Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

[FBKampfer]

Despite being relatively wet designs, and having relatively light armament, the Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers were quite respectable ships, having very good armor protection for their weight class, sticking with German tradition of their capital ships being able to soak up ridiculous quantities of enemy fire.

And the 28cm guns, while small for a capita ship, were still quite powerful. They were very quick-firing, long-ranged, and accurate, and were still capable of combating enemy battleships at medium ranges, and everything else out to the end of their range.


Assuming that they're laid down almost as soon as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau leave the slipways, and are fitted out in similar time, all four ships would have been ready by the start of start of major naval action, and another two could have potentially been delivered by 1941.

How would the Kriegsmarine fare with six Scharnhorst battlecruisers vs the two battlecruisers and battleships of OTL?

 

[Michele]

They'd fare pretty well, and certainly no worse than in OTL. It's not as if the two battleships were all that useful.

 

[naraic]

It's a lot easier to take a Scharnhorst out with bombers than a Bismarck.

A Scharnhorst or three in the Norway Fjords are a lot less scary to a convoy with escorted by battleships than a Bismarck.

The Rs are likely to be more heavily used as a close escort to to the Artic convoys and damn the air forces.

Britain would have a numerical disadvantage in fast capital ships in the early parts of the war having Hood Renown and Repulse against 4 Scharnhorst classes. This could make it easier to get passed the royal navy and into the convoys.

 

[Magnum]

They get cocky in Norway '40 and see half the surface fleet and the transports for the northern landings (Narvik, Trondheim) sunk...

 

[MonaroLS]

Would the second pair have 15" guns? That would make it a bit more interesting

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not happening. IOTL the Scharnhorsts provoked a major negative reaction from the British and at the time they were being laid down Hitler was trying to work out deals with Chamberlain, which resulted in the AGNA. The Bismarcks were not something that scared the British. 2 more Scharnhorsts would have alienated the British too much and made them take a more confrontational line, because the BCs were seen as convoy raiders, a direct threat to the Royal Navy.

 

[Musketeer513]

If the next 2 have 15" guns while working on the follow up duo, the first pair can go for gn replacement. Giving KM 6 fast 15" ships by '43 at the latest. The only British capital ships that could possibly catch up with them were Renown, Repulse and Hood.

 

[urielventis]

And if the Kriegsmarine have 2 fast ship with 15" gun, expect France to accelerate work on Richelieu and Jean Bart.

 

[Michele]

While announcing six of these all at the same time in say 1934 or 1935 will certainly be a red flag to John Bull, maybe they could be staggered in pairs. If the last pair is laid down by mid-1938, the British by then are almost starting to react anyway, and this final pair might be ready by mid-1941. Or heck, make that 1939 to 1942. After all, it's not as if the real counterparts were ready in September 1939.

Or maybe make just four of those. Even if you forego the additional two, for what the Bismarck and Tirpitz achieved you are probably just OK anyway, and you've spared money, steel and time.

A Scharnhorst or three in the Norway Fjords are a lot less scary to a convoy with escorted by battleships than a Bismarck.

Less scary yes, but the reaction remains the same. If there's the Bismarck, you have to send a battleship to escort the convoy; if there's the Scharnhorst, you still have to send a battleship to escort the convoy.
Add the numerical factor. If there are two Scharnhorst-class surface raiders, and they work separately but with good coordination, the one British battleship can shoo away one of them... will it be back to the convoy in time to deal with the second one?

 

[PSL]

Not happening. IOTL the Scharnhorsts provoked a major negative reaction from the British and at the time they were being laid down Hitler was trying to work out deals with Chamberlain, which resulted in the AGNA. The Bismarcks were not something that scared the British. 2 more Scharnhorsts would have alienated the British too much and made them take a more confrontational line, because the BCs were seen as convoy raiders, a direct threat to the Royal Navy.

A stronger military C-in-C would have ignored political micro meddling and just completed naval plan 1932 by the late 1930s. If Raeder was less of a wooss he would have blocked Hitler's fears - since these fears were unfounded.

Instead of Pzsch D & E , THE TWINS , plus BIS & TIRP, they would have built 6 lighter Scharnhorst with smaller turbine/boilers able to manage 29-30 knots. while 6 lighter Hipper Kreuzers would be built instead of the 4 Dithmarschen tankers & Hipper/Bucher...all completed by 1939.

 

[naraic]

Less scary yes, but the reaction remains the same. If there's the Bismarck, you have to send a battleship to escort the convoy; if there's the Scharnhorst, you still have to send a battleship to escort the convoy.
Add the numerical factor. If there are two Scharnhorst-class surface raiders, and they work separately but with good coordination, the one British battleship can shoo away one of them... will it be back to the convoy in time to deal with the second one?

I wonder if the British reaction to 6 Scharnhorst class vessels would be to build something lighter than a KGV. There was a design study in the early 30s for a 33 knot battlecruiser with 9 12 inch guns. Purely a design study well before KGV was ordered but something like that could have been ordered if there was no threat from a Bismarck class and the Royal Navy cared to build a counter to the Scharnhorsts.

 

[FBKampfer]

I'd say the larger number would pose a greater real threat to the UK than just two battleships.

There's much more flexibility for deployment than with only three capital ships. Say if three Scharnhorst's sortied with Prinz Eugen instead of just Bismarck, Rhineübung might have been much more successful. 15" golden BB be damned, there no way Hood and PoW could stand up to 27 280mm guns hammering away for any period of time.

And the larger number of ships would take much more resources to contain.

 

[thaddeus]

I'd say the larger number would pose a greater real threat to the UK than just two battleships.

There's much more flexibility for deployment than with only three capital ships.

And the larger number of ships would take much more resources to contain.

think they could have built the 5 ships of Admiral Hipper-class with 11" guns and been just about as effective while saving tons (and tons) of armor plating and large caliber guns.

would have left shipyard capacity to rebuild the original Panzerschiffe and their light cruisers to correct known problems as well as construct their (planned) minelayer class of 8 ships.

 

[PSL]

think they could have built the 5 ships of Admiral Hipper-class with 11" guns and been just about as effective while saving tons (and tons) of armor plating and large caliber guns.

would have left shipyard capacity to rebuild the original Panzerschiffe and their light cruisers to correct known problems as well as construct their (planned) minelayer class of 8 ships.

You do like those mine layers. BUT absolutely correct on saving construction tonnage & armor plate tonnage.

I would worry about the naval capacity to build that many 11" guns. If 6 mini Scharnhorst are built that's 54 guns plus 5* 6 on the Hipper's adds another 30...84 guns?...mind you the only secondary's they could only build would be twin 4" flak...ah-well 'got to crack some eggs to make omelets'.

 

[thaddeus]

You do like those mine layers.

I would worry about the naval capacity to build that many 11" guns. If 6 mini Scharnhorst are built that's 54 guns plus 5* 6 on the Hipper's adds another 30...84 guns?

instead of other capital ships not in addition to them, so scratch the four ships completed historically, build 3 original Panzerschiffe plus 5 Hipper-class with 6 - 11" guns and the historical heavy AA guns of that class not 5.9" guns.

(not building the historical destroyers either so the minelaying class would be needed)

 

[PSL]

Nazi laid down 23 large warships of cruiser size or bigger in the prewar Hitler years [1933- end of 1939] . Of these 23 warships only 7 were completed prewar , with another 11 never completed at all through the whole war. WHY did this happen?

Raeder and the navy is partly to blame due to the fixation on so many big ships like battleships, since they would gobble up most of the funding & construction. But truth be told- Hitler is entirely to blame for his micromanagement of rearmament and unwillingness to trust his own military command. Especially since he openly had no interest in naval war.

If left to there own efforts - sufficiently informed of war by 1940- they likely could have avoided the mistakes of WW-I and instead built a larger fleet of surface raiders that could support a prolonged U-Boat war. Total warship construction for the period of Hitler's reign was ~ 690,000 tons or enough for the 23 large warships to be completed to average size of about 30kt size. But to complete a bigger U-Boat fleet would need almost 1.4 million tons, more than historical , out of a total of ~ 2million. That means the amount for warship construction would be limited to > 600,000 tons...or about 23 raiders with average max displacement of about 25-28,000 tons .

 

[jsb]

A stronger military C-in-C would have ignored political micro meddling and just completed naval plan 1932 by the late 1930s. If Raeder was less of a wooss he would have blocked Hitler's fears - since these fears were unfounded.

Raeder and the navy is partly to blame due to the fixation on so many big ships like battleships, since they would gobble up most of the funding & construction. But truth be told- Hitler is entirely to blame for his micromanagement of rearmament and unwillingness to trust his own military command. Especially since he openly had no interest in naval war.

If left to there own efforts - sufficiently informed of war by 1940- they likely could have avoided the mistakes of WW-I and instead built a larger fleet of surface raiders that could support a prolonged U-Boat war. Total warship construction for the period of Hitler's reign was ~ 690,000 tons or enough for the 23 large warships to be completed to average size of about 30kt size. But to complete a bigger U-Boat fleet would need almost 1.4 million tons, more than historical , out of a total of ~ 2million. That means the amount for warship construction would be limited to > 600,000 tons...or about 23 raiders with average max displacement of about 25-28,000 tons .

Are you sure that Raeder would not simply have triggered a early war with that build-up?

 

[PSL]

Of course not, since the warships numbers would be the same until war time when nothing can be done. It would be difficult for HMG to force early war based on KM building more big cruisers instead of any big battleships. It would force the RN to change & build more heavy cruisers & battle cruiser at the expense of battleships.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If the next 2 have 15" guns while working on the follow up duo, the first pair can go for gn replacement. Giving KM 6 fast 15" ships by '43 at the latest. The only British capital ships that could possibly catch up with them were Renown, Repulse and Hood.

Plus the 5 KGVs! All in commission by June 1942. All could do 28+ knots at 100% rated power but due to the very robust machinary they could maintain 120% of rated HP or higher for long periods of time and indeed could maintain 100% power indefinitely - certainly for the purposes of a surface action they would be fast enough

 

[FBKampfer]

I question how effective the Adm. Hippers would be with the 11" guns. Certainly Graf Spee managed to out fight three cruisers, but she effectively suffered a mission kill.

Drop a Scharnhorst in her place (for the actual fight, mevermimd the logistics or practicality) and she would probably have taken the three them apart without much effort.

Cruisers alone would probably mean the British don't send battleships as escorts freeing them up for operations elsewhere, but Scharnhorsts might not mean a battleships with every convoy, and the ones without can be torn into with something close to impunity.