Alt Kriegsmarine

Using a little bit of hindsight I wondered what could be done better. This is mostly a thought exercise rather than what could actually have been done but I am trying to avoid going too far afield.

First thought is the design effort wasted on the Improved Panzerschiffe Designs that were Panzerschiffe D & E is ditched. Just jump straight to working on a true capital ship design and lay down a proven design in the mean time. So two more Panzerschiffe are laid down in 1933. Eventually we get to something like the historic Twins design and hopefully managed to get Hitler to waive his silly armament restrictions. So the final design looks like the intended rebuild of Gneisenau; 35,000 tons, longer hull, 3x2 15" guns and a bit slower but the longer hull helps.

I would really like to do instead is either ditch the High Pressure Steam Propulsion all together or at least go with a combined Diesel and Steam Power Plant but the Germans appear set on their path for the big ships and I can't come up with a good explanation why they would make such a radical change.

Also ditch the overweight Heavy Cruiser designs, just keep building pocket BB's. By now the defects have been worked out. So Admiral Hipper and her sisters are of same class as the Pocket BB's.

When 1936 comes around, just repeat the Alt-Scharnhorst class instead of the historic Bismarck Class. Ditch the carriers built from the Kiel up, if there is a massive need for carriers then convert an bulk carrier, ore ship or tanker so the Kriegsmarine can get some experience with the type. In their place lay down more pocket BB's.

If the Navy had been less closed minded in the 1920's they should have sent naval officers to do long trips to visit the USN and taken long hard looks at USN carriers. The Army sent officers repeatedly over to the USA in the 1920's and early 30's and they were warmly received.

In any case this should result in a more effective and slightly cheaper than historic fleet. Net result is the same, its hunted down one by one till only a few remain and they surrender at the end.

Name Laid Down Launched Completed Slipway
Panzerschiffe D (Derfflinger ) 8/1/1933 4/23/1935 5/2/1937 Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven
Panzerschiffe E (Mackensen) 9/1/1933 5/24/1935 6/2/1937 Deutsche Werke Kiel
Gneisenau (Alt) 6/23/1935 1/25/1937 7/8/1938 Deutsche Werke Kiel
Scharnhorst (Alt) 5/23/1935 9/10/1936 12/15/1938 Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven
Panzerschiffe F (Admiral Hipper) 7/6/1935 2/6/1937 4/29/1939 Blohm & Voß Hamburg #2
Panzerschiffe G (Blücher) 8/15/1935 6/8/1937 9/20/1939 Deutsche Werke Kiel #2
Panzerschiffe H (Prinz Eugen) 4/23/1936 8/22/1938 8/1/1940 Germaniawerft Kiel #2
Bismarck (Alt) 7/1/1936 2/14/1939 8/24/1940 Blohm & Voß Hamburg #1
Tirpitz (Alt) 11/2/1936 4/1/1939 2/25/1941 Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven #2
Panzerschiffe J (Roon) 12/28/1936 12/8/1938 12/17/1940 Deutsche Werke Kiel #1
Panzerschiffe K (Seydlitz) 12/29/1936 1/19/1939 1/28/1941 Deschimag Bremen
Panzerschiffe L (Lützow) 8/2/1937 7/1/1939 7/10/1941 Deschimag Bremen
Panzerschiffe M (Yorck) 9/21/1938 6/12/1940 6/22/1942 Germaniawerft Kiel #2

The theory does not fit within historical reality of shipdesign, compared to development of its fittings. The historical designs of the Scharnhorst class were beased on the 1913 model of the Mackensen design and was altered accordingly to fit in the required powerplant mainly, while from the start on scheduled to carry the lately developped 38 cm/52 C-34 guns in twin turrets, at the time when the following Bismarck Class was still scheduled to carry the lesser 35 cm/55 C-34 model, before being upgunned to the same main gun of the Scharnhorst class. (and at some time even to the larger 40,6/52 C-36, later used to arm ther canceled H-class)

The problem is not the weapons to use, but the timeframe the ship is expected to be entering service. Development of riffled artillery takes logner than building a ship, so even if the Scharnhorst class was scheduled to get the twin 38cm/52 form the start on, the guns were simply not available, so an alternative was needed, if the germans wanted their first true capital ships in service at the earliest time.

The best use of the available shipbuilding capacity was to put more resources into shipbuilding though, as the Kriegsmarine was third in priorities of the armed forces. (Wehrmacht came first, as Germany was a continental power, with the Luftwaffe comming in second.) The Kriegsmarine was the stephchild of the Third Reich, as the other two main branches of the Armed forces were politically more indoctrinated by the National Socialist Regime, while at the same time the Kriegsmarine was still basically the successor of the old Christian Imperial Navy, not linked to political factions.

If the available resources for the Navy remained as historically, the most effective way to get some additional more usefull vessels was to cancel the illfated Aircraft Carrier project (which politically already was doomed, due to the influence of Herman Göring in the Luftwaffe). Also the less usefull heavy cruiser program (Admiral Hipper Class) was an option to cancel, as the germans did not need a Washington Treaty like cruiser. It was a weak element, taking in too much of the already limmited resources available, better used in more politically interesting vessels, such as a couple of true capital ships, just for political reasons and to act as a fleet in beeing in times of war.

For the more offensive ships, the Navy could avoid to build the large and not very effective Zerstörer type Destroyers and build more capable smaller and cheaper ships instead. (T-1939 design is a good example for a usefull coastal destroyer, compared to the very complex Zerstörer of the Type 1936 and their offshoot.) Standardizing was wished for, so concentration on one, rather than two main types of destroyer type vessels was logical.

So my idea for a rearanging of the Kriogsmarine is to cancel the Panzerschiff project entirely, after the commissioning of Admiral Graf Spee. (Already ordered under the Weimar Republic period prior to the rise of the NSDAP to power.) Scharnhorst class proceeded as historical, though likely commissioned slightly later, to fit in the planned main armament. Bismarck Class proceeded with as historical. Graf Zeppelin and Admiral Hipper classes canceled, with the later replaced by the more capable smaller light cruisers of the M-type. (That type was longer ranged and cheaper to man and construct.) Cancel all large Zerstörer type vessels and concentrate on a larger number of less complex smaller DD's like the Type 1939. At the same time, start building more U-Boote form the start on, leaning on experience of the Great War mainly, concentrating on the main standard types, that were easy to manufacture. (Like Type II fro coastal and training work, Type VII and Type IX.)

In the end, the Kriegsmarine would have a core of four capital ships, posing a threat to the UK specificaly in wartime, with a support of more usefull cheap and numereous smaller vessels, that was expandable if necessary. The core would not be used actively at sea, but more in politcally motivated Fleet in Being roles, while the cheap elements would be used actively in the war of attricion and tradewar.

Also Mike you had the idea of converting a bulk carrier for air ops, whilst Carriers look like a simple design they are far from it, the RN/USN was able to convert some merchants into carriers because they had decades of experience in how to lay them out and build them, the Germans could not do this off the bat. Also you've got the minefield of resource allocation and the vipers nest of the German politics to navigate.

Also the Panzershiffs were not great ships and were in essence made obsolete by the introduction of Fast Battleships and more powerful naval aircraft. The Panzershiffs were designed in a time when most ships that could threaten them were 21 - 24 knots fast, the PS's speed of 27 - 28 knots allowed them to easily outrun any ship that could sink them save the RN, MN's and IJN's battlecruisers, whilst posessing enough firepower to rough up any cruiser afloat.

But really they were nothing more than overgunned heavy cruisers who created a nice stir but were rendered obsolete very quickly.

There's also the fact that building such long ranged ships that were obviously anti-merchant raiders would make the RN clear its throat and react.

I agree the hippers where overenineered wastes of steel

16k tonnes for an 8 inch cruiser is insane; and the PB's and 14k tonnes represented a far superior investment

in 1939 the British R class battleships couldn't catch a PB, nor could the queen elizabeths and nelrods

the only battleships that could catch them were hood/renown/repulse which as the only fast british battleships would be in enormous demand for a number of tasks beyond hunting raiding cruisers... at least one would have to be held back to be available to counter potential sorties by the Twins with another on refit

there was enormous public debate in the uk about the pb's but they didn't actually counter build them the way the french did with the dunquerque class

HMS Warspite said:

The theory does not fit within historical reality of shipdesign, compared to development of its fittings. The historical designs of the Scharnhorst class were beased on the 1913 model of the Mackensen design and was altered accordingly to fit in the required powerplant mainly, while from the start on scheduled to carry the lately developped 38 cm/52 C-34 guns in twin turrets, at the time when the following Bismarck Class was still scheduled to carry the lesser 35 cm/55 C-34 model, before being upgunned to the same main gun of the Scharnhorst class. (and at some time even to the larger 40,6/52 C-36, later used to arm ther canceled H-class)

The problem is not the weapons to use, but the timeframe the ship is expected to be entering service. Development of riffled artillery takes logner than building a ship, so even if the Scharnhorst class was scheduled to get the twin 38cm/52 form the start on, the guns were simply not available, so an alternative was needed, if the germans wanted their first true capital ships in service at the earliest time.

Click to expand...

The historic twins design cycle is tied to Cruiser D design, the 19,000 ton Panzerschiffe. Again here I have the Germans not wasting time on going down that path, they jump straight to a big gun capital ship. So there is no 280mm vs. 350mm vs. 350mm main gun debate. No wasting design effort on multiple weapons and only some of them used. Its just straight to 380mm main guns. They would be ready before outbreak of the war.

sharlin said:

Also Mike you had the idea of converting a bulk carrier for air ops, whilst Carriers look like a simple design they are far from it, the RN/USN was able to convert some merchants into carriers because they had decades of experience in how to lay them out and build them, the Germans could not do this off the bat. Also you've got the minefield of resource allocation and the vipers nest of the German politics to navigate.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point the default assumption was NO CARRIERs but if the Navy HAD to have some then do a conversion. Get experience with the type before trying to build a real one. A converted whatever isn't going to go raiding, its an experimental type like USS Langely.

sharlin said:

Also the Panzershiffs were not great ships and were in essence made obsolete by the introduction of Fast Battleships and more powerful naval aircraft. The Panzershiffs were designed in a time when most ships that could threaten them were 21 - 24 knots fast, the PS's speed of 27 - 28 knots allowed them to easily outrun any ship that could sink them save the RN, MN's and IJN's battlecruisers, whilst posessing enough firepower to rough up any cruiser afloat.

But really they were nothing more than overgunned heavy cruisers who created a nice stir but were rendered obsolete very quickly.

Click to expand...

For the mission they are perfectly fine. Issue isn't top speed, issue is range and cruise speed. The Germans CA's sucked at all 3 to be blunt, short of coming up with a reason that a new design all together is come up with the choices are one of the two Panzerschiffe designs, the Admiral Hipper class or one of the light cruisers designs. Within those limitations the best of the bunch are the original Panzerschiffe. Yes the fast BB's are a threat but they are only so many of them around. Its an imperfect solution but I don't see any real good solutions.

sharlin said:

There's also the fact that building such long ranged ships that were obviously anti-merchant raiders would make the RN clear its throat and react.

Click to expand...

React in 1937 which is when the building holiday ends. Till then the RN really can't do a whole lot.

With the Germans building capital ships (35,000 ton Twins), the Italians laid down 2 ships in 34 and ordered 2 more in 37 and Japan walked from the treaty. The British have to build something like the Historic King George V class.

The RN didn't build a heavy Cruiser after HMS Exeter in 1931. It was all light cruisers. They could do is choose not to build some of the Town Class and or Dido class to do a cruiser killer design of some sort. Which would odds are not be ready right at start of the war but some time afterwards at the price of increased cost and or lower numbers of light cruisers in its place.

Michael

HMS Warspite said:

The best use of the available shipbuilding capacity was to put more resources into shipbuilding though, as the Kriegsmarine was third in priorities of the armed forces. (Wehrmacht came first, as Germany was a continental power, with the Luftwaffe comming in second.) The Kriegsmarine was the stephchild of the Third Reich, as the other two main branches of the Armed forces were politically more indoctrinated by the National Socialist Regime, while at the same time the Kriegsmarine was still basically the successor of the old Christian Imperial Navy, not linked to political factions.

Click to expand...

*sigh* Heer not Wehrmacht
Wehrmacht= Armed forces
Heer= Army

BlairWitch749 said:

I agree the hippers where overenineered wastes of steel

16k tonnes for an 8 inch cruiser is insane; and the PB's and 14k tonnes represented a far superior investment

in 1939 the British R class battleships couldn't catch a PB, nor could the queen elizabeths and nelrods

the only battleships that could catch them were hood/renown/repulse which as the only fast british battleships would be in enormous demand for a number of tasks beyond hunting raiding cruisers... at least one would have to be held back to be available to counter potential sorties by the Twins with another on refit

there was enormous public debate in the uk about the pb's but they didn't actually counter build them the way the french did with the dunquerque class

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with having a 16,000 ton CA, USN did it with Oregon City and Des Moines the problem is for 16K tons the German ships sucked, IMHO.

Michael

miketr said:

The historic twins design cycle is tied to Cruiser D design, the 19,000 ton Panzerschiffe. Again here I have the Germans not wasting time on going down that path, they jump straight to a big gun capital ship. So there is no 280mm vs. 350mm vs. 350mm main gun debate. No wasting design effort on multiple weapons and only some of them used. Its just straight to 380mm main guns. They would be ready before outbreak of the war.





You are missing the point the default assumption was NO CARRIERs but if the Navy HAD to have some then do a conversion. Get experience with the type before trying to build a real one. A converted whatever isn't going to go raiding, its an experimental type like USS Langely.




For the mission they are perfectly fine. Issue isn't top speed, issue is range and cruise speed. The Germans CA's sucked at all 3 to be blunt, short of coming up with a reason that a new design all together is come up with the choices are one of the two Panzerschiffe designs, the Admiral Hipper class or one of the light cruisers designs. Within those limitations the best of the bunch are the original Panzerschiffe. Yes the fast BB's are a threat but they are only so many of them around. Its an imperfect solution but I don't see any real good solutions.



React in 1937 which is when the building holiday ends. Till then the RN really can't do a whole lot.

With the Germans building capital ships (35,000 ton Twins), the Italians laid down 2 ships in 34 and ordered 2 more in 37 and Japan walked from the treaty. The British have to build something like the Historic King George V class.

The RN didn't build a heavy Cruiser after HMS Exeter in 1931. It was all light cruisers. They could do is choose not to build some of the Town Class and or Dido class to do a cruiser killer design of some sort. Which would odds are not be ready right at start of the war but some time afterwards at the price of increased cost and or lower numbers of light cruisers in its place.

Michael

Click to expand...

You still seem to forget that at the start of the 1933 elections and rise to power of the NSDAP, the Scharnhorst already was scheduled for the 38 cm gun, which was started at around that time, when funds became available for the Krupp Weapons Firm. You simply cannot speed up production, or you will end up with an inferior quality weapon, which is very un-German. The first logical readyness of a newly developped heavy Naval riffle, no matter what calliber, will be around 1940 at its earliest. So Scharnhorst will need to be delayed in cmpletion still, waiting for tis guns, if no stopgab was found somewhere, as in the OTL. Ignoring this means altering the whole history of enevts, as that would mean the Weimar Republic would already need to start funding such weaponsprograms.

By the way, I don't like the suggestive name "TWINS" as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau differed more from eachother, than some other ship classes elsewhere. They even did not operate as a team most of the time, as Scharnhorst was not ready in 1939 and Gneisenau was a CTL in mid 1942. If a duo of ships should be called Twins, perhaps look at the duo USS North Carolina, Washington, BB-55 and BB-56, the Yamato - Musashi pair and perhaps HMS Repulse and HMS Renown too will fit in quite well.

HMS Warspite said:

You still seem to forget that at the start of the 1933 elections and rise to power of the NSDAP, the Scharnhorst already was scheduled for the 38 cm gun, which was started at around that time, when funds became available for the Krupp Weapons Firm. You simply cannot speed up production, or you will end up with an inferior quality weapon, which is very un-German. The first logical readyness of a newly developped heavy Naval riffle, no matter what calliber, will be around 1940 at its earliest. So Scharnhorst will need to be delayed in cmpletion still, waiting for tis guns, if no stopgab was found somewhere, as in the OTL. Ignoring this means altering the whole history of enevts, as that would mean the Weimar Republic would already need to start funding such weaponsprograms.

Click to expand...

We agree to MASSIVELY disagree on the situation is all I can say. I have NO idea where you get the ideas you are putting forward on the design history on the class in question. It doesn't match what I recall from Gerhard Koop design history for the class; to be honest I have some question marks on Koops book but those are minor translation errors from what I can tell and not leaving out entire bits of information. I don't recall such mentioned in Garzke's Axis and Neutral BB's either. Neither are in front of me right now but I can get access to either quick enough.

Do you have a citation for your claims that real Capital Design work for 15" guns dates from pre- 1934? I am not talking paper studies, but real design work that generated the gun design orders.

HMS Warspite said:

By the way, I don't like the suggestive name "TWINS" as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau differed more from eachother, than some other ship classes elsewhere. They even did not operate as a team most of the time, as Scharnhorst was not ready in 1939 and Gneisenau was a CTL in mid 1942. If a duo of ships should be called Twins, perhaps look at the duo USS North Carolina, Washington, BB-55 and BB-56, the Yamato - Musashi pair and perhaps HMS Repulse and HMS Renown too will fit in quite well.

Click to expand...

SHRUG Each to there own.

Michael

miketr said:

We agree to MASSIVELY disagree on the situation is all I can say. I have NO idea where you get the ideas you are putting forward on the design history on the class in question. It doesn't match what I recall from Gerhard Koop design history for the class; to be honest I have some question marks on Koops book but those are minor translation errors from what I can tell and not leaving out entire bits of information. I don't recall such mentioned in Garzke's Axis and Neutral BB's either. Neither are in front of me right now but I can get access to either quick enough.

Do you have a citation for your claims that real Capital Design work for 15" guns dates from pre- 1934? I am not talking paper studies, but real design work that generated the gun design orders.



SHRUG Each to there own.

Michael

Click to expand...

Some stats then:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Ship Class Used On[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Bismarck and Schlachtschiff "O" Classes[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gneisenau as planned to be rebuilt[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Soviet Kronshtadt class[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Date Of Design[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1934[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Date In Service[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1939[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gun Weight[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Including breech mechanism: 244,713 lbs. (111,000 kg)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gun Length oa[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]772.8 in. (19.630 m)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Bore Length[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]724.6 in. (18.405 m)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Rifling Length[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]629.2 in. (15.982 m)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Number Of Grooves[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica](90) 0.177 in deep x 0.306 in (4.5 mm x 7.76 mm)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lands[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]0.217 in (5.5 mm)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Twist[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Increasing RH 1 in 36 to 1 in 30[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Chamber Volume[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](see Note 2)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]19,467 in3 (319 dm3)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Rate Of Fire[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2.3 to 3 rounds per minute[/FONT]

As you can see, the gun will not be available prior to late 1939, if started directly after the esteblishment of the NSDAP regime in late 1933. Any other big riffle, which was to be developped by the start of the rearmamenttime of Germany would be somewhat simmilar, as Germany had been forbidden to developpe and construct such weapons in the Versailles Treaty, which the Weimar Republic reluctantly had accepted, fearing a breach would lead to a war, it could not win.

Of the old stock of 38cm/45 SK L/45, dating back in design to 1913 and ready by 1916, only three weapons remained after the Versailles Treaty. Nine guns were used to arm fortresses Pommern and Deutschland at the Baltic coast. One more barrel was used as a railwaygun in the Great War.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Designation[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]38 cm/45 (14.96") SK L/45[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Ship Class Used On[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Ersatz Yorck and Baden Classes[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Date Of Design[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1913[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Date In Service[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1916[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gun Weight[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](see Note)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]about 176,370 lbs. (80,000 kg)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gun Length oa[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]673 in (17.100 m)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Bore Length[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]634.3 in (16.112 m)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Rifling Length[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]544 in (13.816 m)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Grooves[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](see Note 4)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica](100) 0.118 in deep x 0.236 in (3 mm x 6 mm)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lands[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]0.236 in (6 mm)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Twist[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Uniform RH 1 in 30[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Chamber Volume[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]16,482 in3 (270 dm3)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Rate Of Fire[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](see Note 2)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2.5 rounds per minute[/FONT]

As you can see for yourself, the older guns were of a shorter length and used a smaller shell and powdercharge, compared to the high velocity C-34 gun. Since only nine guns remained, it was not possible to arm two six gun ships with these. One possibly could have been, but the second ship had to wait untill new ones had been produced. It is known that the British needed three years to build a heavy riffled gun from scratch, when it was of a known design, meaning no time waisted on testing it for trials. The British armament producers of pre 1918 were the ones building guns the fastest of the world, so the Germans at least would need a simmilar time, or more, especially when designing new, more advanced weapons. Krupp had a testingrang at Meppen, Western border, close to the Netherlands, where it used to test guns for years, before the model was accepted by the Armed Forces.

The real question is exactly what the KM is going to do with its surface forces? Under most circumstances the KM had as much need for a 35,000 ton surface warship as a bee hive.

HMS Warspite said:

Some stats then:

CUT of Warships1 Data

As you can see, the gun will not be available prior to late 1939, if started directly after the esteblishment of the NSDAP regime in late 1933.

Click to expand...

With historic levels of design effort and building intensity that is correct. Your core assumption is that the 15" gun was finished as fast as it could, you have not presented any evidence that this is true. To be fair I am assuming it can be speed up and haven't presented any solid evidence it could on my end. I know the Germans split their design effort between new 11", paper studies of a 350mm gun, 8" gun, 15" gun and 16" gun by WW2. Here they only need to work on 11" and 15" guns. Also till Bismarck is laid down there there is no rush on the 15" gun either. Again I am seeing a case that the 15" gun COULD be speed up BUT its pure guess work on my end.

If you see the historic Service date as holy write then there isn't anything for either us to say on the subject. I believe there is wiggle room, if you don't then you don't.

HMS Warspite said:

Any other big riffle, which was to be developped by the start of the rearmamenttime of Germany would be somewhat simmilar, as Germany had been forbidden to developpe and construct such weapons in the Versailles Treaty, which the Weimar Republic reluctantly had accepted, fearing a breach would lead to a war, it could not win.

Click to expand...

No such clause is in the treaty. The Inter Allied Commission of Control put the 11" gun limit in place and they left in 1927 or 28. Weimar by the 30's had started the path to breaking the treaty. Weimar authorized the Pocket BB's and knew what they were and represented. The Weimar government authorized CA construction and DD's that became the Type 1934 and a Carrier. All were in overt breach of the treaty unlike building 15" guns and even that was a limit of no more than one barrel per year by the IACOC and again they were gone by the 30's.


Michael

CalBear said:

The real question is exactly what the KM is going to do with its surface forces? Under most circumstances the KM had as much need for a 35,000 ton surface warship as a bee hive.

Click to expand...

In a war vs. the RN the Capital Ships are of limited utility to put it kindly, and 35,000 tons IS over kill as a raider. Especially with the Historic Rules of Engagement the Germans had.

Vs. France alone Capital ships have uses.

Michael

miketr said:

With historic levels of design effort and building intensity that is correct. Your core assumption is that the 15" gun was finished as fast as it could, you have not presented any evidence that this is true. To be fair I am assuming it can be speed up and haven't presented any solid evidence it could on my end. I know the Germans split their design effort between new 11", paper studies of a 350mm gun, 8" gun, 15" gun and 16" gun by WW2. Here they only need to work on 11" and 15" guns. Also till Bismarck is laid down there there is no rush on the 15" gun either. Again I am seeing a case that the 15" gun COULD be speed up BUT its pure guess work on my end.

If you see the historic Service date as holy write then there isn't anything for either us to say on the subject. I believe there is wiggle room, if you don't then you don't.

Michael

Click to expand...

Thanks for putting this up i'm intrigued,

I was just looking through Erich Reader's book and he mentions this when talking about the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau " Naturally we thought about increasing the size of our main batteries- perhaps shifting to six 38cm guns instead of nine 28cm guns but this would have slowed down construction of the ships seriously."

So it really depends what you think he means by seriously, I take it as a few years.

hope this is of use

miketr said:

In a war vs. the RN the Capital Ships are of limited utility to put it kindly, and 35,000 tons IS over kill as a raider. Especially with the Historic Rules of Engagement the Germans had.

Vs. France alone Capital ships have uses.

Michael

Click to expand...

So matching the French Dunkerque class is the goal?

hasdrubal barca said:

So matching the French Dunkerque class is the goal?

Click to expand...

The goal is something more useful than Historic at same cost level.

Michael

miketr said:

I would really like to do instead is either ditch the High Pressure Steam Propulsion all together or at least go with a combined Diesel and Steam Power Plant but the Germans appear set on their path for the big ships and I can't come up with a good explanation why they would make such a radical change.

Click to expand...

Is there not a danger in using super hot high pressure steam, that could be used as an excuse?

miketr said:

The goal is something more useful than Historic at same cost level.

Michael

Click to expand...

what about battlecruisers?

hasdrubal barca said:

Thanks for putting this up i'm intrigued,

I was just looking through Erich Reader's book and he mentions this when talking about the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau " Naturally we thought about increasing the size of our main batteries- perhaps shifting to six 38cm guns instead of nine 28cm guns but this would have slowed down construction of the ships seriously."

So it really depends what you think he means by seriously, I take it as a few years.

hope this is of use

Click to expand...

The design path went something like this, I am doing this from memory as I don't have any books on subject in front of me. So I am limited to wiki and memory.

Germans always viewed the Panzerschiffe as compromise designs. Between what they had learned with building the first few and the French response (Dunkerque) they wanted to upsize. This kicks off a design cycle that gets us to Cruiser D or Panzerschiffe D laid down Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven in 1934; 19,000 tons, 2x3 11" guns, 30 knots. Another, E, is ordered at same time to be built at Deutsche Werke Kiel. Of course these two were also a compromise design as Hitler refused to approve anything larger.

The design efforts continue and eventually Raeder is able to get Hitler to approve a bigger ship; 3x3 11" guns and 26,000 tons. So D is broken up on the ways, E is canceled having never been laid down but material was collected. Then Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are laid down in 1935. By now they have grown to 32,000 ton designs. Eventually Hitler approves them to be re-armed with 15" guns. Various design studies considered 350mm (13.78") main guns instead.

In effect the Germans wasted at least a year on all of this, more like two. Hence my idea of just laying down a pair of repeat Panzerschiffe in 1933 and do design work on something better in the mean time. Have the design work go straight a Washington Treaty legal design, 35,000 tons. Signers were allowed two ships up to 16" guns so a 15" gun design is totally reasonable. Hans Zenker in the 1920's did design studies on a 17,500 ton BC armed with 4x2 12" guns.

Michael

hasdrubal barca said:

Is there not a danger in using super hot high pressure steam, that could be used as an excuse?

Click to expand...

The reason the Germans went for High Pressure Steam is two fold. One it offered the possibility of improved fuel economy. That turned out to be a phantom as instead the engines proved very temperamental in service and they never got the efficiency they hoped for.

The other part of the reason they went down this path is that Deutschland when she first entered service had lots of problems with her diesel plant. There were several reasons for the problems.

She didn't develop the intended SHP but the hull form turned out to be better than expected so she still got designed speed.

The engines had lots of mechanical reliability issues. It was a novel type first of all, yah they had experience with naval diesel but these were much bigger, the largest since the 12,000 iHP engine built for SMS Sachen but never installed in WW1. That engine did a partial full power run, one piston in 1918 or 19 and then it was scrapped on orders of the Inter Allied Commission of Control.

Part of the problems were the Germans built the foundation for engines too light and the engine crushed the mountings at full power. So they had to redo things and reinforce the foundation.

In any case it took time to work out the bugs but in the mean time some in the navy were calling them lemons and the High Pressure Steam faction was able to win out for Cruiser D and steam held on for Twins and Bismarcks. Which is a shame as Admiral Scheer got more power along with fewer issues and Admiral Graf Spee more power still.

So the Germans could have gone for a Diesel power plant or a combined steam and diesel setup and odds are gotten better in service performance. The big negative on diesels is they typically weigh more for their given HP than a steam plant.

hasdrubal barca said:

what about battlecruisers?

Click to expand...

BC is label, some call the Scharnhorst Battlecruisers or Battleships. With the era of the Fast BB the term had blurred. Assuming the meaning was ever clear in the first place as RN and HSF BCs were very different beasts.

Michael