06, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> > Of course, what throws the math off is that you'd never
> > find an SDN running around by itself.
>
> Bismarck? I concur, more or less, with the rest of John's
> post.

She left port and linked up with the Prinz Eugene (a heavy cruiser)
and 3 destroyers, but the destroyers were detached after the stop in
Norway and were sent to Trondheim.  I cannot locate a reason why this
happened.  After the first fight with the Hood and Prince of Wales,
the undamaged Prinz Eugene was ordered to detach himself from the
Bismarck and conduct independant cruiser operations (merchant
raiding).  The Bismarck was attempting to run for a port to conduct
repairs when he was located by carrier aircraft and torpedoed, causing
him to slow down further and eventually ending in his destruction at
the hands of a squadron of 2 Brit battleships and 2 heavy cruisers.

I submit that this was a freak event, caused by a number factors. 
First, the German Navy had a minimal surface combatant force and as a
result focused on fast ships intended for independant commerce raiding
rather than decisive engagements with the RN's battleline.  Second,
the decision to ditch the escorts early on, which baffles me.  Third,
the decision that getting the Prinz Eugene into action against convoys
was more important than nursemaiding the Bismarck back into port.

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Prev: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding Next: RE: [GZG] [CON] Six weeks to GZG ECC IX