4 ms·

16 days in operation, no victories. Should be in a book of greatest enterprise failures.

NateEag 7y ago
Tangentially related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures I have a copy. It is a much-beloved source of joy.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > The American version of the book was misprinted by the publishers, who left out half the introduction. Well, that's just perfection.
dual_dingo 7y ago
I believe nothing beats the Vasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)) in that regard ... Sank 1300 m(!) into its maiden voyage.
zelon88 7y ago
It's important to note that most of the advanced technology that Germany gets credit for in WWII was designed, built and destroyed all in a matter of a decade or two. The Bismarck is another good example. It was the largest, heaviest, strongest, most advanced battleship of it's time. There was no single allied ship that could match it's performance or firepower or withstand combat against it for very long. And the Bismarck was sunk 9 months after she was commissioned. Not by a toilet, not by inexperience; but because the entire British navy identified the gargantuan risk and superflous symbology of destroying the pinnacle of German tech. That, and it sunk the symbolic HMS Hood (arguably second best warship at the time) battleship in an almost comedic display that lasted mere minutes. The Titanic took hours to sink but the Hood, a ship of similar size and weight, was gone in mere seconds after being hit by the Bismarck's deck guns. After that the Bismarck was the only thing Britain cared about. The reason German tech didn't last wasn't because the tech was inferior. It was because for every one unit Germany built, there were 5 allied units with crosshairs trained on it. The hunting was simply better for the allies than it was for Germany towards the end of the war, after Germany had been crippled by allied carpet bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait
- duxup 7y ago
  Also as far as the Bismarck goes, it really was the end of single battleships (or even a group) operating alone effectively, with the exception of maybe some open ocean raiding here or there. With carriers and planes... just a matter of time until a battleship is found and not much a battleship can do alone at that point. Thus the effectiveness of subs (and in particular at that time the wolf pack system).
  - zelon88 7y ago
    Yup. Air superiority changed naval warfare forever. It was the radar technology given to the American's by the British that closed the blindspot in the center of the Atlantic which the Germans used to hide U-Boats. Once radar was able to shrink the mid-atlantic gap Germany became unable to disrupt allied merchant shipping. The lack of places to hide meant German U-Boat flotilla's were fish in a barrel for allied planes.
- foldr 7y ago
  >There was no single allied ship that could match it's performance or firepower or withstand combat against it for very long. This is something of a myth. The Bismarck was roughly comparable to contemporary British battleships (e.g. the KGV class) in terms of protection and firepower. The Hood was a much older design, and the Bismarck got a lucky hit.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    And the Hood was a Battle Cruiser
    - foldr 7y ago
      Kind of. It's arguably more accurate to call it a fast battleship, as its armor protection was equivalent to that of a post-Jutland British battleship. At the time it was built, the Hood was both fast and heavily armored. Its armor protection scheme was somewhat dated by the 1940s.
mannykannot 7y ago
I don't think there is anything unusual about that number - the time when there were any easy targets was long gone. And with defeat being inevitable and imminent, I can't blame anyone for being cautious. Over 70% of all U-boat sailors were killed in action over the course of the war.

Tangentially related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures I have a copy. It is a much-beloved source of joy.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> The American version of the book was misprinted by the publishers, who left out half the introduction. Well, that's just perfection.

dual_dingo 7y ago

I believe nothing beats the Vasa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)) in that regard ... Sank 1300 m(!) into its maiden voyage.

zelon88 7y ago

It's important to note that most of the advanced technology that Germany gets credit for in WWII was designed, built and destroyed all in a matter of a decade or two. The Bismarck is another good example. It was the largest, heaviest, strongest, most advanced battleship of it's time. There was no single allied ship that could match it's performance or firepower or withstand combat against it for very long. And the Bismarck was sunk 9 months after she was commissioned. Not by a toilet, not by inexperience; but because the entire British navy identified the gargantuan risk and superflous symbology of destroying the pinnacle of German tech. That, and it sunk the symbolic HMS Hood (arguably second best warship at the time) battleship in an almost comedic display that lasted mere minutes. The Titanic took hours to sink but the Hood, a ship of similar size and weight, was gone in mere seconds after being hit by the Bismarck's deck guns. After that the Bismarck was the only thing Britain cared about. The reason German tech didn't last wasn't because the tech was inferior. It was because for every one unit Germany built, there were 5 allied units with crosshairs trained on it. The hunting was simply better for the allies than it was for Germany towards the end of the war, after Germany had been crippled by allied carpet bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait

duxup 7y ago
Also as far as the Bismarck goes, it really was the end of single battleships (or even a group) operating alone effectively, with the exception of maybe some open ocean raiding here or there. With carriers and planes... just a matter of time until a battleship is found and not much a battleship can do alone at that point. Thus the effectiveness of subs (and in particular at that time the wolf pack system).
- zelon88 7y ago
  Yup. Air superiority changed naval warfare forever. It was the radar technology given to the American's by the British that closed the blindspot in the center of the Atlantic which the Germans used to hide U-Boats. Once radar was able to shrink the mid-atlantic gap Germany became unable to disrupt allied merchant shipping. The lack of places to hide meant German U-Boat flotilla's were fish in a barrel for allied planes.
foldr 7y ago
>There was no single allied ship that could match it's performance or firepower or withstand combat against it for very long. This is something of a myth. The Bismarck was roughly comparable to contemporary British battleships (e.g. the KGV class) in terms of protection and firepower. The Hood was a much older design, and the Bismarck got a lucky hit.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  And the Hood was a Battle Cruiser
  - foldr 7y ago
    Kind of. It's arguably more accurate to call it a fast battleship, as its armor protection was equivalent to that of a post-Jutland British battleship. At the time it was built, the Hood was both fast and heavily armored. Its armor protection scheme was somewhat dated by the 1940s.

mannykannot 7y ago

I don't think there is anything unusual about that number - the time when there were any easy targets was long gone. And with defeat being inevitable and imminent, I can't blame anyone for being cautious. Over 70% of all U-boat sailors were killed in action over the course of the war.