What If...?

That´s exactly why it was never completed, I think. You are right Adler. GZ could only barely hope to survive a encounter at open seas (only by means of pure speed, if even) with the mighty royal navy. But in my hypothesis is no need for such a dangerous sortie. Put it into the harbour as a weapon of beeing. I twas pretty protected in the Fjords. And it could help to intercept weak escorted Murmansk convois (or back other heavy units with air recon/air cover, making the sinking of Scharnhorst much harder for the allies). I do not doubt that a unit of Lancs with Tallboys could do the job. But that would happen late in 1944 (so in this case the GZ last a bit). Swordfishs or Beau´s in an AA-protected Fjord would probably result in bad news for the Brits, even if they can damage the ship. The complete RN would never try to chase the GZ in the Barentsea as long as Scharnhorst and Tirpitz stay in the waters (remember PQ-17?). Russian submarines operating close to the norwegian coast would have a pretty chance to hit her (they claim a torpedo hit on Tirpitz, even!). In the end I think it was correct to let GZ incompleted, that´s why it survived the war as the heaviest german Kriegsmarine vessel. Submarine warfare does also give the KM an offensive capability (GZ would not, as mentioned above) and the loss of the GZ would be a heavy blow to Hitler, I agree.

The only ways I could see the GZ having been an assett to Hitler was pretty much on paper so as to say Germany had an Aircraft Carrier. The way being the British would have done whatever they could to stop the GZ no matter where she was, in the harbor, in a fjord, in open water if she had been completed. This would have tied up some of the RN assets and given the rest of the Kriegsmarine such as the Tirpitz a chance to do something.

Then we have to discuss, would it have been more important to knock out GZ or to knock out Tirpitz? With a full scale operation they could have sunken both, but losses would be terribly high (think of some Fritz X and Do-217/He-177 in 1943).

I'd go for the Tirpitz personally, it was more of an offensive weapon and, as such more of a danger to the Murmansk convoys

hi Del, its seems we have moved foward some years as you now mention Fritz X ect ect so Ok now we have the might of the US navy and the US air force in the war and the British Navy and the Royal airforce has grown along with the contributions from the Australians,Canadians and all the other allies the inbalance is even greater in 1943 the biggest naval threat was still the U-boat by the end of that year 241 Kriegsmarine vessels had been lost including the Scharnhorst (the Gneisenau had been laid up since 1942) as opposed to 36 Royal Navy vessels. It was the end of the Happy time and the beginning of the end for the Kreigsmarine as a fighting force
PQ17 was not a Battle group there is a big difference between sinking a convoy and taking on a fleet of warships.
I agree with Mossie Tirpitz was more of a threat. with the skies over europe becoming more and more dominated by the Allies the sort of threat that one carrier could mount against these was next to zero
One large surface raider in amongst a convoy was worth 30 U-boats
So its sink the Tirpitz first and let the US airforce with its Mustang escorts sort out the GZ

Or Lancasters with Tallboys

Lancs with Tallboys and Mustangs please in 1944, but we will discuss 1944 later. I completely agree with you all: Take out the Tirpitz first!
In 1943 things are going worse for the Kriegsmarine, it was the turning year, making it even more interesting in my eyes (it makes no sense to discuss the early years, only). So let´s start:
Early 1943 we have pretty air cover in Norway, Tirptz, Hipper, Lutzow, Gneisenau (and GZ in this scenario) as heavy units and some other smaller ones. (hi Trackend, you are right, only 34 RN- vessels but please take the non- british losses also into this calculation, there is one battleship sunk and 3 others put out of action by Fritz X) The US fleet brings in early 1943 the mighty Iowa into patrol position to protect the Atlantic against an outbreak of heavy german units. Barentsea remains the only probable theatre for the heavy german units. The King George V was put out of order for months (by accident). PQ-17 was protected by two battleships-Washington and Duke of Yorck (that is a battlefleet in my eyes). They were ordered back as soon as it was known that Tirpitz left it´s fjord. GZ would have made further damage to the convoi, it could succesfully lead other german units (like Lutzow) into convois. We know that Lutzow had problems to get in contact. Attacks against Tirpitz and GZ would consist of carrier based bombers (no torpedo bombers in fjords) and maybe some x-boats. None of them did manage to sink Tirpitz (while it is true that x-boats did put the ship out of order for months), why should it work on GZ? Possible: Yes. Probable: no. The presence of GZ would bind even more warships on the ETO, reducing pressure at the PTO. The sinking of Scharnhorst later in 1943 would be impossible, if GZ could succesful warn Scharnhorst of the presence of Duke of Yorck out there...Without the loss of Scharnhorst (debatable) Hitler would allow the reconstruction of Gneisenau: In 1943 were plans to refit Gneisenau (new and elonged bow for more lift and better speed, upgrade of its primary weapon (6 x 15 inch/52), radar and secondary weapons (22 x 5,1 inch multi purpose guns), it was even begun. The RN capabilities to take a heavy german ship out would be divided between Tirptz, Scharnhorst and GZ. I do not doubt that it would be more difficult to do the job. Another point has to be underlined: There is defensive for KM and the RN/US are pressing hard.Maybe someone can imagine a scenario between RN/US forces protecting a convoi and KM+Luftwaffe trying to take it out. Just for fun.

I get your point Del and concede on PQ17 . However lets say the Washington and the Duke of york and KG V and 30 destroyers and 10 cruisers and 4 aircraft carriers are all sunk by the German navy that still leaves a massive force and which ever way you like to think, it is going to send the GZ,Sharnhorst,Blucher and anything else that shows its face to the bottom you talk as if refitting One ship here and evading detection there would make a huge difference Donitz as I have said knew full well that his surface fleet could at best put up a good show and that's all. The Bismark was one of the most powerful surface vessel he had it lasted 9 days in operational waters the other, the Tirpitz made three brief forays in March and July 42 and Sept 43 total 11 days end result sunk by Lancs after seeking refuge in a fjord any supposition that you make is too unlikely to be credible. But I have enjoyed the thread cheers Del

Well I will agree that the Tirpitz would have to go first, but honestly I really dont think the GZ would have lasted at all. She was a beautiful ship and thats about it. The few fighters she would have had for arial defense were Bf-109T's. Basically Bf-109E's with longer folding wings and an arrester hook to land on carriers. To help defend against other ships she would have had Stukas that were modified the same way. By the time the GZ would have been operational both aircraft would have been completely obsolete and would have been completely outmatched. Now I do believe had the Germans gotten the GZ out the same time the Bismark did, and she went out to sea with the Bismark fleet, she may have been able to keep the Bismark afloat longer then she did and might have been able to make an impact.

A carrier on it's own was easy prey in the Atlantic, not so in the Pacific

A carrier alone by itself is easy prey no matter what ocean it was in. If it could not get sufficient warning of attacks from the air it was a sure loss. If it was attacked by a large fleet of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, it was a sure loss. It takes more then a few minutes to start up an aircraft and get it off the carrier deck. In that time the BB's would be shelling it and most likely the flight deck would be damaged to the point that they could not launch aircraft. A lone carrier is also a sure loss if it is by itself and there are submarines in the area. A carrier has zero defences against a Sub.

Carriers however were the main capital ship in the pacific.

Agreed. A carrier alone was pretty prey for surface fleets, no doubt (The HMS Glorius proved that in 1940). I generally doubt that even the refitting of Gneisenau and GZ would have made an impact in 1943. The odds were against them. But we will move later on (and 1945 will be interesting again). At a pure seabattle between large forces (let´s stay with Washington, Duke of York, KGV, four carriers and escorts against Tirptiz, Scharnhorst, Lutzow, GZ (with all obsolete planes, agreed), Hipper and both air cover and bombers operating from Norway) I would like to give the allies the better chances and the higher losses. But such a scenario is unlikely. 1943 would result in heavy german units sitting in the fjords and US/British forces escorting Murmansk convois. Maybe we would see a single operation (let´s say Schanrhorst) against a convoi. That´s it. Probably all german units could survive by inactivity, agreed? Bismarck was not sunk because it has to be sunk by itself. It has to be sunk because it did sank the Hood. That is activity. Still the weapon of beeing concept works (..and Dönitz knew about this concept).

I will agree with what you said there.

apart from the fact you put more emphasis on the americans attacking the GZ than the british, we'd have first bite of the cherry............

How did he put more emphasis on the Americans? Lets see he said the USS Washington, Duke of York, King Goerge V. Thats 2 Royal Navy ships and one US Navy Ship. He did not specify the nationality of the carriers and the escorts. That seems to me he put emphasis on you Brits.

lancs just being paranoid again.

yes that's one too many American ships!!

Yeah I would say someone is quite paranoid! Are we okay there Lanc?

well no we should be the first to try (and succed in) sinking her, she's ours

I thought she was German.