The battleships BISMARK and TIRPITZ by Eric Rossignol
Prior to the First World War, the naval construction race
between Germany and Britain saw two nations leap-frogging each other as their
naval architects sought to create bigger and better battleships. Faced with
British industrial might, the Germans, who on the whole produced better ships,
found they could not win the numbers game. More than two decades on, Plan Z could
not hope to fully match the British, who had a head start due to their large,
if mostly elderly, extant battle fleet.
Barred by the Anglo-German Naval
Agreement from creating a fleet more than thirty-five per cent of the Royal
Navy’s size, the Germans decided to go for quality rather than quantity. They
achieved their aim without protest, because the British refused to believe the
biggest of the new warships – Bismarck and Tirpitz – were intended to contest
the open seas upon which the empire’s trade flowed. In that way the Germans
pulled off a masterly deception, even if they received a lot of help from their
future enemy in doing so.
Using the Washington Treaty and the later London naval
conference as its guide to fair play, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement limited
Britain’s next generation of battleships to 35,000 tons and it was expected the
Germans would do the same. The head of the Kriegsmarine, Admiral Erich Raeder
told his naval architects to create a battleship that would in reality displace
45,000 tons (standard), but in July 1936 the official figure handed over to the
British was 35,000 tons, with a beam of 118ft and a draft of 26ft. The
principal weapon would allegedly be the 14.8-inch gun. In reality, the Germans
armed Bismarck and Tirpitz with eight 15-inch guns as primary armament, with
twelve 5.9-inch guns as secondary, plus sixteen 4.1-inch, sixteen 37mm and thirty-six
20mm anti-aircraft guns. The UK’s Director of Naval Construction assessed that
such a broad beam and shallow draught indicated the main theatre of operations
for Germany’s ‘Battleship F’ (the future Bismarck) would be the Baltic, in
other words against the Russians, something with which some senior naval
officers agreed. By early 1937 there were those in the Naval Intelligence
Division who argued the Germans were probably lying about the new battleship’s
dimensions – that she had more displacement, deeper draught, bigger guns and
was generally much larger, probably indicating an ability for deep ocean
raiding and the endurance to match. Such views were politically inconvenient in
an era of appeasing Hitler.
It was easier to invest blind faith in the Germans keeping
their side of the bargain. The British have a habit of playing things straight
when others might be cheating because it’s the done thing, the honourable
course. Scrutinizing the reality of Bismarck’s design might have led to the
conclusion that Britain should also cheat, but that would not do. Better not to
look too closely.
It was also easier on the public finances. Hitler, who left
the technical details of warship construction to his admirals, saw the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement as worthwhile only because, in promising not to
rival the Royal Navy’s supremacy, Germany could build up a navy that would at
least be big enough to counter French maritime power and also, of course, to
support territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe.
In this way the British agreed to allow Germany five capital
ships, a pair of aircraft carriers, twenty-one cruisers and sixty-four
destroyers, plus a sizeable number of U-boats. By being so generous they of
course permitted the Germans to build the very warships that would prove to be
the Royal Navy’s biggest worry in May 1941. Bismarck was laid down in July
1936, her sister ship, Tirpitz, that October. Bismarck was, in reality, almost
814ft long and 118ft wide, with a deep load draught of more than 34ft. Even her
standard displacement of nearly 41,700 tons – not including fuel oil, feed
water for boilers and ammunition – was, of course, a flagrant breach of the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Bismarck’s fully loaded displacement was 50,900
tons, though the British did not know that until after the war.
In late December 1936, in a report intended to be seen by
the Foreign Office – also copied to DNI as well as C-in-C of the Home Fleet –
Captain Troubridge expressed a suspicion there was some kind of bid to outwit
the British. He wrote: ‘The Anglo-German naval agreement was one of the
masterstrokes of policy, which have characterized Germany’s dealings with her
ex-enemies since the war. When the time is ripe, as history shows, it will
unquestionably go the same way as other agreements; but the time is not yet.’
However, the final sentence of this passage was not conveyed back to the
Foreign Office, possibly because the Ambassador, Sir Eric Phipps, thought
Troubridge should restrict his comments to naval matters, rather than
speculating on political intent.
Nevertheless, the DNI saw it, as did C.-in-C.
Home Fleet. The Royal Navy was of course subject to the direction of the
democratically elected government of the day, and neither the government, nor
the British people was minded to pick a fight with Germany over its naval
intentions. After the Second World War, Troubridge was asked by the wartime DNI
himself, Rear-Admiral John Godfrey, why he did not flag up more prominently his
concerns over where the Kriegsmarine’s expansion plans might be headed.
Troubridge responded that while he had initially remained open-minded, though
still wary, he hoped the Germans genuinely intended sticking to the
restrictions. That they did not became obvious after Bismarck’s launch.
Troubridge told Godfrey that a British diplomat based in Hamburg assessed
Bismarck was ‘drawing a good deal more than she should’. The truth is that
while the Royal Navy would have been quite open to the idea that the Germans
were breaking the rules, the political leadership did not want to rock the
boat. When Britain guaranteed Poland’s security on 31 March 1939, Hitler
responded within weeks by applying ‘untragbar’ to the naval agreement and
tearing it up, leaving the British with new battleships that abided by
limitation treaties but were, on an individual basis, inferior to Bismarck.
Faced with two battleships, a pair of battlecruisers under
construction, and three pocket battleships – each displacing around 16,000 tons
(deep load) and armed with six 11-inch guns – already commissioned into
service, between April 1933 and January 1936, the Royal Navy decided that
despite Germany having nearly defeated Britain through unrestricted submarine
warfare in the First World War, the main threat still lay in surface raiders.
Funds were funnelled towards modernizing elderly, First World War-era capital
ships and building new cruisers and battleships. Since the First World War the
British had built only two new battleships, Rodney and Nelson (both laid down
in 1922). Stunted in appearance, with a trio of massive gun turrets, each of
which mounted three 16-inch guns, all placed forward, they were nevertheless effective,
despite brutish lines and slow speed. The principal British naval aim was
domination of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, to secure those zones from
the depredations of surface raiders and keep open supply routes and connections
to far-flung parts of the empire. As the menace of Fascism grew through the
1930s, even the pacifist British public and parsimonious governments of the day
found they could not ignore the need for new battleships. Initially, because
the King George V Class battleships were designed to abide by naval limitation
treaties, they were planned with a displacement of 35,000 tons. But the lapsing
of those agreements ultimately gave naval architects an opportunity to be
somewhat more ambitious, and so their displacement rose by another 5,000 tons.
Unfortunately, because the design had originally played by the rules, the
14-inch gun was retained. Upgrading the main armament would have meant going
back to the drawing board and, with the drumbeat to war sounding loudly, that
simply was not possible. At 745ft long, with a beam of 103ft, the King George V
Class ships were 68ft shorter and 15ft narrower than Bismarck and Tirpitz. The
deep load displacement of 42,076 tons was less than the German battleships,
although it was believed until after the Second World War that the
Kriegsmarine’s new battlewagons were about the same displacement as the Royal
Navy’s. With belt armour of 15 inches (maximum), the British ships were also,
overall, less heavily protected than Bismarck and Tirpitz. With a top speed of
28 knots, they were one knot slower. Prominent among those urging creation of a
new breed of ocean-going monsters in the early 1930s was Winston Churchill,
who, as First Lord of the Admiralty a quarter of a century earlier, presided over
the RN during the final years of its pre-First World War naval build-up. As war
clouds gathered, he experienced many sleepless nights wondering if the British
navy would manage to keep its lead over the Kaiser’s fleet. Now, despite all
the blood and treasure spent in the early part of the century, Britain was once
more involved in a naval arms race. The interwar treaties had merely postponed
the inevitable settling of scores incubated by the unsatisfactory settlement at
Versailles. Throughout his wilderness years (1929–1939), when no British
government would listen to his dire warnings of a gathering storm, Churchill
kept in touch with the Admiralty, which tolerated his forthright advice and
lobbying on ship construction matters. The former First Lord of the Admiralty
gave the Navy a voice in Parliament, even if it was rarely heeded, at a time
when many in government doubted the whole point of the RN. Its bitter enemies
included the upstart Royal Air Force, which had gained control of the naval air
arm and suffocated maritime aviation ambitions in case they drew scarce funds
away.
When the government of the day reluctantly ordered new battleships,
Churchill immediately offered strident advice to the Admiralty. Some of it was
not entirely welcome, in particular his criticism of the decision to opt for
14-inch guns, which were smaller in calibre to those mounted in the new
Japanese and American ships. Even the Queen Elizabeth Class battleships
Churchill had been midwife to more than two decades earlier packed the punch of
a 15-inch gun. He stated in a letter of August 1936 to Sir Samuel Hoare, First
Lord of the Admiralty: ‘It is terrible deliberately to build British
battleships costing £7,000,000 apiece that are not the strongest in the world.’
Originally the King George V Class were to have a dozen
14-inch guns, which Churchill thought gave a weighty punch that offset the
smaller calibre. However, the ships were redesigned to take only ten 14-inch
guns. Churchill thought this a disaster, not only because it caused a delay in
getting them into service but also because the punch was, in his view, not
strong enough.
It was maintained by the Admiralty that, even so, the more
numerous 14-inch guns – ten of them rather than eight 15-inch or nine 16-inch –
had a faster rate of fire. The superior velocity and range of their shells
would give them a longer reach and greater penetrative power. Mr Churchill was
not persuaded. The former First Lord later grumbled that Britain gambled the
fortunes of the Navy, and control of the sea, on ‘a series of vessels, each
taking five years to build, which might well have carried heavier gun power.’
All ships of the King George V Class were laid down in 1937, but completion was
slowed due to Britain’s withered shipbuilding capacity, which was suddenly
burdened with not only constructing battleships, but also aircraft carriers,
destroyers, cruisers and submarines. The first of class, King George V, named
after the recently deceased monarch, was laid down on News Year’s Day 1937 and
launched in late February 1939, less than seven months before war broke out.