What if this ship wasn't sunk, where would the world be today? Would the war have been longer?

~Chip

If she (he) wasn't sunk in '41, she (he) would've been toast by early '42 at the latest. No impact whatsoever on where the world is today, maybe the war would've lasted a bit longer, but not much longer.

I tend to agree with Kevin. I think that the RN would still have sunk Bismark, but it would have taken some time. The intent was for Bismark to function as a commerce raider in the Atlantic. As the British blew up the docks at Le Havre, there would have been no Axis controlled drydock available for Bismark's maintenance. Therefore, he (German ships are he) would have probably gone to a South American port and have met the same fate as Scharnhorst.

Hi guys, if the Bismark had survived to return to port it would have certainly have caused the royal navy to retain more of its heavy units in the home fleet, maybe robbing other areas like the mediterranean of vital assets. Similarly the RAF would have been expending much of its already stretched resourses in attempting to keep it from putting to sea, witness the attempts later in the war to deal with the Tirpitz. Imagine if the Germans had completed work on their carrier Graf Zepelin and sent it out with Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and Gneisenour (forgive spelling) in a single task force. They might have wreaked havoc with the vital convoys.
Martin

I tend to agree that it prolly would not have significant impact on the out come of the war. Now if German had 200 more U-Boat, then it's a totally different story.

Dave is right, add 200 crewed U-boats and you have REAL trouble. Add the Graf Zepplin and all the other big boys and you just have targets. A very similar thread came up last winter and most people agreed that Germany never developed the non-capital ships needed to make their fleet truly effective. If they had put to sea without the necessary destroyer and ancillary escort they wouldn't have lasted long, and Germany never possessed those type of assets needed for true sea control, hence surface raiders that usually had very short combat lives.

Flame away!

Coop

I don't know. I've heard the argument for 200+ Uboats before, but the reality of the situation was was that techologically, the Uboat war was lost no matter the fleet size. The advent of effective radar to interdict the necessary surfacing, the use of the escort carriers to force effective air cover over the convoys, effective ASW tactics and weapons spelled the end to this threat.

I also agree - I think the Bismarck / Tirpitz was a psychological thing, and did not effect the war a whit. A single warship roaming as a naked (non-disguised) convoy raider is pre-airpower mentality. It was vital for the Brits to sink it because of its symbolism as German sea-power in its ascendancy.

Mika H

a South American port and have met the same fate as Scharnhorst.

First point, this was the Graf Spee not the Scharnhorst.. Graf Sppe scuttled in the River Platte near Montevido Uraguay. The Scharnhorst died a fighting death in the North sea much the same as the Bismarck did.

If the Brits had not gotten the Bismarck in the Atlantic, I think they would have nailed her with bombers in a port. I don't think LeHarve had been taken out at that point. She might have moved in operation Cerebrus, but I think she would have died similar to the Tirpitz.

No impact on the outcoome of the war

If the Bismarck wasn't sunk, it would have still darted to France with its blown-up rudder w/c brings up the fact that the British would be expecting its arrival & would've destroyed it on the shore. Sunk or not she would still be ending up in the same fate.

I'm not so sure the British could have destroyed the Bismark so easily if it had made it back to Brest. When Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were there the British did not manage to inflict any damage on them, air attacks on well defended ports had proved costly and inflicted only minor damage at that time during WW2. When the British destroyed the drydock at St Nazaire they had to use an old destroyer packed with explosive to ram the dock gates. They did not have the resources to do the job with airpower. For one thing the size of bombs used by the RAF were not big enough to sink any large warship without countless hits. Torpedo bombers would probably been shot out of the sky. When they eventually sunk Tirpitz it was with the giant bombs developed by Barnes Wallis and then it was after years of unsuccessful attempts. If Bismark had made it back to port it could have meant the British having to keep at least one fleet carrier with the home fleet and also battleships which were needed elsewhere. With them would be the extra destroyers to act as escorts thus reducing the already meagre numbers required for convoy escort. If Bismark had broken out again and got among the convoys it could have caused them to scatter, allowing the U-boats a much easier time of it. I agree that it would have been a worst case scenario for the Bismark to have made a major impact but the British HAD to plan for a worst case scenario.
Martin

Sorry... I was typing from memory without looking at my reference.

i think she would have been successful as a fleet in being but as a commerce raider no the Germans were too short of oil for that.

It wouldn't matter much. Just like the Japanese battleships Musashi and Yamato. They were uilt in the late '30's but they were eventually sunk in '44 and '45 respectively.

These battlewagons are symbols of German and Japanese pride of their achievements. In battle, they were just another statistic or kill mark to a submarine or (dive) bomber..