Outline of German carrier development

Based on the last couple threads, I wanted to pose my suggested track (with partial concept borrowed from Wade Dudley) for Germany to have a carrier arm at the start of ww2

1923: Theo Osterkamp, the last winner of the Pour Le Merite as a naval aviator is struck by a Hitler speech and joins the nazi party as one of it's more visible leaders

1927: Osterkamp has become Hitler's personal pilot and is widely scene as someone in the inner circle; Osterkamp remains below HG on the totem poll and has no aspirations to pass him; the three men get along swimmingly; Hitler is impressed by Osterkamp's story telling of his missions

28-33: Osterkamp flies Hitler all over Germany for the "hitler over Germany" campaign events and continues to hold a high position in the party

33: Hitler becomes chancellor and secretly tasks HG with forming the luftwaffe and Osterkamp with forming it's naval air element

33: Osterkamp shows Hitler secret footage of British and Japanese carriers which captures Hitler's imagination the way the first panzer exercises do; Osterkamp explains that carriers offer a cheap way to develop serious striking power without the cost and time of an all guns naval buildup; Hitler orders Osterkamp to explore the idea

33: Osterkamp proposes several plans to raeder (the two got along well in real life) and the "triangle plan is developed"

33: Germany reaches out to japan about purchasing design plans and license for their carrier ryujo; and starting a clandestine training program for german pilots and sailors to take 6 month rotations on japanese vessels for familiarization and certification purposes; Japan accepts

33: Germany lays down 3 "pocket battle ships" of 10k class Graf Spee, Admiral Scheer, and Deutchland; these ships are built with the express idea of converting them to slightly modified ryujo's once Germany is free of all Versailles limitations

33: In conjunction with the triangle plan; as part of Hitler's program of mass public works; slipways and dockyards are modified for improved capacity and future building

34: Raeder in a secret meeting announces the scope of the triangle plan which will see the German surface fleet primarily centered around three task forces each composed of a ryujo, a battleship, a battlecruiser, a heavy cruiser and 7 destroyers

35: Three battlecruisers Scharnohorst, Gneisenau, and Buareidel are laid down, the heavy cruisers hipper, blucher are laid down; Versailles is renounced, and the Luftwaffe is revealed under HG with Osterkamp commanding the naval air division; Hitler orders the formation of 10 naval squadrons, and the procurement of aircraft to serve aboard the ryujos; the mask is removed on the ryujos and work commences at full speed to complete them as carriers

36. The heavy cruiser prinz eugene is laid down, battleship bismark is laid down in the first quarter, battleship tirpitz is laid down in the 3rd quarter

37 Battleship Hindenberg is laid down in the first quarter; Deuchland is commissioned in the 4th quarter

38 Scheer is commissioned in the 2nd quarter, Spee is commissioned in the 4th quarter; Deuchland goes on her first patrol near spain in the 4th quarter using HE-51's and and HE-123's

39 Deuchland and Sheer go on patrol near spain, Spee completes work up in 3rd quarter, 3 battlecruisers commisioned, hipper and blucher commissioned

task force composition at 9/1/39

task force 1
Deuchland, Scharnhorst, Hipper, 7 destroyers aircraft me-109t ju-87r combat ready

task force 2
Scheer, Gneisenau, Bluecher, 7 destroyers aircraft me-109t ju-87r
combat ready

task force 3
Spee, Buareidel, 6 destroyers aircraft me-109t ju87 r
still forming

1940 completion schedule
1st quarter Bismark for task force 1, Eugene for task force 3
3rd quarter Tirpirtz for task force 2
4th quarter Hindenberg for task force 3


what do we think?

I think that it looks practical and realistic. Nicely done!

All I can say is thank God BW was born in America, in the late 20th century, and isn't evil.

Battleships are way too early given Germany's build capacity in OTL - something would have to give elsewhere (U-boats???)

I'd actually been thinking along the same lines - German carriers are not impossible just lacking in any raison d'etre.

My PoD would have been similar but based around an overall strategy similar to the Russians when faced with the USN post war. Max the subs, allow for powerful but fast cruiser / battlecruiser / CVL fleets and strong long range naval aviation arm

It's the last bit that the Germans would be lacking - so instead of three battleships why not three Soryu class CVs. The extra steel goes into more U boats.

Problems would be
a) the British would build 5 more Ark Royals instead of KGV and would decimate the Germans in a prolonged carrier campaign
b) More Condors would be needed for recconaissance / co-operation with the U-boats and CVs
c) the CVs wouldn't win the war, the subs might
d) the Allies eventually establish air cover over the convoys through escort carriers and the Azores

Another big PoD - what if the CVs and the fleet were used to occupy the Azores after the fall of France (say December 1941). Could the Germans keep the islands long enough to make the Battle of the Atlantic unwinable for the Allies.

Not convinced they could but it might be a cool Atlatic carrier battle(s) in 1942-3

(essentially the strategy would be similar to the Soviets grabbing Iceland in Red Storm Rising)

All that metal being used for carriers and a massive support fleet are going to drain metal away from things such as uhm.. tanks.. bullets.. guns.. U boats.. belt buckles.. cigarette lighters .. helmets..

Good reason why Germany never built a massive surface fleet.. it didn't need one.

Germany never wanted war with the english, I doubt that Germany would have invaded the UK even if they did. Germany wanted to humiliate France (which they did as always) and go east. Aircraft carriers are not going to help you in the CCCP. Hell even in otl.. Bismark and Tirpitz were a giant waste of resources.

Germany needed a lot more stuff then a surface fleet.

I have to agree its a cool idea.. just impractical from a nation that is out to fight a land war to put all the expenditure into a navy that is going to get sunk. Build an airforce, build the Heer.. but Uboats where about it for the navy that made much sence.

I like the Azores idea btw!

von kressenstein said:

All that metal being used for carriers and a massive support fleet are going to drain metal away from things such as uhm.. tanks.. bullets.. guns.. U boats.. belt buckles.. cigarette lighters .. helmets..

Good reason why Germany never built a massive surface fleet.. it didn't need one.

Germany never wanted war with the english, I doubt that Germany would have invaded the UK even if they did. Germany wanted to humiliate France (which they did as always) and go east. Aircraft carriers are not going to help you in the CCCP. Hell even in otl.. Bismark and Tirpitz were a giant waste of resources.

Germany needed a lot more stuff then a surface fleet.

Click to expand...

Broadly agree but it didn't stop the Kaiser building the second best Navy in the world prior to WW1. Politicians (and Admirals) aren't always rational.

Derek Pullem said:

Battleships are way too early given Germany's build capacity in OTL - something would have to give elsewhere (U-boats???)

I'd actually been thinking along the same lines - German carriers are not impossible just lacking in any raison d'etre.

My PoD would have been similar but based around an overall strategy similar to the Russians when faced with the USN post war. Max the subs, allow for powerful but fast cruiser / battlecruiser / CVL fleets and strong long range naval aviation arm

It's the last bit that the Germans would be lacking - so instead of three battleships why not three Soryu class CVs. The extra steel goes into more U boats.

Problems would be
a) the British would build 5 more Ark Royals instead of KGV and would decimate the Germans in a prolonged carrier campaign
b) More Condors would be needed for recconaissance / co-operation with the U-boats and CVs
c) the CVs wouldn't win the war, the subs might
d) the Allies eventually establish air cover over the convoys through escort carriers and the Azores

Another big PoD - what if the CVs and the fleet were used to occupy the Azores after the fall of France (say December 1941). Could the Germans keep the islands long enough to make the Battle of the Atlantic unwinable for the Allies.

Not convinced they could but it might be a cool Atlatic carrier battle(s) in 1942-3

(essentially the strategy would be similar to the Soviets grabbing Iceland in Red Storm Rising)

Click to expand...

I used the historical lay down years of the battlecruisers and battleships

the difference was one more of each; which is essentially a wash as GZ and the final two hippers are not built and the destroyer construction program is more modest

British and French counter building would certainly happen following the mask removal in 35; no objections; this thought exercise was more to explore the Germans building the fleet; not it's actual competitiveness of utility

von kressenstein said:

All that metal being used for carriers and a massive support fleet are going to drain metal away from things such as uhm.. tanks.. bullets.. guns.. U boats.. belt buckles.. cigarette lighters .. helmets..

Good reason why Germany never built a massive surface fleet.. it didn't need one.

Germany never wanted war with the english, I doubt that Germany would have invaded the UK even if they did. Germany wanted to humiliate France (which they did as always) and go east. Aircraft carriers are not going to help you in the CCCP. Hell even in otl.. Bismark and Tirpitz were a giant waste of resources.

Germany needed a lot more stuff then a surface fleet.

I have to agree its a cool idea.. just impractical from a nation that is out to fight a land war to put all the expenditure into a navy that is going to get sunk. Build an airforce, build the Heer.. but Uboats where about it for the navy that made much sence.

I like the Azores idea btw!

Click to expand...

this is approximately the same historical tonnage for the KM surface fleet as otl; just applied differently

BW, two things you need to account for.

Its impossible against any sort of competant naval intelligence (and the Royal Navy had pwnd the German naval program in the 30's) to disguise a carrier as a pocket battleship.

The reason is the gun mountings; in order to support them, the structure of the gun mountings is an integral part of the ship that goes down to the keel.

Second, the hull form for a carrier is completely different to that of a battleship. The carrier is volume-limited, the battleship is weight-limited.

So the RN is going to know very early on what is happenning, and is, I'm afraid, going to immediately get paranoid (WHY is Germany building secret carriers??)

The TL doesnt look unfeasable (although I'd personally question the political love-fest between Germany and Japan..), but I think you need to work around the issues I mentioned (not that the RN knowing will stop Germany, unless someone happens to mention the Versaiiles treaty...)

Astrodragon said:

BW, two things you need to account for.

Its impossible against any sort of competant naval intelligence (and the Royal Navy had pwnd the German naval program in the 30's) to disguise a carrier as a pocket battleship.

The reason is the gun mountings; in order to support them, the structure of the gun mountings is an integral part of the ship that goes down to the keel.

Second, the hull form for a carrier is completely different to that of a battleship. The carrier is volume-limited, the battleship is weight-limited.

So the RN is going to know very early on what is happenning, and is, I'm afraid, going to immediately get paranoid (WHY is Germany building secret carriers??)

Click to expand...

A number of ships started as BC / BB / CL and ended up as carriers. In terms of displacement relative to air group its not as good as as a purpose built carrier bit its certainly workable.

3 CVL's would be of some use but won't change the dynamics of the problem. It would generate something of an RN response just not sure how much.

Michael

I didn't read this as being "disguised" as carriers, but as being intended for conversion.

How'd you come up with Buareidel as a name? Or is this some kind of misspelling?

BlairWitch749 said:

33: Hitler becomes chancellor and secretly tasks HG with forming the luftwaffe and Osterkamp with forming it's naval air element

33: Osterkamp shows Hitler secret footage of British and Japanese carriers which captures Hitler's imagination the way the first panzer exercises do; Osterkamp explains that carriers offer a cheap way to develop serious striking power without the cost and time of an all guns naval buildup; Hitler orders Osterkamp to explore the idea

...

33: Germany reaches out to japan about purchasing design plans and license for their carrier ryujo; and starting a clandestine training program for german pilots and sailors to take 6 month rotations on japanese vessels for familiarization and certification purposes; Japan accepts

33: Germany lays down 3 "pocket battle ships" of 10k class Graf Spee, Admiral Scheer, and Deutchland; these ships are built with the express idea of converting them to slightly modified ryujo's once Germany is free of all Versailles limitations

...

34: Raeder in a secret meeting announces the scope of the triangle plan which will see the German surface fleet primarily centered around three task forces each composed of a ryujo, a battleship, a battlecruiser, a heavy cruiser and 7 destroyers

35: Three battlecruisers Scharnohorst, Gneisenau, and Buareidel are laid down, the heavy cruisers hipper, blucher are laid down; Versailles is renounced, and the Luftwaffe is revealed under HG with Osterkamp commanding the naval air division; Hitler orders the formation of 10 naval squadrons, and the procurement of aircraft to serve aboard the ryujos; the mask is removed on the ryujos and work commences at full speed to complete them as carriers



what do we think?

Click to expand...

Nice touch.

I like the secret video tape of carriers. Maybe add a visit to a working carrier, who knows in the late 1920's, the RN might even give Hitler a tour.

Also think about Japan building three small carriers in secret. Or maybe Japan just sells its three old CVL to Germany when the time is right and builds itself 3 better carriers (CVL or CV). Or maybe first carrier bought from Japan to get experience, two built by Germany.

Battleships might slow down carriers, seem like odd fit. Why not scrap those and make more U-boats, cruisers, or just make them Battlecruisers.

Flayer said:

I didn't read this as being "disguised" as carriers, but as being intended for conversion.

How'd you come up with Buareidel as a name? Or is this some kind of misspelling?

Click to expand...

Also confused - wouldn't von Bulow fit better?

BlondieBC said:

Nice touch.

I like the secret video tape of carriers. Maybe add a visit to a working carrier, who knows in the late 1920's, the RN might even give Hitler a tour.

Also think about Japan building three small carriers in secret. Or maybe Japan just sells its three old CVL to Germany when the time is right and builds itself 3 better carriers (CVL or CV). Or maybe first carrier bought from Japan to get experience, two built by Germany.

Battleships might slow down carriers, seem like odd fit. Why not scrap those and make more U-boats, cruisers, or just make them Battlecruisers.

Click to expand...

Bismarck was fast enough to keep up with a Ryujo; unless of course you mean they would slow down the production of carriers. What I'm actually curious about is why each group would want a battleship, a battlecruiser, and a heavy cruiser (other than for sentimental historical value by the OP of getting all the familiar ships and names in). If they're going to be operating in the same task force on the same missions, it doesn't make sense to me to have both the battleship and the "battlecruiser" - simplify things by having two of the same design (two 15-inch Scharnhorsts, maybe).

Derek Pullem said:

Also confused - wouldn't von Bulow fit better?

Click to expand...

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both named for cruisers sunk in World War I; by that standard, Von der Tann, a battlecruiser lost at Jutland, would be fitting for a name.

Astrodragon said:

BW, two things you need to account for.

Its impossible against any sort of competant naval intelligence (and the Royal Navy had pwnd the German naval program in the 30's) to disguise a carrier as a pocket battleship.

The reason is the gun mountings; in order to support them, the structure of the gun mountings is an integral part of the ship that goes down to the keel.

Second, the hull form for a carrier is completely different to that of a battleship. The carrier is volume-limited, the battleship is weight-limited.

So the RN is going to know very early on what is happenning, and is, I'm afraid, going to immediately get paranoid (WHY is Germany building secret carriers??)

The TL doesnt look unfeasable (although I'd personally question the political love-fest between Germany and Japan..), but I think you need to work around the issues I mentioned (not that the RN knowing will stop Germany, unless someone happens to mention the Versaiiles treaty...)

Click to expand...

I don't have an objection to the idea that the British would see through the mask somewhat early; they did with aircraft and tanks without an armed response; and the other german ships were violations of one sort or another; the likely worst outcome for the germans in being found out (maybe in mid 34 or so) is that the British start counter building; which is to be expected anyway

The Red said:

All I can say is thank God BW was born in America, in the late 20th century, and isn't evil.

Click to expand...

LOL

I allmost fell from chair because of laughing...

Flayer said:

I didn't read this as being "disguised" as carriers, but as being intended for conversion.

How'd you come up with Buareidel as a name? Or is this some kind of misspelling?

Click to expand...

that's the name of an early nazi party member who was killed during the beer hall coup attempt; his blood was sprayed all over a nazi flag; which became known as the blood flag (which was a very important artifact to hitler and crew) there were discussions in otl about naming a warship after him

BlairWitch749 said:

that's the name of an early nazi party member who was killed during the beer hall coup attempt; his blood was sprayed all over a nazi flag; which became known as the blood flag (which was a very important artifact to hitler and crew) there were discussions in otl about naming a warship after him

Click to expand...

Ah, sounds like you have a case for it then. Wikipedia and Google just weren't returning anything relevant on it for me.

miketr said:

A number of ships started as BC / BB / CL and ended up as carriers. In terms of displacement relative to air group its not as good as as a purpose built carrier bit its certainly workable.

3 CVL's would be of some use but won't change the dynamics of the problem. It would generate something of an RN response just not sure how much.

Michael

Click to expand...

Yes, but those were large ships, not ships so small that they would be very marginal even as a dedicated carrier