Military Review

How powerful was the Kriegsmarine?

127
Indeed, thanks to our former allies and the memoirs of the losers, we are more or less imbued with the thought that the German fleet in World War II was something quite formidable, terrible and difficult to destroy. But is it?



How bad are German admirals?


In fact, only the submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine really looked like a kind of hydra, which instead of one cut off head grew three.

How powerful was the Kriegsmarine?

But with the surface forces, everything was very sad. And the effectiveness of the surface forces of the Third Reich was no more than, say, that of the Italian or Soviet fleet... Which, by the way, is only confirmed by the fact that since 1943, Hitler sent large ships to suck. To avoid new losses.

To be fair, I will note that Stalin did this even earlier. But here the point is in the Soviet admirals, who quickly showed their complete inadequacy for such a delicate matter as naval management.

But who said the German admirals were better?

List of losses. Yes, it is he who can tell a lot about the professional suitability of German admirals best of all.

Let's see how and under what circumstances the Germans lost their warships.

Let's agree that we will go from top to bottom, because everyone knows and understands (I hope) that commanding a battleship is one thing, but a minesweeper is completely different.

The only class that will rightly stand aside is the raiders, they are also auxiliary cruisers. Because these guys have done such cases, which must be considered from a completely different angle.

So, let's stir up the wave.

Battleships


"Bismarck"



The heroic "Bismarck" was lost in a series of events, which can only be called "strange". In general, the commander of the ship Lutyens did everything to make the ship lost, and he succeeded.

Tell me, was it really incomprehensible that after such a slap in the face as the sinking of the Hood, the British would torn their flag, but would try to find the German battleship and drown it? Why did they have to bombard Berlin with their dispatches, which, by the way, were used to find the Bismarck?

Further (in general, this was discussed thousands of times) Lutyens did not take appropriate measures in order to wedge the rudders. Could give an order allowing an explosion to wedge? I could. I was afraid for the shafts. As a result, "Bismarck" went to the bottom with perfectly balanced shafts, but completely useless in this case.

Summary: a stupid loss due to a not quite daring command.

"Tirpitz"



In three lines: he lived a sin, died funny. Throughout the war, hiding in the skerries and fighting only on the information front is a shame for a battleship. Well, at least he accepted death under the bombs like a battleship.

Scharnhorst



I have a twofold attitude towards the fate of this ship. Captain 1st Rank Hinze and Rear Admiral Bey in command of the operation knew that convoy JW 55B was guarded by the battleship Duke of York, the cruiser Jamaica and 4 destroyers. And that in the area somewhere there is a return convoy RA 55A, which included the cruisers Sheffield, Belfast and Norfolk with eight more destroyers.

The Scharnhorst and 5 destroyers in principle could pose a huge problem for the British cover group, but Bey sent the destroyers to look for the convoy further south, as they still could not make contact. As a result, the Scharnhorst was left alone. Several times the battleship went on the attack, a couple of times it broke away from the convoy, but ... The British battleship, one heavy and three light cruisers, 8 destroyers left the German ship no chance.

Very heroic, but very stupid.

Gneisenau



This ship did not die heroically at all. Since at the time of his death, the question of its restoration was not raised. He got too good from aviation British, and therefore it was sunk by their own to block the channel.

Heavy cruisers


Deutschland / Lutzow



It was blown up by its own crew in May 1945 at Swinemunde, where it sat aground after being hit by British bombs and was used as a battery.

Admiral Scheer



Sunk by British aircraft during a raid on the city of Kiel in 1945.

"Admiral Graf Spee"



Raider in the Atlantic. Sank 11 British ships. Was caught by a detachment of their heavy and two light cruisers, took the battle. The heavy cruiser Exeter and the light Ajax were significantly damaged.

The commander of the ship Lansdorf succumbed to the provocation of the British. He believed that other ships were also taking part in the hunt for the Spee, and blew up and sank the cruiser.

Perhaps controversial, but very mediocre.

"Admiral Hipper"



Destroyed by British aircraft during the raid on Kiel in 1945.

"Blucher"



Killed in the first military operation in 1939. Passing through the Oslo fiord, he received several hits from 281-mm and 150-mm shells and torpedoes from Fort Oskarborg. Sank.


"Prince Eugen"




Went through the whole war. Sank near Kwajalein Atoll, where he took part in atomic tests as a target.

Light cruisers


"Emden"



Sunk by British aircraft during a raid on the city of Kiel.

"Konigsberg"



Sunk 10 April 1940 by British Skewa bombers. Actually, you could say that it's a shame. It was possible to fight off Skew with MG.34.

Karlsruhe



Sunk 9 April 1940. First hit by a torpedo from a British submarine, then finished off their own.

"Cologne"



Sunk by Allied aircraft at Wilhelmshaven.

Destroyers



Leberecht Maas. Sunk by his aircraft due to lack of information in 1939.
Georg Thiele. Sunk by British destroyers in 1940 in Narvik.
"Max Schultz". He was blown up by a mine in 1939 and died along with the entire crew.
"Hermann Schemann". Sunk by damaged cruiser Edinuburg during an attack by convoy QP-14.
Bruno Heinemann. Blown up by British mines in 1942.
Wolfgang Zenker. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Bernd von Arnim. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Erich Giese. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Erich Kellner. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Friedrich Ekoldt. Sunk on 26 December 1942 by the British cruiser Sheffield.
Dieter von Raeder. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Hans Lüdemann. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Hermann Künne. Sunk in April 1940 by British destroyers in Narvik.
Wilhelm Heidkamp. Sunk at First Battle of Narvik on 11 April 1940.
"Anton Schmidt". Sunk at First Battle of Narvik on 10 April 1940.

And we could stop at this. Below, with minesweepers, "snellbots" and other little things, everything was not much better. But not much worse. You yourself understand that they will not put the lieutenant in command of the cruiser, they will just give him a boat. Survived - went higher, no ... Well, there were enough boats at all times.

What can you say after seeing this mournful list? Correctly, it would be nice to put the British next to it. But Britain has fought all over the world, in all seas and all oceans. Including where only completely reckless guys swam on German raiders.

We look at the German statistics.

German statistics


Of the 4 battleships, three were lost completely mediocre. Especially Tirpitz, a colleague of our Marat. It's sad, of course, when a huge and mighty warship dies like this: without firing a single shot at the enemy, without causing any damage.

Downed planes, sorry, do not count. Too, you know, the price is different.

Three of the six heavy cruisers were lost in situations akin to Bismarck's. The leader, of course, is the Admiral Graf Spee, who could at least try to scatter the thoroughly battered British light cruisers and leave.

Two of the six light cruisers also died in situations that do not show the ship command in the best light. Karlsruhe received one British (not the most powerful in the world) torpedo. In a similar situation, the British "Edinburgh" received three German, but not only did not sink immediately, but also sent the "Hans Sheman" to the bottom. Here is one torpedo - and that's it, hands lowered, the ship was sunk.

With "Konigsberg" is also peculiar. Yes, they missed the battery on the shore. Yes, we received three 210-mm projectiles, but: they could give a course within 22-24 knots, the rudders worked, the anti-aircraft guns fired. Do not fight off the Skewa, which flew at a speed of 300 km / h and carried one a 227-kg bomb ... Yes, there were 15 bombers, but there were more than one Königsberg.

With destroyers it is both simple and difficult at the same time. At the start of the war, Germany had 21 destroyers, and 19 more were built. Total 40.

Of the 21 ships of pre-war construction, 10 (that is, half) were lost during the operation to capture Norway. In general, Norway cost Germany very dearly: 1 heavy, 2 light cruisers and 10 destroyers. Enumeration on all articles.

But the main, as these ships were lost. In general, the battle of Narvik is worthy of a separate detailed analysis, since it is the best example of the quality of training of German naval commanders. More precisely, the lack of this quality.


Erich Giese shortly before its final.

No less interesting and instructive история the death of Leberecht Maas and Max Schultz, which also indicates problems in the training of ship commanders.

The weakness of the surface fleet


In general, if we talk about how effectively the Kriegsmarine worked, then we can say this: the Kriegsmarine acted just fine ... for the British media. By the very fact of its existence, it justified all the costs and expenses of maintaining the British fleet. Although, as the practice of that war showed, the sting of the British battleships turned out to be, to put it mildly, ineffective. Sinking "Bismarck" and "Scharnhorst", of course, is a big deal, but for the sake of this, keep 19 battleships ...


British navy parade at Spithead. 1936 g.

And yet they did. The world of capitalism, money and nothing personal, as they say. If 2 full-fledged German battleships and 2 inferior ones ("Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", if the readers do not mind), with "small-caliber" (by the standards of this class of ships) 283-mm guns were sufficient reason to keep a pack of 19 battleships and cruisers ...

Then the Kriegsmarine even exceeded its task, since from time to time the Royal Navy even suffered losses from the German fleet. The Kriegsmarine surface unit has 1 aircraft carrier, 1 battle cruiser and 4 destroyers. The rest of the losses of the British fleet are on the conscience of the submarine forces and the Luftwaffe.

Here it can be said that Versailles, with its limitations, played a role, and the ranks of the Kriegsmarine did not have as many properly trained sailors as the High Seas Fleet. Alas, it is quite possible. And if the ships of the Kriegsmarine were commanded by sea wolves from that fleet, perhaps such stupid losses could have been avoided.

But it turned out what happened, history is a harmful thing. And there is a reason in the way many historians present "merit" to the Kriegsmarine. Although the actions of submarine forces and raiders deserve respect at least.

But the combat actions of a handful of ships that personified the "power" of the surface unit of the German fleet, alas, cannot be called successful. And this is largely due to the commanders of the German ships, who did not have the proper level of training, and therefore did not show themselves in anything.

Although, of course, there were quite good crews in the German fleet. For example, "Prince Eugen" was manned at the most tolerable level, which was shown by its combat path. And his relative "Admiral Hipper" fought pretty well.

But we'll talk about this a little later. There, where we will analyze such naval mysteries as the missing destroyer Kriegsmarine or how to lose 10 ships and not get into the Gestapo.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  2. certero
    certero 7 December 2020 18: 30
    +8
    In fairness, it should be noted that the destroyers in Narvik were sunk not without the help of a British battleship
    1. 210ox
      210ox 7 December 2020 18: 59
      +13
      Yes, they fought as best they could. Or how the circumstances developed. By the way, Lutyens did not command Bismarck. He was an admiral, was present as a supervising superiors. The battleship commander was different. It is difficult to blame the crews of the Kriegsmarine for their lack of morale. There is nothing to say about the submarine, they wrote their wills before going to sea.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 19: 12
        +19
        Quote: 210ox
        He was an admiral, was present as a supervising superiors. The battleship commander was different.

        The Germans had such a term - "brown ship": a ship on board which is an admiral.
        According to the politeness of those times, the admiral "usurped" power and became, so to speak, a "supercaptain" ...
        Bismarck is a classic example of this ...
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 8 December 2020 05: 56
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          The Germans had such a term - "brown ship": a ship on board which is an admiral.
          According to the politeness of those times, the admiral "usurped" power and became, so to speak, a "supercaptain" ...

          Isn't it so with us? If there was a "provide" on board, it might not be a ship, but the latrines definitely turned brown.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 December 2020 19: 37
      +12
      Quote: certero
      In fairness, it should be noted that the destroyers in Narvik were sunk not without the help of a British battleship

      For the Germans, this is even worse: it turns out that ten EVs could not sink or damage the LK, which was shackled in maneuvering skerries. smile
      1. La Peruse
        La Peruse 7 December 2020 20: 26
        +1
        So without ammo and fuel were, just the transport was waiting, which was British and on the way safely drowned. As a result, the German destroyers could not leave nor give battle.
        1. unknown
          unknown 9 December 2020 05: 56
          -1
          Initially, there was something wrong with the German destroyers.
          For example, the American Farragut-class destroyers carried 5 * 127mm, 2 * 4mm, had a cruising range of 533 miles at 6500 knots, and a speed of up to 12 knots. And all this with a standard displacement of 36-5 tons.
          German destroyers of types 34 and 34A had a standard displacement of 2171 tons.
          And the corresponding dimensions. And armament corresponding to the type "Farragut".
          With such a standard displacement, was it worth bothering with Wagner and Benson boilers?
          And the displacement and volume would be enough to accommodate a KTU with non-critical steam parameters.
          The displacement and volume would be enough to accommodate a larger volume of fuel and more ammunition.
          In such a standard displacement, it was quite possible to create a ship with good seaworthiness and a long cruising range, and a more reliable KTU.
          And later, in the next series, with an increase in the standard displacement. switch to arms 4 * 2 * 127 mm.
  3. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 18: 34
    +31
    In short ...

    To be fair, I will note that Stalin did this even earlier. But here the point is in the Soviet admirals, who quickly showed their complete inadequacy for such a delicate matter as naval management.

    The author needs to google when there was a "New Year's battle", and when - operation "Verp".

    Why did they have to bombard Berlin with their dispatches, which, by the way, found the Bismarck?

    At the time of sending the radiogram, British radio intercepts did not give an unambiguous answer that contact had been lost.

    Further (in general, this was discussed thousands of times) Lutyens did not take appropriate measures in order to wedge the rudders.

    Another "now if I, then I would ..." :)

    Summary: a stupid loss due to a not quite daring command.

    All the same, I would like to see the author on the admiral's bridge of "Bismarck".

    In three lines: he lived a sin, died funny.

    The fact that the ship prevented the British from freely using the Metropolitan Fleet for two years, of course, does not count ... :)

    Captain 1st Rank Hinze and Rear Admiral Bey in command of the operation knew that convoy JW 55B was guarded by the battleship Duke of York, the cruiser Jamaica and 4 destroyers.

    As usual, the author broke to read the materiel ...
    The Scharnhorst learned about Seedinenia-2 only after the second battle, already on the way back.

    but Bey sent the destroyers to look for the convoy further south, as he still could not make contact.

    The author, as usual, is not in the subject ... :)

    The commander of the ship Lansdorf succumbed to the provocation of the British. He believed that other ships were also taking part in the hunt for the Spee, and blew up and sank the cruiser.

    As you can see from the author's article on pickpockets, he is not at all in the subject of the technical condition of the "Spee" and other trifles ...

    Actually, you could say that it's a shame. Skew could be fought off with MG.34.

    The author probably has a lot of experience in this area ... :)

    Yes, we received three 210-mm projectiles, but: they could give a move within 22-24 knots, the rudders worked, the anti-aircraft guns fired. Not to fight off the Skewa, which flew at a speed of 300 km / h and carried one 227-kg bomb ... Yes, there were 15 bombers, but the Konigsberg was not alone.

    Another piece of advice to the author (which, as usual, he won't read): before writing articles, read books on the subject ...
    "Königsberg" was in the port at the pier. :)

    Although, as the practice of that war showed, the sting of the British battleships turned out to be, to put it mildly, ineffective.

    The author again "turned on" the strategist ... :)

    Although, of course, there were quite good crews in the German fleet. For example, "Prince Eugen" was manned at the most tolerable level, which was shown by its combat path. And his relative "Admiral Hipper" fought pretty well.

    Interesting criteria for crew training ... :)
    1. Eldorado
      Eldorado 7 December 2020 19: 08
      +5
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      In short ...

      To be fair, I will note that Stalin did this even earlier. But here the point is in the Soviet admirals, who quickly showed their complete inadequacy for such a delicate matter as naval management.

      The author needs to google when there was a "New Year's battle", and when - operation "Verp".

      Why did they have to bombard Berlin with their dispatches, which, by the way, found the Bismarck?

      At the time of sending the radiogram, British radio intercepts did not give an unambiguous answer that contact had been lost.

      Further (in general, this was discussed thousands of times) Lutyens did not take appropriate measures in order to wedge the rudders.

      Another "now if I, then I would ..." :)

      Summary: a stupid loss due to a not quite daring command.

      All the same, I would like to see the author on the admiral's bridge of "Bismarck".

      In three lines: he lived a sin, died funny.

      The fact that the ship prevented the British from freely using the Metropolitan Fleet for two years, of course, does not count ... :)

      Captain 1st Rank Hinze and Rear Admiral Bey in command of the operation knew that convoy JW 55B was guarded by the battleship Duke of York, the cruiser Jamaica and 4 destroyers.

      As usual, the author broke to read the materiel ...
      The Scharnhorst learned about Seedinenia-2 only after the second battle, already on the way back.

      but Bey sent the destroyers to look for the convoy further south, as he still could not make contact.

      The author, as usual, is not in the subject ... :)

      The commander of the ship Lansdorf succumbed to the provocation of the British. He believed that other ships were also taking part in the hunt for the Spee, and blew up and sank the cruiser.

      As you can see from the author's article on pickpockets, he is not at all in the subject of the technical condition of the "Spee" and other trifles ...

      Actually, you could say that it's a shame. Skew could be fought off with MG.34.

      The author probably has a lot of experience in this area ... :)

      Yes, we received three 210-mm projectiles, but: they could give a move within 22-24 knots, the rudders worked, the anti-aircraft guns fired. Not to fight off the Skewa, which flew at a speed of 300 km / h and carried one 227-kg bomb ... Yes, there were 15 bombers, but the Konigsberg was not alone.

      Another piece of advice to the author (which, as usual, he won't read): before writing articles, read books on the subject ...
      "Königsberg" was in the port at the pier. :)

      Although, as the practice of that war showed, the sting of the British battleships turned out to be, to put it mildly, ineffective.

      The author again "turned on" the strategist ... :)

      Although, of course, there were quite good crews in the German fleet. For example, "Prince Eugen" was manned at the most tolerable level, which was shown by its combat path. And his relative "Admiral Hipper" fought pretty well.

      Interesting criteria for crew training ... :)

      This is Skomorokhov that you wanted ...
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 19: 14
        +15
        Quote: El Dorado
        This is Skomorokhov that you wanted ...

        You won’t believe it, but I know ... drinks
      2. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 8 December 2020 05: 58
        +1
        Quote: El Dorado
        This is Skomorokhov that you wanted ...

        A typical view of the sofa GENERAL. I hope the ADMIRALS will correct him now.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 December 2020 19: 46
      +7
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      The author probably has a lot of experience in this area ... :)

      Uh-huh ... it is especially good to read this against the background of the well-known report that even 20-mm is not enough for the "Val": they shoot down planes, but alas - after the bomb has been dropped.
      1. Alf
        Alf 8 December 2020 19: 27
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        The author probably has a lot of experience in this area ... :)

        Uh-huh ... it is especially good to read this against the background of the well-known report that even 20-mm is not enough for the "Val": they shoot down planes, but alas - after the bomb has been dropped.

        I heard the phrase “If 20-millimeter paper starts to shoot, then it's time to jump overboard.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 01: 23
      +3
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      All the same, I would like to see the author on the admiral's bridge of "Bismarck".

      Hmm, why do you dislike Germans so much?

      Although, of course, it is sad to read crafts in such a tone. Both the sailors of Lutyens and the sailors of Bay accepted death as heroes of the northern sagas. Regardless of the issues of the righteousness of their cause and the righteousness of their lives, such a fate is respected by any normal person.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 8 December 2020 18: 27
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Hmm, why do you dislike Germans so much?

        As my boss sometimes asked the question "Why? .." - "What would you do in my place?"
        And after the answer I started "debriefing" - it was instructive and interesting. :)
  4. Looking for
    Looking for 7 December 2020 18: 40
    +3
    Not tired of sucking on the same thing ??? !!!
  5. Catfish
    Catfish 7 December 2020 18: 40
    +10
    "Nuremberg" we got a trophy, in the Baltic Fleet, it seems, served under the name "Admiral Makarov".
    "Nuremberg"

    "Makarov"
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 7 December 2020 19: 05
      +4
      Duc yes. Only the author has not said anything about "Leipzig" smile
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 7 December 2020 19: 18
        +5
        "Leipzig" also survived the surrender and was sunk in July 1946, apparently nobody needed it.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 7 December 2020 20: 17
          +5
          I know. The fact is that after a torpedo hit on 13.12.1939/24/44 in the engine room "Leipzig" after repair had only XNUMX knots and was downgraded to a training ship. And after the collision with "Eugen" in October XNUMX, the ship was turned into a non-self-propelled training ship and excluded from the lists of the fleet hi Therefore, no one needed it - there is a lot of fuss with repairs what
  6. Undecim
    Undecim 7 December 2020 18: 52
    +21
    Reading such articles by prominent naval commanders, generals and others ... the voices with whom the Internet is crowded today, a well-known anecdote immediately comes to mind.
    A man came to the circus and offers a super-number:
    For a number you need trifles: a cannonball weighing a ton, a vat of shit and a white coat.
    The essence of the issue: a vat with shit is placed in the middle of the arena, the light is extinguished and a cannonball falls into this vat from under the dome. The light turns on, the whole hall is in shit and then I go out to the drumming in a white dress coat.
    The author at least bothered to look at the Bismarck's damage diagram and the structure of its propeller-rudder group, before discussing the "explosion wedging".
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 19: 02
      +23
      Quote: Undecim
      The author at least bothered to look at the Bismarck's damage diagram and the structure of its propeller-rudder group, before discussing the "explosion wedging".

      You don't even need to look ... You just need to read. You don't even need to strain, for there is translation.
      In the memoirs of Baron von Müllenheim-Regberg "Battleship" Bismarck "there is a whole Appendix D" Damage to the rudder: have all the possibilities been used ".
      But why??? :)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2020 11: 29
        +1
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        In the memoirs of Baron von Müllenheim-Regberg "Battleship" Bismarck "there is a whole Appendix D" Damage to the rudder: have all the possibilities been used ".

        They removed it from the language :)
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 7 December 2020 18: 58
    +15
    And this is largely due to the commanders of the German ships, who did not have the proper level of training, and therefore did not show themselves in anything.

    And nothing that over all the command of the Kriegsmarine dominated the order of himself winked do not engage in battle with enemy heavy ships. If the number of battleships in WWII still allowed the Germans to hope to destroy at least part of the enemy's fleet, then the situation when you have only 2 (two) full-fledged battleships does not allow the British to butt with a fleet of 15 pennants (in the 39th year). Therefore, the Germans in almost all skirmishes with heavy ships were forced to engage in battle. request And sometimes even in completely unfavorable conditions for themselves. Who knows how Lutyens would have behaved if he had managed to secretly sneak into the Atlantic without damage. Langsdorf's task is to fight the merchant fleet. Therefore, the situation in which he found himself is very twofold. On the other side of the world, with not fatal, but damage. Discovered by warships (which he should have avoided) and driven into a trap. I would not wish any commander to be in such a situation ..
    That is what was stupidly carried out, so it was the New Year's "battle" on December 31, 1942. But the war in the stormy waves of the North Atlantic is no match for the war in what a thread of cloudless tropics. And the sinking of the Scharnhorst is more a coincidence than a regularity. If the nasal radar had not been out of order, the Germans could have found the Duke of York earlier and got away, but ...
    Fortune, she is such a thing, but the Germans were just terribly unlucky in WWII.
    By cruisers. The German aces sent three light cruisers to the bottom just off Crete. But again - for the Germans, the loss of 2 cruisers out of 9 is sensitive, and the loss of 3 English cruisers out of the total 50 does not affect the overall balance of forces.
    So it is with destroyers.
    So I would be careful not to spread rot on the Hans. They both knew how and fought with the minuscule (in comparison with the Kaiser's fleet in WWI) that they had.
    Everything is relative. request
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 19: 09
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Who knows how Lutyens would have behaved if he had managed to secretly sneak into the Atlantic without damage.

      Yes, in general, it is clear how he led: on the face of Operation Berlin, which was also commanded by Lutyens.

      Quote: Rurikovich
      That is what was stupidly carried out, so this is the New Year's "battle" on December 31, 1942.

      In general, as Comrade. Stalin, every defect has a first and last name ...
      This defect has a first and last name - Captain zur see Rudolf Stange.

      Quote: Rurikovich
      If the nasal radar had not been disabled, the Germans could have detected the Duke of York earlier and escaped, but ...

      Taking into account the fact that the German REO, most likely, was cut down, the question is debatable.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 7 December 2020 19: 24
        +3
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        operation "Berlin"

        Again - a common precaution against escorting 15 "battleship convoys. I wouldn't go too request Do not forget - the Germans actually fought on foreign territory and any fatal damage to the ship is fraught with its loss. Who knows, if Lutyens got on the way of convoys with "Bismarck" and not weak "W" and "G", maybe there would be more impudence. Though we won't know it anymore smile
        This defect has a first and last name

        General defeatist sentiments coupled with fear of heavy ships request smile
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Taking into account the fact that the German REO, most likely, was cut down, the question is debatable.

        what Greetings from Norfolk during the first skirmish with escort cruisers JW55B -
        Another shell a few minutes later hit the nasal rangefinders and covered the anti-aircraft artillery servants with shrapnel. Destroyed the antenna of the bow radar, and the debris entered the cabin of the receiving radar station, killing all the personnel there. The ship was "blind" from the bow angles, approximately 69-80 °, since the stern radar, located below the bow, had a limited forward angle of action

        Something like this repeat request
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 19: 37
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Who knows, if Lutyens got on the way of convoys with "Bismarck" and not weak "W" and "G", maybe there would be more impudence.

          In general, there were directives for this.

          Quote: Rurikovich
          General defeatist sentiments coupled with fear of heavy ships

          Not ... There really Shtange pretended to be a hose: Kummets's plan worked 100%, and this comrade, coming out head-on to the convoy, wrote in the ZhBD "the situation is not clear" refused to do anything ...

          Quote: Rurikovich
          Greetings from Norfolk during the first skirmish with escort cruisers JW55B -

          The stern radar has not been canceled ...
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 7 December 2020 19: 58
            +3
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            The stern radar has not been canceled ...

            With the nasal radar destroyed and the stern radar turned off, moreover unable to search straight ahead, Scharnhorst went straight into a trap from which there was no way out.
            Apparently it was in this situation that there was no use from him. The Germans assumed that in the stormy sea their heavier ship would break away from the British cruisers, therefore they turned off the stern, so that
            so as not to reveal himself to be his work.

            And who knows, "DOY" went to the intersection of the "W" course, work aft, maybe you would have noticed where the thread is abeam just before the collision. But ... the bow was broken, and the viewing angle of the stern was limited at the bow corners by the bow superstructure ... request
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 20: 14
              +1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Apparently it was in this situation that there was no use from him.

              In general, the stern radar could turn out to the bow at a sufficient angle to "see" the British not approaching ... If it were turned on.
            2. Lionnvrsk
              Lionnvrsk 7 December 2020 21: 16
              0
              Quote: Rurikovich
              so that
              that

              Anchor, another anchor! repeat
      2. unknown
        unknown 9 December 2020 06: 02
        -1
        I already earlier, in the comments to another article, noted that Scharnhorst had a vulnerability in the form of commings. If the Germans raised the deck when designing the ship, the horizontal part would take the projectile. Perhaps the consequences would have been different. The ship would not have lost speed, and was able to break away. In addition, the ship was overloaded during construction. The deck was below.
        "Oslyabya" is immediately remembered.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 18: 15
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          I already earlier, in the comments to another article

          As I said, probably in the same place: not the fact that it was a shell ... :)
  8. fa2998
    fa2998 7 December 2020 19: 20
    +3
    Quote: 210ox
    Yes, they fought as best they could.

    Yes, the experience is not comparable with the British, and the quantitative composition of large ships is not comparable - but they fought! They went on campaigns thousands of miles, inflicted damage on the enemy's Navy, and died in battle.
    For example, the Italian fleet, for large ships, is much stronger, but has not achieved anything. Or conscientious-battleships, floating batteries, the overwhelming number of shells fired along the coast (and their own). I think battleships are built for other purposes. hi hi
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 December 2020 20: 38
      +8
      Quote: fa2998
      For example, the Italian fleet, on large ships, is much stronger, but has not achieved anything.

      Oddly enough, but one task Supermarina did complete - organized a normal supply of forces in Africa, 1500-2500 tons per day.
      Quote: fa2998
      Or conscientious-battleships-floating batteries, the overwhelming number of shells fired along the coast (and their own). I think battleships are built for other purposes.

      What did you want from the first generation LC? EMNIP, by that time the main participants in the war had only 6 of them left: our trinity "Sev", a couple of Frenchmen ("Courbet" with "Paris") and an American "Orc Kansas Arkansas "
      1. fa2998
        fa2998 7 December 2020 21: 06
        0
        Well, I think that transports accompanied by destroyers and light cruisers and other light forces took part in the supply of the troops. And we are talking about battleships.
        And the Soviet Black Sea Fleet could have given the Romanians and others a good bath, and not stand in Tuapse!
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 21: 20
          +1
          Quote: fa2998
          And the Soviet Black Sea Fleet could have given the Romanians and others a good bath, and not stand in Tuapse!

          But why?
          Especially considering that the main "mixers" for the Black Sea Fleet were the German "two".
          1. fa2998
            fa2998 9 December 2020 19: 23
            0
            I think the main "stirrers" were Ju-87, and the "colleagues"
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 01: 26
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        by that time, the main participants in the war had only 6 of them left

        Technically Italians, but they are well cut.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 December 2020 10: 37
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Technically Italians, but they are well cut.

          The Italian old men WWII are the 1 1/2 generation. The first generation they had was "polubachny Sevastopol" - "Dante Alighieri". smile
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 December 2020 19: 31
    +8
    The leader, of course, is the Admiral Graf Spee, who could at least try to scatter the thoroughly battered British light cruisers and leave.

    You won't get far without fuel filters. Moreover, a day after the battle, a fresh Cumberland SRT joined the pair of battered KRLs. And "Spee", EMNIP, has only a third of the BC for 28 cm.
    And yet they did. The world of capitalism, money and nothing personal, as they say. If 2 full-fledged German battleships and 2 inferior ones ("Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", if the readers do not mind), with "small-caliber" (by the standards of this class of ships) 283-mm guns were sufficient reason to keep a pack of 19 battleships and cruisers ...

    The Empire had other theaters of war - the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia.
  10. Alf
    Alf 7 December 2020 19: 46
    +6
    But here the point is in the Soviet admirals, who quickly showed their complete inadequacy for such a delicate matter as naval management.

    Ay, maladtsa, author! Well, how not to kick the Soviet fleet ...
    I went to the fleets.
    1. Black Sea Fleet. Who to fight with? Chasing Romanian patrolmen and German BDB cruisers? Moreover, there is a "free" passage through the Bosphorus ..
    2. Pacific Fleet. Of course, the stupid Soviet admirals did not understand that the submarine with Malyutki and several destroyers could smash the Japanese fleet, by the way, the second or third in the world. And if you chase the German raiders on Malyutki, then how can you catch up with these same raiders, yes, in fact, where can you get them near Japan ...
    3. Baltic Fleet. A fleet tightly sealed in Kronstadt. Who to fight with? With the Finnish fleet in two coastal battleships? Or with neutral Sweden? And Skomorokhov apparently does not know about German aviation ...
    4. Northern Fleet. Perhaps the only fleet of the USSR, which fought with all his might throughout the war. So there were no large ships on it.
    Author! Are you aware of the Great Shipbuilding Program, in which the RKKF would receive the heavy cruisers Kronstadt, and the battleships Soviet Union and many? Then there would be something to fight ..
    And you have only stupid admirals. All commanders of all countries and times fought based on real forces.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 7 December 2020 20: 22
      +1
      Skomorokhov quite definitely expressed his opinion about the Red Army Navy in his past publications. I'm just wondering - whose WWII fleet will deserve its praise?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 December 2020 20: 30
      +10
      Quote: Alf
      1. Black Sea Fleet. Who to fight with? Chasing Romanian patrolmen and German BDB cruisers? Moreover, there is a "free" passage through the Bosphorus ..

      All this, of course. good ... but to lose 1 LD and 2 EM out of the blue in the third year of the war, with the last of them already within the radius of coastal Yaks, is too much.
      Quote: Alf
      3. Baltic Fleet. A fleet tightly sealed in Kronstadt. Who to fight with? With the Finnish fleet in two coastal battleships? Or with neutral Sweden?

      Provide support to the army. Normal support - not "land a battalion on the shore, lose contact with it, and decide that it should be." It was possible to reach the landing zone even with "hundred parts" - but the battalion went into non-return. And so several times.
      Either do not leave the FZ islands behind Lavensaari, organizing their normal defense, or normally organize landings to recapture the islands. And not as in real life: they landed a landing, the Finns brought in superior forces - and that's it, the Arctic fox came to the landing.
      Do not fight submarines against the PLO line in 1943, especially in the summer, with its short nights.
      1. Alf
        Alf 7 December 2020 20: 39
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        or normally organize landings to recapture the islands.

        Were there any landing ships?
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Provide support to the army.

        Not about that. The author laments that the large ships of the RKKF did not go on long-distance raids, did not arrange battles such as the Mediterranean or the Pacific.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        but to lose in the third year of the war out of the blue 1 LD and 2 EM, with the last of them already inside the radius of the coastal Yaks, is too much.

        I do not argue that it was. But to talk about the Soviet admirals that they are incapable and stupid .. And the author does not want to remember the battle in Leyte Gulf? And how many stupid things were done by German admirals, American and British admirals, too, one air cover of Repals and Prince out of 4 (!) Buffaloes is worth a lot .. But the author only has our admirals stupid, but inept.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 01: 29
      +2
      Quote: Alf
      Black Sea Fleet. Who to fight with?

      Really. If Halsey came there with TF38 - if only Philip Sergeich would turn around)))
  11. Avior
    Avior 7 December 2020 19: 58
    +8
    Roman wrote something wrong
    List of losses. Yes, it is he who can tell a lot about the professional suitability of German admirals best of all.

    Why not a list of victories, for example?
    Indeed, the German fleet was greatly inferior to the allies, nevertheless it had quite a victory for itself.
    And according to the author's text
    Tirpitz, in fact, single-handedly paralyzed the huge forces of the allies by the very fact of his presence in the combat area.
    And the commanders of Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Spee had to develop the gift of foresight, perhaps, in order to foresee the future in detail? So it seems that they did not even demanded this from the Aryans, although Anenerge had some ideas on this matter, but they did not seem to be included in the orders for the Kriegsmarine? Or to foresee potMessing in the ship's crew? You called and asked whether to send destroyers or not? And how would the destroyers help him? They would have melted them only for the company.
    About Blucher, who was shot at point blank range and whose entire death, including the Germans, captured Norway, which created quite a few problems for both the Allies and us. What did he do wrong?
    Strange, in general, article ...
  12. bandabas
    bandabas 7 December 2020 20: 18
    -8
    Germany had a completely combat-ready fleet, taking into account the Versailles agreement. The question is why and why Germany started a war with the USSR. Answer - "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia, if there is Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible." Harry Truman.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 7 December 2020 20: 46
      +2
      Quote: bandabas
      The question is why and why Germany started a war with the USSR.

      and what, someone here asked this question?
      how is it to the subject?
      1. bandabas
        bandabas 7 December 2020 20: 56
        -5
        To each his own.
    2. Avior
      Avior 7 December 2020 21: 05
      +7
      At that time, Harry Truman is a senator, like a wagon and a cart in the States, few people are interested in his advice.
      And the advice from the point of view of US interests was very correct. Fortunately for us, Roosevelt did not listen to him, otherwise One superpower would have emerged from the Second World War, the second drained of blood for decades ahead and destroyed.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 7 December 2020 22: 57
        0
        At that time, Harry Truman is a senator, like a wagon and a cart in the States, few people are interested in his advice.

        Went a crimson demon spell rite laughing
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 09: 21
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          demon spell rite

          am am am
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 01: 32
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        At that time, Harry Truman is a senator like in the States

        Truman's position at least admitted assistance from the USSR. On this, not everyone agreed with him. Roosevelt's ideas about the war in Europe were not popular, to put it mildly.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 December 2020 11: 55
      +3
      Quote: bandabas
      Germany had a fully combat-ready fleet, taking into account the Versailles agreement. The question is why and why Germany started a war with the USSR.

      Because the military command of the Reich really imagined the consequences of the landing on the Island and desperately did not want it, and the political leadership fell into an idea "Russia as England's last hope on the continent". So the stars converged.
  13. north 2
    north 2 7 December 2020 20: 18
    +3
    I hate Hitler's Germany, but the cruisers and battleships of the Germans were of exceptional beauty
    and harmony, as masterpieces in the architecture of the shipbuilding of the time. And I doubt that having had time and exerted so much effort to build such ships after Versailles, the Germans did not find
    worthy admirals to command such ships. After all, not from a blank sheet of command
    the composition of the fascist fleet began. Not much time has passed since the High Seas Fleet,
    and Germany revived its navy and senior command personnel. But Hitler and admirals and crews, as well as land generals and soldiers, got it into their heads about the exclusivity of the Aryan nation. So the Germans paid at sea too. I am not an expert, but in my opinion in many operations of the German surface fleet in the Atlantic there were elements of bravado and underestimation of the enemy. Well, how could it be otherwise - beauties and powerful ships, and the commanders and crews of white bones and blue bloods ... Although there were victories, but a lot of fascist surface ships in the Atlantic were killed. By the way, there is a road for them with their crews ...
  14. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 December 2020 20: 22
    +4
    With destroyers it is both simple and difficult at the same time. At the start of the war, Germany had 21 destroyers, and 19 more were built. Total 40.

    Of the 21 ships of pre-war construction, 10 (that is, half) were lost during the operation to capture Norway. In general, Norway cost Germany very dearly: 1 heavy, 2 light cruisers and 10 destroyers. Enumeration on all articles.

    The funny thing is that it was the victory of the Germans in Norway that put an end to all variants of the "Sea Lion" in 1940. The Reich simply remained without a fleet - those who did not go to the bottom went for repairs. Before the autumn storms began, the Kriegsmarine could count on 1 SRT, 1-2 KRL and two dozen EM and MM. Which was about three times inferior to the RN forces in the Channel and southern bases.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 01: 33
      -1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      put an end to all versions of the "Sea Lion" in 1940, the Reich simply remained without a fleet - those who did not go to the bottom went to repair

      Well, if they had stayed in business, it would have radically changed the situation, of course.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 December 2020 10: 48
        +4
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Well, if they had stayed in business, it would have radically changed the situation, of course.

        Ultimately, no. Even if the Kriegsmarine had no Norwegian losses, the result would be the same - to the bottom, everything to the bottom.
        But the presence of a larger number of combat-ready ships could create in the army and backlash illusion of possibility conducting "Sea Lion". It was in real life that the Kriegsmarine could shrug their shoulders and say to the "boots" that "there are no ships - not at all - and there is nothing to cover the landing". And then the answer would be that"you have two battleships, seven cruisers and three dozen destroyers - you can take a chance to defeat Limes".
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 11: 02
          -1
          Do you want to melt more fascists in the 40s? Well, such a desire can be understood. Little disgusting, but joy.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 December 2020 13: 55
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Do you want to melt more fascists in the 40s?

            But yak!
            And then all-in-all, to bring freedom to the proletariat of Europe, whether he wants it or not. smile
  15. fa2998
    fa2998 7 December 2020 20: 25
    +5
    Quote: Alf
    With the Finnish fleet in two coastal battleships?

    So we could not cope with them! We laugh at the British, how many "Tirpitz" were bombed, but flooded. And we sent 61 times (sixty-one) planes, and all to no avail. hi
  16. Mooh
    Mooh 7 December 2020 20: 30
    0
    While reading, I was sure that Koptsov's article. And on you, Skomorokhov. All the same, these authors have a lot in common.
  17. BAI
    BAI 7 December 2020 20: 31
    +2
    British navy parade at Spithead. 1936 g.

    Photos of the Spithead parade by the author have already been provided in another article. I said then, and I say now, it is not correct to apply them to the English fleet. It was an international parade. There were ships from different countries. Including from the USSR ("Marat") and Germany ("Speer). The Greek battleship (cruiser)" Averof ", which took part in the parade, is still alive - turned into a museum.
    1. Alf
      Alf 7 December 2020 20: 41
      0
      Quote: BAI
      The Greek battleship (cruiser) "Averof", which took part in the parade, is still alive - turned into a museum.

      But I wonder how many warships have been turned into museums? I remember Aurora, Brooklyn, Mikasa, New Jersey .. Who else will add anything?
      1. BAI
        BAI 7 December 2020 20: 48
        +1
        According to VIKI, there are 36 combat units, but this is with a trier and a galleon. Total - 64.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_кораблей-музеев
        1. BAI
          BAI 7 December 2020 21: 33
          0
          And B-413 (Kaliningrad) with B-396 (Moscow) C-189 (Peter). The boats of Peter 1 are both a museum and an exhibit. And in St. Petersburg and in Pereslavl-Zalessky.
          1. Alf
            Alf 8 December 2020 19: 24
            0
            Quote: BAI
            B-413

            What is this?
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 7 December 2020 20: 49
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Who else will add anything?

        U-995
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 December 2020 10: 57
        +2
        Quote: Alf
        I remember Aurora, Brooklyn, Mikasa, New Jersey ..

        In the USA, a whole tactical unit is museumified: smile
        “All four Iowa LCs.
        - LC "Alabama", "Massachusetts", "Norka", the old man "Texas".
        - AB "Midway", "Hornet", "Intrepid", "Yorktown", "Lexington".
      4. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 8 December 2020 13: 07
        +2
        "Kutuzov" in Novorossiysk. Although, not yet a museum, there is still a naval team on it.
    2. IgorIP
      IgorIP 7 December 2020 22: 01
      0
      Have you missed a year? Marat took part in the 1937 parade. For a completely different reason.
  18. Force multiplier
    Force multiplier 7 December 2020 20: 45
    +1
    In three lines: he lived a sin, died funny. Hide through the skerries throughout the war


    Tirpitz is the most efficient German WWII battleship.

    The commander of the ship Lansdorf succumbed to the provocation of the British ...
    Perhaps controversial, but very mediocre


    What is controversial is unclear. Langsdorf obviously did not correspond to the position and was really mediocre (if he really shot himself), and most importantly, shamefully, lost the ship. The question is who appointed him commander and why Spee? And this is the most important question raised by the author.

    How bad are German admirals?

    The question, of course, is posed crookedly [bad / good], but it is interesting. Reading the diary Skl. you understand why Hitler was initially disposed to Raeder - the breadth of thinking, plans are enormous. But, rereading more carefully, a suspicion arises, turning into confidence that Raeder was playing giveaway. It's hard to say the same about Doenitz as Raeder's successor, the situation was already fundamentally different, but Doenitz as BdU is also a giveaway. Considering the proven fact of Canaris's betrayal, we can talk about the "dissenting opinion" of the Reichsmarine / Kriegsmarine leadership regarding the political process in Germany in the 20-40s and the special policy that the fleet leadership tried to pursue, guided by the interests of the fleet (since it understood them)
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 20: 51
      +6
      Quote: Force Multiplier
      (if he really shot himself),

      Are there any facts that are not "myself"?

      Quote: Force Multiplier
      and most importantly, shamefully, he lost the ship.

      He received an order from Berlin, if anything ...

      Quote: Force Multiplier
      Reading the diary Skl. you understand

      What passages should you read? I want to join ...
      1. Force multiplier
        Force multiplier 8 December 2020 12: 57
        0
        He got an order from Berlin

        Received an order to engage in battle with superior forces in extremely unfavorable weather conditions and unfavorable time of day? Received an order to conduct the battle itself from a tactical point of view and go to an "unfriendly neutral" port? And the instructions he received from Berlin to Montevideo were not orders to destroy the ship. without exhausting opportunities to resist

        What Langsdorf has done is quite can indicate intent, and accordingly suggest what is the case, if his actions were deliberate, then they could help him die before they became the subject of an investigation
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 8 December 2020 18: 30
          +1
          Quote: Force Multiplier
          And the instructions that he received from Berlin in Montevideo were not orders to destroy the ship without exhausting the possibility of resistance.

          I will ask the same question as the author of the article: Are you aware of the technical condition of "Spee" by the time you arrived in Montevideo?
          1. Force multiplier
            Force multiplier 8 December 2020 23: 25
            0
            Yes was not Spee seriously damaged, obviously. All these tales about galleys are fascinating, but this is not a serious damage affecting combat effectiveness.
            What did Raeder want from Langsdorf? Breakthrough to Germany? He believed that the commander knew better on the spot (he actually washed his hands, of course, and shifted responsibility for the decision). But, if it was impossible to continue fighting, he wanted this
            Das deutsche Kriegsschiff kämpft unter vollem Einsatz seiner Besatzung bis zur letzten Granate, bis es siegt oder mit wehender Fahne untergeht
            It came after the precedent with Spee specifically formulate, since before it was assumed that the commander already knows what to do, that it goes without saying. And that's how technical condition Spee could have prevented Langsdorf from fulfilling his duty?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 9 December 2020 15: 27
              +1
              Quote: Force Multiplier
              Yes, Spee was not seriously damaged, obviously. All these tales about galleys are fascinating, but this is not a serious damage affecting combat effectiveness.

              Do fuel filters with desalination plants affect combat effectiveness?
              1. Force multiplier
                Force multiplier 9 December 2020 19: 35
                0
                Langsdorf, reporting to Berlin about the damage to the ship, never mentioned them. There is no mention either in Spee's diary, or in Skl .'s diary, where the text of the radiograms is also given. Galleys - yes. Nose hole - yes. Optics - yes. But there are no filters. If they were damaged, it was insignificant, and these damage were repaired even before arriving in Montevideo.
            2. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 18: 17
              0
              Quote: Force Multiplier
              And how could Spee's technical condition prevent Langsdorf from fulfilling his duty?

              Can he expand his thought, only without pathos?
              1. Force multiplier
                Force multiplier 9 December 2020 20: 05
                0
                Engage in battle with Cumberland, shoot ammunition and detonate / sink the ship.
                In the words of Raeder 19.12.39/XNUMX/XNUMX (careful, pathos!)
                Ende des Panzerschiffes "Admiral Graf Spee" durch Selbstzerstörung und Versenkung in dem flachen Wasser des Rio de la Plata besonders bitter, da es nicht gelungen ist, die Waffen des Schiffes, wie von der Seekriegsum lettung erhofft, zurgners Schädigins zerhofft
                zu bringen, in der Absicht, nach Buenos Aires durchzubrechen oder das Schiff auf tiefem Wasser zu versenken. Der Gedanke, dass die Besatzung and before [highlighted in original] dem Auslaufen des Schiffes aus Montevideo bis auf weinge Mann bereits ausgeschifft, die whichtigsten Teile des Schiffes schon vorher zerstört und das Schiff daher beim Auslaufen bereits völligfriedhem wehrlos war, ist in hoigendse.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 20: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Force Multiplier
                  In the words of Raeder 19.12.39/XNUMX/XNUMX (careful, pathos!)

                  The classic "would I be as smart now as my wife is later ..."
                  If he is so smart and handsome, then why did he not argue with the "artist" when the order was given to sink the ship?
                  1. Force multiplier
                    Force multiplier 9 December 2020 20: 28
                    0
                    Raeder shifted responsibility for the fate of the ship to Langsdorf, they say, it is better to know on the spot, from Berlin it is difficult to assess the situation and the scale of damage, etc. Langsdorf presented his intentions: 1) Try to extend the stay. 2) Breakthrough to Buenos Aires 3) If impossible, then avoid internment and sink the ship. Raeder approved (it did not appear from the text that Langsdorf would sink without attempting to break through). Item 1) Dropped out on the same day, it was not possible to agree. Raeder sent a radiogram, which remains 2) and 3). Also kind of like implying to break through and in case of impossibility to drown. And Langsdorf pretended not to understand and blew up the ship without a fight
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 20: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Force Multiplier
                      And Langsdorf pretended not to understand and blew up the ship without a fight

                      Well, that is, Raeder "transplanted the monkey" from himself to Langsdorf ...
                      And then he complained that he was misunderstood. :)
                      1. Force multiplier
                        Force multiplier 9 December 2020 21: 47
                        0
                        Not certainly in that way. Raeder really wanted to shift (successfully) the responsibility for deciding whether to break through or not, and if to break through, where. Langsdorf presented his intentions, framed as a sequence of actions - 1) if they are kicked out of Montevideo, then 2), if it does not work out, then 3). And that's how Raeder understood him and approved. (otherwise it is impossible to understand this, the actions are mutually exclusive). And Langsdorf "cheated", sort of like alternatives (1) or 2) or 3)). But Raeder's second radiogram is unambiguous - it remains 2) and 3) [... Ziffer 2.) und 3.) verbleibt] Langsdorf here is "and" again interpreted as "or". At noon on the 17th, Langsdorf received information that Rinaun and Ark were in Rio, and not blocking it, as he claimed, but he ignored it and still prepared the ship for the explosion.
                      2. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 22: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Force Multiplier
                        Langsdorf presented his intentions, framed as a sequence of actions

                        Are you talking about the radiogram directed No.183 dated 15.12.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX?
                      3. Force multiplier
                        Force multiplier 9 December 2020 22: 54
                        0
                        Now I reviewed it, wrote from memory. I made a mistake. The sequence of actions suggested by Skl. (FT 1547/16) - 16.12.41 in response to the report on the situation of Langsdorf (0106 16), where he talks about Rhinaun and Ark and that a breakthrough to Germany is impossible, that he intends to reach the border of territorial waters and, if possible, break through to Buenos Aires, if it is impossible to break through, asks what to do, drown or interned
                        Langsdorf looks even worse in this story, although, it would seem, where else
                      4. Force multiplier
                        Force multiplier 9 December 2020 23: 14
                        0
                        More precisely, Langsdorf (0106 16) says 1) about Rhinaun and Ark, 2) a breakthrough, 3) if a breakthrough is impossible (formulating as "if a breakthrough leads to the destruction of Spee without the possibility of inflicting damage on the enemy", hinting at an imaginary Rhinaun) asks what to do. Skl's answer. (FT 1547/16) - 1) try to prolong the stay in neutral waters,
                        2) agree with 2) Langsdorf (breakthrough)
                        3) Do not intern in Uruguay
                      5. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 10 December 2020 18: 24
                        0
                        It will be necessary to update the history of "Spee" on the New Year holidays ...
  • 27091965
    27091965 7 December 2020 21: 33
    0
    Quote: Force Multiplier
    But, rereading more carefully, a suspicion arises, turning into confidence that Raeder was playing giveaway.


    Could you explain how this was expressed?
    1. Force multiplier
      Force multiplier 8 December 2020 13: 20
      0
      It is impossible to list everything, but the main thing:

      1) How large surface ships were used

      2) The fact that despite the fact that the German fleet was weaker, and it was ultimately unprofitable for Germany, Raeder lobbied for the escalation of the naval war (attacks on neutral ships, expansion of sea zones in which such attacks could be carried out without warning). Moreover, there were exceptions - the USA, the USSR - whose ships were forbidden to attack. This exclusion devalued the already dubious economic motivation for the escalation, but it had serious political consequences - it set the governments and public opinion of the countries not yet involved in the conflict against Germany upset.

      3) Raeder's initiatives contributed to the diffusion of resources. He began to talk about the fact that it would be good to seize Norway in October 1939, there were not even close real reasons (Planning and implementation is also worthy of mention, send Blucher и Lyuttsov, who simply had nothing to do in the Oslofjord, in fact, to slaughter, "stupidity or treason"). The well-known proposal to focus military efforts on the Mediterranean, which in fact was a proposal to abandon the invasion of Britain forever and to throw all forces on a secondary theater, where the enemy will have all the advantages based on even one geography, not to mention the balance of power
  • Engineer
    Engineer 7 December 2020 22: 58
    +2
    Tirpitz is the most efficient German WWII battleship.

    Rather, even just the most efficient battleship
    But, rereading more carefully, a suspicion comes, turning into confidence that Raeder was playing giveaway

    You still got it ... It's just that the islanders read the German codes. Why multiply entities?
  • svp67
    svp67 7 December 2020 20: 50
    +5
    And nevertheless, despite the statistical low efficiency of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet, it remained a "horror story" for the Allied fleets throughout the war, forcing them to drive squadrons to guard the same convoys or shamefully abandon the same convoys, just not to be within range main battery "Tirpitz", this is from the history of the infamous PQ-17
  • Salty
    Salty 7 December 2020 20: 55
    +2
    One more photo:


    HMS Hood. Killed by "Bismarck", with particular cynicism.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 7 December 2020 20: 59
      +4
      Quote: SaltY
      One more photo:
      HMS Hood. Killed by "Bismarck", with particular cynicism.

      Sheer bad luck ...
      1. Salty
        Salty 7 December 2020 21: 00
        -2
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Sheer bad luck ...

        You can argue, but I won't. And a fact is a fact, where does it come from?
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 01: 38
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Sheer bad luck ...

        It’s bad luck that Hood didn’t get up to modernization. And in the reality of 41, the result is quite predictable. That is, the British could get lost, but in principle the score was in the game.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 8 December 2020 18: 33
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          And in the reality of 41, the result is quite predictable.

          Not at all ... Neither then, nor now, no one knows how and where the projectile hit, therefore it could not fly into "obvious holes" in those conditions ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 22: 04
            -1
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            therefore, in those conditions, he could not fly into the "obvious holes" ...

            Do you have any objection that the Hood under 15 "is not balanced in armor or what?
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 8 December 2020 22: 22
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Do you have any objection that the Hood under 15 "is not balanced in armor or what?

              I write "in those conditions". :)
              That is, for the conditions of the battle in the Danish Strait on May 24, 1941.
              Two British commissions of inquiry have established that the explosion of the GK and UK aft cellars was the cause of the Hood's death, but it has not been precisely established what caused the explosion.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 8 December 2020 22: 33
                0
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                but what caused the explosion has not been precisely established.

                And what should they do, climb to the bottom? Tea is not James Cameron.

                No, on the other hand, the Bismarck story is, of course, a mystical story. First, He sent a German projectile with His Hand, then an English torpedo. Where the foes found such battle priests - that's what the RF Ministry of Defense should deal with. I don't know if our regular bearded men will pull against such a strong witchcraft.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 18: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  And what should they do, climb to the bottom? Tea is not James Cameron.

                  And there and there is nowhere to climb ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 7 December 2020 20: 58
    +5
    Back in the 80s, he read accessible memoirs of German admirals. In particular, the authorship of Ruge "War at Sea". Even surface ships for the most part still fought in the sea. Not in their harbors. All the more about the submariners, you could learn something from them.
    The enemy must be judged at a fair price. And not in vain after the end of the war germ. Submarine 21 projects made a revolution in the minds of Soviet shipbuilders.
  • Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 7 December 2020 20: 59
    0
    Of course, Doenitz is a fascist. But the admiral is smart. There is something closer to someone. Or Denis's personality as a politician. Or as a naval commander.
  • Sayan
    Sayan 8 December 2020 03: 33
    +1
    Criticizing the Germans, the buffoons could not resist, so as not to hawk towards our Navy command, at the beginning of the article
  • Revolver
    Revolver 8 December 2020 07: 07
    0
    To the heap, you can add the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin to this list. It was 85% ready in 1940. There was a shortage of guns (which, as the experience of the Americans and Japanese showed, aircraft carriers did not really need it), radio equipment, and so on, little things. The overwhelmed Ju-87 and Me-109 were already there, and even the pilots began to train. But it was never completed. Largely because of the conflict between Raeder and Goering over who will be subordinate to the air group, and who is more important - the commander of the air group or the captain. Goering rowed under himself everything somehow connected with the air, paratroopers and anti-aircraft gunners were subordinate to him, and then a chance turned up to have command of a first-rank ship, and to a heap of an escort. Raeder, however, quite reasonably believed that the ships should be commanded by sailors, and the air group should obey the captain of the aircraft carrier. Both wanted to steer, but neither wanted to allocate funds for the completion in favor of the opponent. As a result, it was never finished, and thank God. With 30 Pieces, covered from the air by 12 Messers, he could very well have made a rustle on the way of the Lend-Lease convoys to Murmansk. Well, or, say, in Malta. But he stood throughout the war at the outfitting wall, after which it was blown up by the Germans during the retreat. The USSR raised him, but for many reasons he was considered not worth restoration and was shot as a target. Version - they began to tow to Leningrad for restoration and completion, but he ran into a stray mine and received such damage that further towing became impossible, after which they decided to shoot him.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 December 2020 11: 05
      +3
      Quote: Nagan
      Goering rowed under himself everything somehow connected with the air, paratroopers and anti-aircraft gunners were subordinate to him, and then the chance turned up to have command of a ship of the first rank, and to a heap of an escort.

      Not everything is so simple. Goering rightly believed that the sailors did not understand anything about aviation matters, so that their subordination to aviation was tantamount to being scrapped. This opinion was based on the experience of the reconnaissance squadrons temporarily subordinated to the fleet, whose naval planes regularly tried to force them to take off in the complete absence of visibility at the airfield.
      At the same time, backlashes did not refuse to cooperate with the fleet, and interacted with it quite successfully - Cerberus is an example of this.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 8 December 2020 08: 13
    +2
    Tirpitz can be said by its name alone, destroying half of the PQ17, causing more damage than most British battleships. The Germans had a normal fleet, the question is: was it needed at all, or was it necessary to rivet a hundred submarines instead of one Tirpitz? By the way, what is this nonsense about our admirals? They immediately realized that our old battleships in the Baltic puddle had nothing to do, given the strength of German aviation, so they made a wise decision not to destroy battleships, but to help defend Peter and defended them.
    1. Petrik66
      Petrik66 8 December 2020 10: 08
      -3
      According to Zhukov's recollection, at the time of his appearance in St. Petersburg, the admirals were going to blow up the ships ?! Question two, why did these successors of Ushakov realize only in July 1941 that battleships had nothing to do in the Baltic pool? Or before that with a puddle somehow it was not so? Why was there a fleet there?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 December 2020 11: 15
        +5
        Quote: Petrik66
        According to Zhukov's recollection, at the time of his appearance in St. Petersburg, the admirals were going to blow up the ships ?!

        Yeah ... the admirals themselves decided to blow up the ships. smile
        Preparations for blowing up the Red Banner Baltic Fleet ships were carried out within the framework of the general plan for the destruction of Leningrad in the event of its capture by the enemy. The entire city was being prepared for the explosion, not just the fleet.
        Quote: Petrik66
        Question two, why did these successors of Ushakov realize only in July 1941 that battleships had nothing to do in the Baltic pool? Or before that with a puddle somehow it was not so? Why was there a fleet there?

        Because none of the admirals before the war could have imagined that the heirs of Suvorov and Kutuzov would roll back to Luga in less than a month. And that the fleet would have to defend and then evacuate its main base.
        And what about the basing of the LC - what else to do with them? The Sev, with their limited seaworthiness and range, have only two options - Baltic or World Cup. And it is possible to ensure the basing of the LK before the war only on the same two theaters - in the North, even for EM there was no normal base.
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 9 December 2020 14: 20
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And what about the basing of the LC - what else to do with them? The Sev, with their limited seaworthiness and range, have only two options - Baltic or World Cup.

          The USSR, very conveniently, reasonably adhered to defensive tactics at sea in surface operations. LKs were used only as mobile (and sometimes stationary after bombing) artillery and anti-aircraft batteries ...

          The LK went to the USSR in an unfinished form since the time of tsarist Russia and by the beginning of World War II, they were not only outdated ships, but very outdated !!! Therefore, their use as artillery and anti-aircraft batteries is perhaps the pinnacle of their effectiveness at that time. Much more important battles were fought on land, so fire support from the sea and air cover for ground operations were more important than the use of LK in operations against the German fleet at sea.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 December 2020 14: 44
            +1
            Quote: Selevc
            The USSR, very conveniently, reasonably adhered to defensive tactics at sea in surface operations.

            It's just that all our fleets regularly failed in offensive operations. The Black Sea Fleet drove a couple of LDs into a minefield under the fire of coastal 11 ". On the Northern Fleet, LD and EM went to the German KON - and were able to shoot with only one TA (and missed).
            Quote: Selevc
            LKs were used only as mobile (and sometimes stationary after bombing) artillery and anti-aircraft batteries ...

            And what else can they do if the main threat to the fleet comes from land: the best anti-ship means are tanks on the naval berths.
            Quote: Selevc
            LK went to the USSR in an unfinished form since the time of tsarist Russia

            Ahem ... actually, four "Sevastopols" went to the USSR completely completed (adopted by the RIF in 1915). "Izmail" and "Nikolay" were unfinished, but they were never completed.
            1. Selevc
              Selevc 9 December 2020 15: 02
              0
              It's just that all our fleets regularly failed in offensive operations.
              What does fail mean? And they generally fought at sea as they were supposed to? In fact, the LC is designed and created initially for linear combat with the same heavyweight, or at least with a cruiser-class ship !!! Give me at least one battle between the Soviet fleet and the German at the level of cruisers and battleships in the whole of the Great Patriotic War ??? I personally don’t remember that ...
  • Petrik66
    Petrik66 8 December 2020 10: 06
    0
    I ask you to consider the issue from a slightly different angle: The bookstore is full of books about "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz", in the models - the same situation. Maybe the question is about the PR of the defeated? But, in fact: Germany, Italy, France spent a lot of money and resources on the construction of the fleet, on its maintenance, and the results are very deplorable. I apologize in advance from the specialists, but the Germans did not work, and their surface fleet could not solve any problems, and the Italians did the same. Perhaps the potential threat of "Tirpitz" forced the Angles to strain when escorting convoys to the USSR, but driving Tirpitz across the skerries became a sport for them, so that they could come up with a better idea, either mini submarines, or Tolboy. The Germans behaved like a boy only with the "Bismarck", they went out, showed off and got enchanting people drowned. But my brother did not send a reply, as he walked sluggishly at the arrows, all the time he was late, then he was at a different address ...)))
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 December 2020 14: 51
      0
      Quote: Petrik66
      but driving Tirpitz through the skerries has become a sport for them, so that they can come up with more abruptly, either mini submarines, or Tolboy.

      Tolboy came up with something completely different - it was a "bomb-earthquake" or "bomb-camouflage" for the destruction of structures by creating vibrations in the ground or "pulling out" from under them support (when "collapse" of the camouflage cavity).
      Using the Tallboy against shielded targets to hit them directly was an unplanned bonus due to the high strength of the bomb's body (originally necessary for penetrating solid rock).
  • Ulysses
    Ulysses 8 December 2020 15: 53
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Quote: fa2998
    And the Soviet Black Sea Fleet could have given the Romanians and others a good bath, and not stand in Tuapse!

    But why?
    Especially considering that the main "mixers" for the Black Sea Fleet were the German "two".



    The main "stirrer" for the Black Sea Fleet throughout the war was German aviation.
    Suffice it to recall the deaths of "Kharkov", "Merciless", "Capable" in October 1943.
    https://flot.com/news/dayinhistory/?ELEMENT_ID=3251
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 8 December 2020 18: 42
      0
      Quote: Ulysses
      The main "stirrer" for the Black Sea Fleet throughout the war was German aviation.

      I do not argue ... The question was in the ship component, so to speak.

      Quote: Ulysses
      Suffice it to recall the deaths of "Kharkov", "Merciless", "Capable" in October 1943.

      The role of the Luftwaffe in the results of Operation Verp is of course great, but the role of G.P. Indignation.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 8 December 2020 20: 13
    0
    To contain - not to support the British battleships - is a very controversial issue. One cannot judge the efficiency of the fleet only by the ships it sunk. We must not forget about what the enemy did not keeping in mind that the British had the same battleships. For example, did not carry out Operation Sea Lion.
    And there is no need to dwell on the Germans alone. There were also sworn friends - the French, the Americans. There were some tense moments with the Americans in the interwar period.
    With this logic, our nuclear triad - in general a bunch of useless junk - did not fire at anyone).
  • Selevc
    Selevc 9 December 2020 14: 08
    0
    The entire course of World War II at sea (in the European theater of operations), in my opinion, is an attempt by the Land Power to resist the Powers of the Sea - and only the German submarine fleet coped with this more or less successfully (and even then at times) - the rest are a net loss. And the rest of the Germans showed the world that the British and Americans fought more experienced, smarter and more efficiently in their traditional naval theaters of war.

    It is absolutely surprising that the presence of huge squadrons in Germany and Italy and very strong air forces did not allow them to take possession of even the smallest but strategically important territories in the Mediterranean - such as Gibraltar or Malta !!!
    The combat path of the French Navy in World War II is generally a path of shame !!! And it is completely mysterious why France, having fought the entire war, is shameful that on land what on the sea is considered the winner country ??? !!!
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 9 December 2020 21: 52
    0
    Too good he got from the British aviation, and therefore he was sunk by his own to block the fairway.

    British aircraft were not involved in the self-flooding of Gneisenau. It was sunk by their own as a result of the offensive of the Soviet ground forces. The same Soviet troops caused the self-flooding of Lyuttsov, Heper, a number of destroyers and more than 200 submarines and the surrender of Eugen, more than 100 submarines and a number of other ships.
    The Kriegsmarine, like the Luftwaffe, died for the defeat of the German ground forces. If Germany was not defeated on earth, then battles in heaven and at sea could continue to this day.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 9 December 2020 22: 40
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      British aircraft were not involved in the self-flooding of Gneisenau.

      Remember why "Gneisenau" was undergoing a long renovation ...

      Quote: Kostadinov
      Hypera,

      Bombed by allies at the dock ...
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 10 December 2020 12: 46
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Quote: Kostadinov
    British aircraft were not involved in the self-flooding of Gneisenau.

    Remember why "Gneisenau" was undergoing a long renovation ...

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Hypera,

    Bombed by allies at the dock ...

    1. Gneisenau got up exactly in the repair and modernization of weapons, and not in the dismantling of metal because the beat is quite maintainable. It hit in 1942, and sank it in March 1945 when the Red Army approached its base. By all criteria, it was only damaged by aviation and irretrievably lost from the offensive of the ground forces.
    2. From the raid of British aircraft on Kiel on April 9, Scheer was irretrievably destroyed. Heeper and Emden were only damaged but repairable. They were flooded by the Germans themselves on May 3, 45 because of the offensive of the enemy ground forces.
  • Alex Rossky
    Alex Rossky 13 December 2020 19: 28
    0
    "the point is in the Soviet admirals, who quickly showed their complete inadequacy for such a delicate matter as naval management."
    Where does this conclusion come from?
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 14 December 2020 19: 57
    0
    But they fought. This is not our BF during WWII for sure and more successful.
  • Takashi
    Takashi 15 December 2020 15: 17
    0
    strange article. strange attempt to compare 3 fleets.
    All German ships had problems with the main engine (they ate a lot and often broke down). The Germans themselves were not happy. For the period of the offensive of the ground forces or the active activity of the flight units, the ships of the Kriegsmarine were rarely used at all - the Germans saved fuel.
    And the mention of bad German commanders is generally reminiscent of a hat
  • fone
    fone 3 January 2021 12: 25
    0
    It's just that the German navy is publicized, and the fact that it was no better than the Italian is hushed up. The same Blucher was sunk dotsushima torpedoes of Whitehead. Shame ..
  • yehat2
    yehat2 28 January 2021 14: 34
    +1
    Skomorokhov in his repertoire. He doused everyone with a brown substance, but the Anglam and the Americans did not remember their terrible losses of ships, did not remember how the Japanese admirals had badly screwed up several times. But he himself, all in white, decided to judge.
    The Soviet navy acted with dignity against the navy. The only problem was aviation, as for absolutely any fleet. Even American ships, literally studded with advanced artillery, suffered heavy losses from the Japanese.
    As for the Germans, yes, they have lost part of the surface fleet. But how many trade convoys and their guards managed to sink? How many simply frightened and slowed down the transportation? This is a cruising war - to exchange warships for the interruption of shipping. If you look at it this way, then almost the best naval commanders were in Finland, where Väinemäinen's monitor was having fun.
    And how stupidly the fleets of France and Italy were reset?
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 23 February 2021 21: 02
    0
    Interestingly, in the First World Kaisermarine fought very well. In Jutland, they piled on the British so much that it is already dear to read about it, March at heart. As a kid, I made German Licors PMV according to the drawings in the Modeler Constructor. Defflinger turned out best for me ... I wonder why, having won the greatest surface battle, the German PMV admirals could not prepare a replacement for themselves. I am not surprised at the shoals of the Soviet Navy, in the Russian Japanese and WWI, the Russian fleet showed itself ... well, below the plinth. So there was no one to train new admirals. The old ones were no good. (Makarov died, but there were no others). The fact that the USSR did not have good naval commanders is understandable - there was no one to train them. But why did the German PMV naval commanders not prepare a replacement for themselves?