Tirpitz and the strategic value of a raider threat

How did Tirpitz and the other German capital ships demonstrate the value of tying down an enemy's naval resources?

Their potential breakout as surface raiders forced Britain to retain substantial naval and air forces against a threat that did not need to fight a fleet battle to have strategic effect.

Tirpitz could impose substantial costs while remaining in port because Britain had to guard against a breakout threatening the Arctic convoys. A comment proposes that this example influenced Soviet ideas about convoy disruption alongside Admiral Graf Spee. Watching German surface ships tied down British naval and air forces that could otherwise have reinforced the Mediterranean or Far East. Britain's commitments against Italy and in the Indian Ocean imposed additional demands of their own. The resulting division of forces helps explain why Britain could not concentrate its full strength in the Pacific earlier in the war. An inferior surface fleet could therefore affect distant operations without winning a major fleet engagement.