The official discussion thread: 1918 - The German Navy sorties one last time -V.IV-

[Detlef]

I did reread the whole story thread to freshen up my memory. Don´t want to make any blunders here.

Thanks for your clarifications but before I comment on them, I think I found one actual problem.

Post 88:

As a result of this treaty [London Naval Conference September 1923], the rules for capital ships (Battleships and Battlecruisers) are not altered in any way at the current time. All other ship classes are however limited: Aircraft Carriers are limited to 8" guns (For defence only) and a total tonnage of 27,000 tons, and submarines are limited to 2,000 tons and 5.1" guns. For cruisers, all the nations agree that two new classes will be created: Heavy and Light Cruisers. Heavy Cruisers will be limited to 10,000 tons displacement and 8" guns, while Light Cruisers are limited to 6" guns and 8,000 tons displacement.

Dutch Den Helder Class Heavy Cruiser 1927 and Light Cruiser 1927 are both too large. The heavy cruiser might just work given OTL German Panzerschiffe example. The light cruiser though really pulverizes the 8,000 tons displacement limit? Or do the Dutch simply rename them heavy cruisers too?

Originally Posted by Eternity

If memory serves, that occured OTL too... Nobody thought of it, it would appear. Keep in mind however, that a training ship has some of it's main armament removed and replaced with other weapons, to make it more general purpose. This means that it would need dockyard time to make it fully operational again. Same with mothballed ships. If I recall correctly, at the moment it will take about 2 months to fully reactivate a large mothballed ship (Think BB) and a month or so for a cruiser sized vessel, and those time scales assume dockyard space, equipment availability, spairs and replacements for damaged components... The limiting factor on quickly reactivating a ship has always been and will always be drydock time. Each ship will need a few weeks in drydock for hull maintainance before being reactivated... Only so many drydocks exist capable of taking a large ship (And they are usually booked well in advance).

Astonishing that it happened in OTL too. I suspect none of the powers wanted to dispense with their existing reserve ships.
I´m a bit unsure though if the German navy would really remove some of the main armament (main turrets?) on a battle cruiser training ship? I mean, first of all a battle cruiser already does have a mix of weapons on-board and second - I´m no expert here - how would the ship handle with that weight removed?

And concerning dry docks (all data pre-WW1).
(Source: "German Sea-Power, its Rise and Progress, and Economic Basis" by Archibald Hurd, 1914)

Imperial Naval Yard at Kiel: 6 floating docks, 6 dry docks
Imperial Naval Yard at Wilhelmshaven: 5 floating docks (4 of them for torpedo boats) 7 dry docks
The floating docks seem to be mainly for torpedo boats / destroyers and light cruisers? I´m unsure about the size of the dry docks but looking at some 1910 pictures, 2-3 of them in each location might be capital ship size which would make sense (war time repairs).
Additionally 15 dry docks (9 of them over 100 meters long) and 34 floating docks (4 of them over 150 meters long) are owned by ship-building companies. Plus pre-war the state of Bremen was constructing an additional dry dock in Bremerhaven (260 meters long and probably for passenger liners?).

So there seem to be at least 5 dry docks (probably more) suitable for capital ships. With several of them owned by the navy itself.

Originally Posted by Eternity

Also, I have just thought of this: Currently some nations have compulsary military training between say 18 and 20 (For sake of argument). This provides a population trained in warfare, yes, BUT in time of war if all those people left to fight, who would farm the fields? Who would man the factories? Who would produce goods and run the country to ensure that a war could be fought? Great concept, but horrible in putting it into practice

You are describing WW1 here.
Food shortages and rationing. If you can´t compensate by importing enough needed goods, you are describing WW1 Germany.
Pre-WW1 Germany had a 2 year conscription but didn´t draft all eligible young men (conservatives opposed an enlargement of the army because it would have meant more non-noble officers). France IIRC had a 3 year military draft.

Originally Posted by Eternity

So while you are correct in theory - There is nothing stopping a nation from having huge amounts of mothballed ships and the personel to man them ashore just waiting for the chance to serve on them, there are practical problems which are self-limiting in that concept.

Well, the Germans used a slimmed down variant of that idea before WW1.
Source once again Archibald Hurd (see above).
- Full crews for the active fleet
- Nucleus crews (one-half of the engine-room personnel, one-quarter of the remaining personnel of the full crew) for the ships belonging to the reserve fleet (reserve ships on a rotating basis were also activated for yearly naval exercises).
- 1.5 full crews for ships on foreign stations

Granted, not practicable for a huge amount of mothballed ships but possibly practicable for some of the more valuable reserve ships. Especially if you can fill up the crews - once war is declared - with recently discharged naval personnel.

Originally Posted by Eternity

And if nobody listens to them? They are there, and I could add them in, but OTL the French were much more concerned with the German army than the navy, due to the land border.
...
If I were the French government in this situation I would be thinking 'Annoying, but at least it is not money and material going to the main threat, the German army.'

Of course you´re right.
And you don´t have to mention it explicitly. I was just wondering about it happening at all. The French protesting just out of principle

Originally Posted by Eternity

What would British tonnage be with all ships in reserve made operational however? Germany would have 604,500t made up of 17 capital ships. If you range England against that, you have Germany competing against 24 capital ships totalling 984,950t, with another 18 capital ships totalling a further 489,870t from the empire (Australia, Canada and India ITTL).
...
Hope that explains my thinking on matters there

Oh, I wasn´t thinking about a new Anglo-German naval race here. And thanks again for the detailed explanations!

I was more thinking about the limitations of the treaty generally. And using Germany as an example here because you generously just provided the actual strength (active and reserve) of the German navy.
And according to your comment the British also have at least some 500,000 tons of capital ships in reserve.
A future war involving one or more of the major powers thus could see navies exceeding the Washington Treaty limits almost from the start. Just something I´m trying to keep in mind.

The German problem though still remains. Once the 4 Bismarck class ships are active only 64,600 tons of active capital ships are left over. Just 3 colony class ships for the colonies of East Africa and New Guinea.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Detlef

I did reread the whole story thread to freshen up my memory. Don´t want to make any blunders here.

Thank you for your commitment, however.....

Originally Posted by Detlef

Thanks for your clarifications but before I comment on them, I think I found one actual problem.

Post 88:
Dutch Den Helder Class Heavy Cruiser 1927 and Light Cruiser 1927 are both too large. The heavy cruiser might just work given OTL German Panzerschiffe example. The light cruiser though really pulverizes the 8,000 tons displacement limit? Or do the Dutch simply rename them heavy cruisers too?

I found a blunder here too... ITTL 1919 Naval Treaty is like all other treaties in one major respect - Only signatories are bound by them. The Dutch never signed, thus are not bound by it

Originally Posted by Detlef

Astonishing that it happened in OTL too. I suspect none of the powers wanted to dispense with their existing reserve ships.
I´m a bit unsure though if the German navy would really remove some of the main armament (main turrets?) on a battle cruiser training ship? I mean, first of all a battle cruiser already does have a mix of weapons on-board and second - I´m no expert here - how would the ship handle with that weight removed?

Never said they had. Just made the observation that it usually happens to training ships. Some of their armour is also usually removed, along with some of their engine power. It really depends on whether or not the ship is a static or mobile training ship, and whether or not it sails locally or overseas for those duties. From my notes, the HSF training ships sail on world tours, thus they would still retain engine power and armour belts for seakeeping ability and structural strength reasons.

Originally Posted by Detlef

And concerning dry docks (all data pre-WW1).
(Source: "German Sea-Power, its Rise and Progress, and Economic Basis" by Archibald Hurd, 1914)

Imperial Naval Yard at Kiel: 6 floating docks, 6 dry docks
Imperial Naval Yard at Wilhelmshaven: 5 floating docks (4 of them for torpedo boats) 7 dry docks
The floating docks seem to be mainly for torpedo boats / destroyers and light cruisers? I´m unsure about the size of the dry docks but looking at some 1910 pictures, 2-3 of them in each location might be capital ship size which would make sense (war time repairs).
Additionally 15 dry docks (9 of them over 100 meters long) and 34 floating docks (4 of them over 150 meters long) are owned by ship-building companies. Plus pre-war the state of Bremen was constructing an additional dry dock in Bremerhaven (260 meters long and probably for passenger liners?).

So there seem to be at least 5 dry docks (probably more) suitable for capital ships. With several of them owned by the navy itself.

I will have to see if the library has that book obviously.
I will say this however: The military will lease out their docks to civilian ships to raise money for the navy, and while they have priority, naval dockings are worked around the civilian dockings except in an emergency, so unless war was actually declared (Or on the undeniable point of being declared), the navy would not stop the civilian shipping entering.

Originally Posted by Detlef

You are describing WW1 here.
Food shortages and rationing. If you can´t compensate by importing enough needed goods, you are describing WW1 Germany.
Pre-WW1 Germany had a 2 year conscription but didn´t draft all eligible young men (conservatives opposed an enlargement of the army because it would have meant more non-noble officers). France IIRC had a 3 year military draft.

Well, the Germans used a slimmed down variant of that idea before WW1.
Source once again Archibald Hurd (see above).
- Full crews for the active fleet
- Nucleus crews (one-half of the engine-room personnel, one-quarter of the remaining personnel of the full crew) for the ships belonging to the reserve fleet (reserve ships on a rotating basis were also activated for yearly naval exercises).
- 1.5 full crews for ships on foreign stations

Granted, not practicable for a huge amount of mothballed ships but possibly practicable for some of the more valuable reserve ships. Especially if you can fill up the crews - once war is declared - with recently discharged naval personnel.

Maybe one or two ships (Say the 1x Colony in refit & 2x other more advanced ships) would be like this, but not the rest. For England, the Queen Elizabeth Class/Revenge Class ships would fall into that catagory.
NOTE: I say the QE's because at this time in the TL they are undergoing large refits (2+ years each). Ordinarially, it would be 3x Revenge Class only, as reserves for the fleet. At this time they are filling in for the QE's on refits however.

Originally Posted by Detlef

Of course you´re right.
And you don´t have to mention it explicitly. I was just wondering about it happening at all. The French protesting just out of principle

Oh, I wasn´t thinking about a new Anglo-German naval race here. And thanks again for the detailed explanations!

Ah ok. I thought you meant a new Anglo-German arms race! lol All the major powers do it though - IJN (To a HUGE extent like OTL), US, France (Limited, smaller craft mainly) UK, HSF and not so much Italy, but smaller craft like France.

Originally Posted by Detlef

I was more thinking about the limitations of the treaty generally. And using Germany as an example here because you generously just provided the actual strength (active and reserve) of the German navy.
And according to your comment the British also have at least some 500,000 tons of capital ships in reserve.
A future war involving one or more of the major powers thus could see navies exceeding the Washington Treaty limits almost from the start. Just something I´m trying to keep in mind.

Bit like OTL! lol The UK ships in reserve are actually serving with Empire fleets, thus are not technically in 'Reserve', they are reserve ships to the Empire however.

Originally Posted by Detlef

The German problem though still remains. Once the 4 Bismarck class ships are active only 64,600 tons of active capital ships are left over. Just 3 colony class ships for the colonies of East Africa and New Guinea.

The Bismarck comes online in 1934 so I would not worry about it until then

Got to scoot to work now, so will check the above later.

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Thank you for your commitment, however.....

Thank you for your thank you.

Originally Posted by Eternity

I found a blunder here too... ITTL 1919 Naval Treaty is like all other treaties in one major respect - Only signatories are bound by them. The Dutch never signed, thus are not bound by it

The Germans were however bound by it.
The thing is that in OTL the German and Austrian-Hungarian navy didn´t exist anymore. And the Dutch in OTL never ordered - to my knowledge - that many capital ships to defend the Dutch East Indies?
In this TL - give the French domestic problems - the Dutch capital ships might be something that a few governments would be worried about?
So I would expect that at least in the late 1920s / early 1930s the treaty partners would start to look at those two navies too?

What´s the use of having treaty limits if you have two countries with friendly relations to Germany not under that rule?
I´d expect actually that both countries would have been invited to the conferences in the 1920s? The 1930s surely?

Originally Posted by Eternity

Never said they had. Just made the observation that it usually happens to training ships. Some of their armour is also usually removed, along with some of their engine power. It really depends on whether or not the ship is a static or mobile training ship, and whether or not it sails locally or overseas for those duties. From my notes, the HSF training ships sail on world tours, thus they would still retain engine power and armour belts for seakeeping ability and structural strength reasons.

How do you remove armor from battle cruisers?

Originally Posted by Eternity

I will have to see if the library has that book obviously.
I will say this however: The military will lease out their docks to civilian ships to raise money for the navy, and while they have priority, naval dockings are worked around the civilian dockings except in an emergency, so unless war was actually declared (Or on the undeniable point of being declared), the navy would not stop the civilian shipping entering.

It´s available for free at the link I mentioned.
A word of caution though. The "Kindle" link leaves out some tables. The pdf-link seems pretty complete. With some problems due to scanning.

Originally Posted by Eternity

Bit like OTL! lol The UK ships in reserve are actually serving with Empire fleets, thus are not technically in 'Reserve', they are reserve ships to the Empire however.

In that case they´re violating the Washington treaty maybe?
Page 2, post 35:

April 12th 1919
After a week of discussions in Washington, the negotiations are going well in most people's eyes. The Americans desire that the tonnage for all classes of ships should be limited to acceptable levels, and all nations have agreed in principal to both this and to the British point that fuel, water and other supplies should not be included in this tonnage. All the nations present have also agreed that the Royal Navy could fragment into Dominion Navies, but they have also insisted that all of the navies of the British Empire should be counted under the same banner, something to which the First Sea Lord had expected and therefore agreed to.

Quite obviously, the 980.000 tons limit is for both the Royal Navy and Dominion navies?

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Detlef

The Germans were however bound by it.
The thing is that in OTL the German and Austrian-Hungarian navy didn´t exist anymore. And the Dutch in OTL never ordered - to my knowledge - that many capital ships to defend the Dutch East Indies?
In this TL - give the French domestic problems - the Dutch capital ships might be something that a few governments would be worried about?
So I would expect that at least in the late 1920s / early 1930s the treaty partners would start to look at those two navies too?

While the Germans may be bound by a treaty, there is nothing to stop them from building a vessel that exceeds treaty tonnages for export. So long as she does not keep the vessel, I'm sorry but she is not breaking the treaty and therefore is acting legally.

OTL, you are technically correct with regards to the Dutch Battleships. None were ordered, however a bill for their order was entered into the Dutch Parlament and then dropped following the outbreak of The Great War. I am unsure exactly how many battleships were planned, but it was either 9 or 4 I think..... Reference is here.

This therefore means she could fund the ships (And keep in mind she picked up most of the ITTL ships cheap as war leftovers) and had a desire to have them. The Dutch and French have enjoyed friendly relations for a long time, and therefore the French would not view Dutch Battleships in the Netherlands East Indies as a threat. The IJN would however, and OTL the ships were ordered to counter a perceved IJN threat to the Netherlands East Indies. This is the same ITTL.

Originally Posted by Detlef

What´s the use of having treaty limits if you have two countries with friendly relations to Germany not under that rule?
I´d expect actually that both countries would have been invited to the conferences in the 1920s? The 1930s surely?

SPOILER: The treaty signatories will be recalled at the request of Germany in the early 1930's, and some more signatories will be added, and other tweaks made as well. This event will cover that problem.

Originally Posted by Detlef

How do you remove armor from battle cruisers?

I presume you just unbolt it. I know that OTL HMS Iron Duke had it removed when she became a gunnery training ship in 1929. I assume it is possible, as a Battleship is usually launched without armour, and has it fitted after launch (There are photos around online that proves this), I therefore assume the reverse is true - It can be removed if no longer required, or if in need of replacement. The reason the G-3/N-3 armour scheme was not re-used after the designs were dropped, is because they had an internal belt and removal/replacement of the belt required major work.

Originally Posted by Detlef

In that case they´re violating the Washington treaty maybe?
Page 2, post 35:

Quite obviously, the 980.000 tons limit is for both the Royal Navy and Dominion navies?

Good observe. I forgot about that

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Detlef

Well, the Germans used a slimmed down variant of that idea before WW1.
Source once again Archibald Hurd (see above).
- Full crews for the active fleet
- Nucleus crews (one-half of the engine-room personnel, one-quarter of the remaining personnel of the full crew) for the ships belonging to the reserve fleet (reserve ships on a rotating basis were also activated for yearly naval exercises).
- 1.5 full crews for ships on foreign stations

Leading up to WW2 IOTL, the USA used half gun crews on capital ships.

So in a tough budget environment with no looming war, the crews might be cut even more than this suggests.

[Eternity]

Ok. Just a quick update here...

I know I said an update was due a few weeks ago, but RL has got in the way in the form of assingments for my diploma, so I am having to concentrate on them at the moment

That's the bad news. The good news is that I only have one left!

Not too sure when the next update will come out as a result, but hopefully I can push something by the weekend (But no promises ).

David.

[Pax Britannia]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Thanks, but it is strictly as and when at the moment as I am working on my Diploma as a priority. After that though, it will be more regular I hope.

On a side note, can I please request that you post in the discussion thread here, so that the story thread remains 'clean'?

Thanks!

Sorry mate, after I posted I thought "i'm sure there was a discussion thread".

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Ok. Just a quick update here...

I know I said an update was due a few weeks ago, but RL has got in the way in the form of assingments for my diploma, so I am having to concentrate on them at the moment

That's the bad news. The good news is that I only have one left!

Not too sure when the next update will come out as a result, but hopefully I can push something by the weekend (But no promises ).

David.

Go get your diploma first! And hopefully - knock on wood - with good grades too!
It´ll be much more important for your life than writing updates here.
You can continue here later on, you hear me?

That said:

All four nations will also agree to and sign The Scandinavian Defence Treaty, which is a mutual defence pact between them. If any of the four countries are attacked, then the other three will come to that countries aid, but if any of the nations declare war against another nation, then the other signatories of the treaty do not need to come to that nation's aid, even if they are loosing. They also attempt to secure guarantees from England and Germany that the invasion of any of their countries proper will be paramount to an act of war against either Germany or England, but both England and Germany decline to be drawn into any set treaty however, and content themselves to say that they will not accept an unprovoked Soviet aggression against or the invasion of another sovereign nation, but will not guarantee what action or aid they give in time of war, because they may have other commitments within their empires.

There is simply no way that Germany in 1931 would allow:
a) the Soviet Union to conquer Finland (or the Baltic states). Germany would lose control of the Baltic Sea and with it its secure sea lanes to Swedish iron ore in the summer months. And the secure Baltic Sea to train naval crews and ships.
b) Same for Norway. The port of Narvik was used in the winter months (ice in the Baltic Sea) to transport iron ore to Germany.

Control of the Baltic Sea and a secure supply of Swedish iron ore would be considered an essential German security interest. Germany would be delighted if the Scandinavian countries would offer it a defensive alliance. And Germany would accept.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Detlef

There is simply no way that Germany in 1931 would allow:
a) the Soviet Union to conquer Finland (or the Baltic states). Germany would lose control of the Baltic Sea and with it its secure sea lanes to Swedish iron ore in the summer months. And the secure Baltic Sea to train naval crews and ships.
b) Same for Norway. The port of Narvik was used in the winter months (ice in the Baltic Sea) to transport iron ore to Germany.

Control of the Baltic Sea and a secure supply of Swedish iron ore would be considered an essential German security interest. Germany would be delighted if the Scandinavian countries would offer it a defensive alliance. And Germany would accept.

I know, and both Germany and England have agreed to support the Scandanivan states in a war, they just do not want to be tied to a treaty just yet

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Pax Britannia

Sorry mate, after I posted I thought "i'm sure there was a discussion thread".

No worries. Any chance of you deleting that post in the story thread please?

[Pax Britannia]

Originally Posted by Eternity

No worries. Any chance of you deleting that post in the story thread please?

Done!

I have high hopes for the Lion Class in this timeline.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Pax Britannia

Done!

I have high hopes for the Lion Class in this timeline.

Thanks & feel free to PM me with any thoughts you may have on future events involving them

[Eternity]

Okies! Last assingment is in! woo hoo

I will hopefully be posting an update tomorrow, but in the meantime, I have posted a question in the post-1900's forum.....

Page is here.....

Thoughts on any potential missing items would be great thanks!

Oh and before it is asked, no, nothing to do with this TL.

[ijnfleetadmiral]

Originally Posted by Pax Britannia

Done!

I have high hopes for the Lion Class in this timeline.

I'm looking forward to the Yamatos and any 'big sisters' they might have!

-Matt

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by ijnfleetadmiral

I'm looking forward to the Yamatos and any 'big sisters' they might have!

-Matt

Well at the moment the Yamato's cannot be designed as OTL - No armour testing (Shells and Torpedoes) has taken place on the Tosa as per OTL

EDIT: Sorry for not getting an update done yesterday I got a little engrossed in researching the Prince of Wales's damage and gun issues from The Battle of Denmark Strait (1941). My bad & doing update shortly, after a spell checking session.

[Eternity]

okies. Sorry for the delays in the update

I should also add that I new 2x new pets and am trying to house-train them as well, so they are taking up a fair chunk of my time playing with and trying not to be eaten by! lol

Notes:
Yes, I am aware the HSF Weser Class CVs have weapons with which to engage surface vessels, and yes, I know this costs in terms of air-group size etc etc etc. The Weser's are the first-generation HSF CV's, and follow the thoughts of all other nations (At this time in history) first-generation CVs. Only subsiquent generations (In most cases) lacked these weapons and concentrated soley on aircraft.

The United States Jason Class CV of this TL are the Ranger Class of OTL. IMTL the USS Ranger is a Lexington Class Battlecruiser (As she was going to be OTL).

OTL Hitler did retreat to Lake Tegernsee after the death of Geli Raubal (I have not made these initial events up). Obviously however, he did not attend any comedy club evenings during his time there I got the basic story/information for these events (Geli's suicide, backed up by further research and checking) from the book Hitler's Angel by Kris Rusch. Good book, and I recommend it. Oh the things that may/could have been.....

Germany never fielded a triple 10.5cm type gun in a fully enclosed turret, only singles or doubles in open or semi-enclosed mounts. After observations made, I have uprated this from the 88mm AA gun I had installed. The price? 50t displacement and 0.3 knots decrease in speed. A DP gun over a pure AA gun makes sense for a cruiser, and it makes it a much more potent threat to any destroyers or small craft operating in the Black Sea (Whereas the 88mm is a smaller calibre gun than found on Destroyers).

[Richter von Manthofen]

One question

IIRC the reparations question was solved that Germany had to pay 50 billion RM to France, but the treaty did not state how much Austria had to pay (so I assume no reparations by Austria)

So suspenduing the reparations would NOT help Austria...

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

One question

IIRC the reparations question was solved that Germany had to pay 50 billion RM to France, but the treaty did not state how much Austria had to pay (so I assume no reparations by Austria)

So suspenduing the reparations would NOT help Austria...

Reparations were actually 15 billion RM in reconstruction costs.

Oh God...Comedian Hitler...what a riot.

[sharlin]

What a barrage of updates but brilliant ones none the less! I must admit the bits about Adolf's daily routine and the mental image of him doing stand up made me chuckle. As always, absolutely brilliant stuff!

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Reparations were actually 15 billion RM in reconstruction costs.

Yes, I have a few tweaks to make for earlier in the TL (Too old to edit in though). Expanding on the peace treaty is one of those areas.

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Oh God...Comedian Hitler...what a riot.

There is this video on youtube where I got the idea from. It is actually bloody fantastic!!! haha

Anyway, it was that, assassination or painting, and let's face it, he was not exactly a good painter.....