WI Better Kriegsmarine in WW2

[Kantai Kessen]

One carrier alone is a problem with Goering claiming everything that flies. And Graf Zeppelin needs a long workup to show how the design needs improvement (and it needs a LOT of improvement).

U-Boats need crews, and you just can't shove anyone into a sub.

Six H-class BB's were planned after Bismarck but only two were laid down and none were completed.

Agree that more DD's (plus TB's and other small ships) were needed.

More PBB's would be useful as raiders but only if ready before war, otherwise they'll get trapped in port.

Of course the RN and USN won't be standing idly by watching this happen and do nothing.

And just where is Germany to get the fuel and manpower needed for this huge fleet? Plus this construction means other things don't get built: tanks, aircraft, artillery, trucks, etc. Germany just doesn't have the factory space or resources to do everything.

I maintain that a third Bismarck, which I would personally name Moltke, instead of Graf Zeppelin, Peter Strasser, Seydlitz and Lützow would have been a better idea for Germany. They had the tonnage for it. Imagine what two Bismarcks in Norway would have done to the Royal Navy and the overall war. Each Bismarck could have been paired with a Hipper and used in operations together (of course this would entail a better CA design).

I don't believe that will consume many more resources than what the Germans consumed IOTL.

 

[Garrison]

I maintain that a third Bismarck, which I would personally name Moltke, instead of Graf Zeppelin, Peter Strasser, Seydlitz and Lützow would have been a better idea for Germany. They had the tonnage for it. Imagine what two Bismarcks in Norway would have done to the Royal Navy and the overall war. Each Bismarck could have been paired with a Hipper and used in operations together (of course this would entail a better CA design).

I don't believe that will consume many more resources than what the Germans consumed IOTL.

Based on the performance of the rest of the Kriegsmarine in Norway what they would probably have done is sink...

 

[eltf177]

A third battleship would be valuable but they take time to build, both Bismarck and Tirpitz were completed well after the start of war. If construction wasn't as far advanced as it was there was a real risk of them getting scrapped. Germany runs the risk of the new ship being far from complete on the outbreak of war and definitely being scrapped so the steel can be used for more tanks.

Both battlecruisers were ordered to be scrapped by Hitler, Scharnhorst ended up being sacrificed while Gneisneau was disarmed and became useless. She eventually ended up being destroyed by bombers.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

A third battleship would be valuable but they take time to build, both Bismarck and Tirpitz were completed well after the start of war. If construction wasn't as far advanced as it was there was a real risk of them getting scrapped. Germany runs the risk of the new ship being far from complete on the outbreak of war and definitely being scrapped so the steel can be used for more tanks.

Both battlecruisers were ordered to be scrapped by Hitler, Scharnhorst ended up being sacrificed while Gneisneau was disarmed and became useless. She eventually ended up being destroyed by bombers.

From Wiki, Tirpitz's specs: (LD at KMW Wilhelmshaven 2/11/36, launched 1/4/39, commissioned 25/2/41)

Displacement	42,900 t (42,200 long tons) standard 52,600 t (51,800 long tons) full load
Length	241.60 m (792 ft 8 in) waterline 251 m (823 ft 6 in) overall
Beam	36 m (118 ft 1 in)
Draft	9.30 m (30 ft 6 in) standard

And Zeppy's specs: (LD at DW Kiel 28/12/36, launched 8/12/38)

Displacement	33,550 long tons (34,088 t) (full load)
Length	262.5 m (861 ft 3 in)
Beam	36.2 m (118 ft 9 in)
Draft	8.5 m (27 ft 11 in)

Zeppelin is actually longer than Tirpitz, has nearly an identical beam, and the draught differs by less than a metre. I think that Deutsche Werke could produce a Bismarck-sized hull in a similar time frame to what they did with the CV. Also bear in mind the required armament: Tirpitz needs the four 15" turrets, but the sixteen 5.9" guns she needs have already been produced for Zeppelin and she only needs two more 4.1" twin mounts for her AA. Given that the Seydlitz and Lützow aren't being built, and that Peter Strasser is not even being started, I think German industry will be able to produce the required armament, and armour plating, on time.

There is also the fact that, historically, DW seems to have had a good track record with building ships, so I think they will deliver Moltke on time. Tirpitz went from launch to commissioning in 22 months; based on the same time frame, if resources are concentrated on finishing the existing capital ships as they should be, Moltke should commission in October 1940, just two months after Bismarck. She will have seven months to train up before RHEINUBUNG or a similar operation, which is a pretty good amount of time. Think about that!

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Based on the performance of the rest of the Kriegsmarine in Norway what they would probably have done is sink...

The Kriegsmarine did well in the invasion of Norway (admittedly there was a lot of luck in that). By all rights the RN should have destroyed them with sheer numbers but they still secured the country. Given the opposition, I'd say they did a good job. And, as has been said many a time before, Tirpitz sitting in a fjord did far more than any single part of the Third Reich's military.

 

[CV(N)-6]

The Kriegsmarine did well in the invasion of Norway (admittedly there was a lot of luck in that). By all rights the RN should have destroyed them with sheer numbers but they still secured the country. Given the opposition, I'd say they did a good job. And, as has been said many a time before, Tirpitz sitting in a fjord did far more than any single part of the Third Reich's military.

It was more the British and Norwegians really dropped the ball. The only real opposition navally in Oslo was Oscarsborg, everything else fell pretty quickly due to not being prepared. Kristiansand did a decent job scaring the Germans off until somebody mistook a signal for a tricolor despite having fought the same ships all morning and the Germans were able to slip by the guns. The torpedo boat captains in Bergen were a bunch of cowards, there were four boats total and I think two total launches, and only one boat was even sighted by the Germans. The coastal artillery fought well for its age but wasn't nearly enough. The less said about Trondheim the better. As for Narvik, trying to fight ships with lots of torpedoes aboard in Ofotfjord in two ancient coastal defense ships is suicide. Once the Germans got footholds and airfields there wasn't much the RN could do. The KM did not do well in Norway, it just got really lucky and if the invasion failed and if I wrote a timeline of OTL's invasion I'd be laughed off the board. Despite all this the KM lost 1 CA, 2 CL's, 10+ DD's, and several TB's, with pretty much everything involved in the yard for a month+ afterwards.

 

[Garrison]

The Kriegsmarine did well in the invasion of Norway (admittedly there was a lot of luck in that). By all rights the RN should have destroyed them with sheer numbers but they still secured the country. Given the opposition, I'd say they did a good job. And, as has been said many a time before, Tirpitz sitting in a fjord did far more than any single part of the Third Reich's military.

I'm not sure how you can describe losses that crippled the Kriegsmarine surface fleet for the rest of the war as a good job. And they only secured the country because of the invasion of France, prior to that the Allies had retaken Narvik, which was the key objective of the whole campaign. If the Home Fleet hadn't misread the German intentions and moved to intercept them instead the losses would have been even worse.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I'm not sure how you can describe losses that crippled the Kriegsmarine surface fleet for the rest of the war as a good job. And they only secured the country because of the invasion of France, prior to that the Allies had retaken Narvik, which was the key objective of the whole campaign. If the Home Fleet hadn't misread the German intentions and moved to intercept them instead the losses would have been even worse.

Blücher was an unfortunate loss. So were the T1936 destroyers. Everything else was a waste of resources.

I am not saying that the Kriegsmarine performed well, objectively. I am saying that they did well, considering the fact that this was its first major operation and the sheer scale of the opposition they were up against. And I know (this is to @CV(N)-6 as well) that the Kriegsmarine were really, really, really lucky.

Perhaps I should also say that I believe the Kriegsmarine could have carried out Operation WESERUBUNG far more effectively, even in the face of a competent RN, if it only had better ships and not had a schizophrenic building plan. Oh, and also shooting that utter idiot Kummetz.

 

[Garrison]

Blücher was an unfortunate loss. So were the T1936 destroyers. Everything else was a waste of resources.

I am not saying that the Kriegsmarine performed well, objectively. I am saying that they did well, considering the fact that this was its first major operation and the sheer scale of the opposition they were up against. And I know (this is to @CV(N)-6 as well) that the Kriegsmarine were really, really, really lucky.

Perhaps I should also say that I believe the Kriegsmarine could have carried out Operation WESERUBUNG far more effectively, even in the face of a competent RN, if it only had better ships and not had a schizophrenic building plan. Oh, and also shooting that utter idiot Kummetz.

But they weren't up against that much opposition, most of the Royal Naval forces were in the wrong locations to actually engage. Had Renown and the rest of her force been in range to react when Glowworm was attacked Hipper would have joined the list of casualties and the force attacking Trondheim would probably have been destroyed, as it was most of the civilian transports supposed to support the landings were sunk taking most of the equipment and supplies with them. Simply put the Kriegsmarine was lucky at Norway that the RN response was so poor.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

But they weren't up against that much opposition, most of the Royal Naval forces were in the wrong locations to actually engage. Had Renown and the rest of her force been in range to react when Glowworm was attacked Hipper would have joined the list of casualties and the force attacking Trondheim would probably have been destroyed, as it was most of the civilian transports supposed to support the landings were sunk taking most of the equipment and supplies with them. Simply put the Kriegsmarine was lucky at Norway that the RN response was so poor.

Did I deny that?

 

[Garrison]

Did I deny that?

I am simply pointing out that the Kriegsmarine actually got off lightly owing to the poor response from the Royal Navy and that the Norwegian campaign only ended in success for the Germans because of events elsewhere. Even against limited opposition they did poorly and you proposal that:

I maintain that a third Bismarck, which I would personally name Moltke, instead of Graf Zeppelin, Peter Strasser, Seydlitz and Lützow would have been a better idea for Germany. They had the tonnage for it. Imagine what two Bismarcks in Norway would have done to the Royal Navy and the overall war. Each Bismarck could have been paired with a Hipper and used in operations together (of course this would entail a better CA design).

Doesn't not accord with the performance of the Kriegsmarine, and if there had been 2 Bismarck class ships somehow available in 1940 they would have fared no better than the rest of the surface fleet.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I am simply pointing out that the Kriegsmarine actually got off lightly owing to the poor response from the Royal Navy and that the Norwegian campaign only ended in success for the Germans because of events elsewhere. Even against limited opposition they did poorly and you proposal that:



Doesn't not accord with the performance of the Kriegsmarine, and if there had been 2 Bismarck class ships somehow available in 1940 they would have fared no better than the rest of the surface fleet.

I meant two Bismarcks instead of just Tirpitz, which would undoubtedly affect RN capital ship deployments. As seen in a previous post, I have also shown that this might allow Bismarck to be accompanied by a sister ship on RHEINUBUNG.

 

[James Ricker]

Germany is still screwed
More resources get thrown into the battle of the Atlantic, ending it sooner
Japan does much better for another year, then they face a lot more Allied Naval power and are totally screwed

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

I maintain that a third Bismarck, which I would personally name Moltke, instead of Graf Zeppelin, Peter Strasser, Seydlitz and Lützow would have been a better idea for Germany. They had the tonnage for it. Imagine what two Bismarcks in Norway would have done to the Royal Navy and the overall war. Each Bismarck could have been paired with a Hipper and used in operations together (of course this would entail a better CA design).

I don't believe that will consume many more resources than what the Germans consumed IOTL.

As suggested, building two BBs with 35cm could be done in the time it took to start D & E, stop and build S & G. With three triple 35cm, the size / displacement of the BCs (ie 35,000t actual) would be similar to S & G. Building another pair of 35cm BBs would take another 18 months, compared to 30 months for B & T. Ships H & J (your "Moltke" and co), as repeats could be laid down 10 months earlier, ie Sept '38 and Dec '38 ?? (historically 15 July and 1 September 1939).

Building 3 15,000t carriers (1/3 45,000t limit) in lieu of 2 23,000t GZ (actual tonnage much more!), GZ took 24 months from laying to launch. Drop this by 2/3, ie 16 months, April 38, completely changes the dynamics of the KM. Flugzeugträger B (Peter Strasser?) launched by August 39, before the halting of the real Flugzeugträger B (Sept 39). Flugzeugträger C (Weser?) would just be starting and likely to continue as smaller carriers did not affect U-boat production as much?

All ships could be faster than current Home fleet vessels except Hood and BCs.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Thanks. Very helpful 👍

Just for context...?

Noted under the RN history a while ago (site posted by McPherson), under mine operations, that only destroyers and fast minelayers used near France. Slower mine trawlers were keep closer to home.

The long list includes a lot of vessels that would not leave harbours? (Boom vessel. Balloon drifter, tug, echo sounder, etc. And includes many MT that were very busy sweeping.

Eg. Just picked first MT on list
HMT Stella Orion (Skr. W.J. Barlow, RNR) was mined and sunk in the Thames estuary on 11 November 1940.

Really wander how many were out and how far?



1940
Dover Barrage - The minefield west of Folkestone was completed but further work was delayed when HAMPTON refitted in February and the proposed minefield extending to Vame Ridge was cancelled after the German attack on France and the Low Countries. HAMPTON was transferred for War Office service in July but the availability of a French and a Dutch minelayer allowed the swept channel available for Belgian and Dutch shipping to be mined after the Dunkirk evacuation. Anti-invasion fields in Dover Straits were laid by destroyers as their higher speed and better AA armament made them more suitable. When work finished on the Dover Barrage 9897 mines had been laid.



Heligoland Bight - Only three more fields were completed in the Ems estuary due to weather and defects and in March the destroyers were redeployed on other duties. The occupation of western Europe made necessary the provision of defensive fields (CBX Series) to protect naval forces operating off the Dutch, Belgian and French coasts, and as an anti- invasion measure. Following reports of German surface ships being deployed in the North Sea in May, further minelaying was carried out by destroyers. The first of these operations was successful but the next carried out in August was a total disaster. The ships engaged ran into an enemy minefield and ESK and IVANHOE were sunk with EXPRESS sustaining major damage.
.

That's what the coastal forces did (some of them!)

Not what they 'would do' in the face of Germanys attempted invasion of the UK.

The fact is there were many hundreds of armed vessels in range of the proposed invasion zone that in many cases matched or outmatched and certainly outnumbered the kit bashed escorts the Germans were using.

In your earlier example of the light forces attempting a recon in heavy weather - so what - the Germans would not be sending an invasion in such weather anyway.

 

[McPherson]

As suggested, building two BBs with 35cm could be done in the time it took to start D & E, stop and build S & G. With three triple 35cm, the size / displacement of the BCs (ie 35,000t actual) would be similar to S & G. Building another pair of 35cm BBs would take another 18 months, compared to 30 months for B & T. Ships H & J (your "Moltke" and co), as repeats could be laid down 10 months earlier, ie Sept '38 and Dec '38 ?? (historically 15 July and 1 September 1939).

Building 3 15,000t carriers (1/3 45,000t limit) in lieu of 2 23,000t GZ (actual tonnage much more!), GZ took 24 months from laying to launch. Drop this by 2/3, ie 16 months, April 38, completely changes the dynamics of the KM. Flugzeugträger B (Peter Strasser?) launched by August 39, before the halting of the real Flugzeugträger B (Sept 39). Flugzeugträger C (Weser?) would just be starting and likely to continue as smaller carriers did not affect U-boat production as much?

All ships could be faster than current Home fleet vessels except Hood and BCs.View attachment 687307

Deck too short, hanger height too low and speed too slow. Fit-out never would have happened that fast, and the catapults never worked. Plus the steel to make 3 x 15,000 ships, never mind 3 x CVLs was 50% more than making 2 x 23,000 CVs.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Deck too short, hanger height too low and speed too slow. Fit-out never would have happened that fast, and the catapults never worked. Plus the steel to make 3 x 15,000 ships, never mind 3 x CVLs was 50% more than making 2 x 23,000 CVs.

You raise an excellent point, Mac. The Kriegsmarine is not ready for carrier warfare. Let them focus on what they know better - battleships and cruisers - because at least those have some chance of working (mind you their designs still weren't great).

Finally something we can agree on!

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I'm going to slip into this thread with a point related to ship design and numbers: the Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruisers, which honestly could have done a lot for Germany in WW2 if their designs hadn't been so crap.

According to the London Naval Treaty, Great Britain was allowed 147,000 tonnes of heavy cruisers and 192,200 tonnes of light cruisers. Under the 35% rule in the AGNA this gives the Germans 51,450 tonnes of heavy cruisers and 67,270 tonnes of light cruisers. However, the Kriegsmarine had already used 37,940 tonnes of the latter with the construction of Emden, the three K-class and the two Leipzig-class vessels. This left 29,330 tonnes of CL tonnage.

Here is where it gets interesting. The AGNA says:

(g) Since it is highly improbable that the calculation of the 35 per cent. ratio should give for each category of vessels tonnage figures exactly divisible by the maximum individual tonnage permitted for ships in that category, it may be necessary that adjustments should be make in order that Germany shall not be debarred from utilising her tonnage to the full. It has consequently been agreed that the German Government and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will settle by common accord what adjustments are necessary for this purpose, and it will be understood that this procedure shall not result in any substantial or permanent departure from the ratio 35:100 in respect of total strengths.

So is this possible? Germany builds five 10,000 tonne Hipper-class heavy cruisers using their CA tonnage, leaving 1,450 tonnes. This is transferred over to the light cruisers, leaving Germany 30,780 tonnes of CA. Germany uses this to build three 10,000 tonne 'big light cruisers' using the Hipper hull, but with the triple 5.9" guns used on the Nürnberg instead of the dual 8" guns. This might actually be a better armament since those 5.9" guns were insane: look at what Nürnberg was capable of (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_59-60_skc25.php). Total: 8 large cruisers that Germany can potentially use in WW2, instead of 3. Perhaps the Germans can do a sneaky and pretend to order 5.9" guns for the 'light cruisers', but actually just build them as heavy cruisers since they will commission in wartime anyway.

What ships would have to be sacrificed to build these? If the Scharnhorsts are built more quickly, the Bismarcks are built as upgraded Scharnhorsts (or all four battleships are built to a single, intermediate 35,000 tonne design) and the Graf Zeppelins aren't even started, perhaps this could be done? They were going to build five Hippers anyway.

Which brings me to my next point: what could the Germans do to improve their heavy cruisers? Because I can see these ships being dangerous raiders if they operate in pairs, or in conjunction with battleships. They will also serve to clobber the seven French heavy cruisers if it gets down to a war with just France.

 

[thaddeus]

that is a good point, they are going to be more dependent on u-boats and small ships than the RN under almost any scenario https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd

by the time the Nazi regime had guided munitions they were deployed against overwhelming countermeasures? my speculation is always for "little" Fritz-X possible based around the SC-250 bomb, that Condor aircraft would have been much more effective.

But that means the guidance technology has to be ready two years earlier. And besides the delivery aircraft has to fly straight and level to guide the weapon, not a great plan once the allies have CAMs, MACs and escort carriers. Plus all these guided weapons were extremely vulnerable to jamming. There's no magic bullet for attacking the British shipping lanes, like so much else it was simply beyond the resources of the Reich.

the research on Fritz-X began with modified SC-250 bombs, just IMO it grew out of all proportion as did many of their schemes, grew to the point only the DO-217 could deploy it.

if they just continued with the SC-250 bomb with whatever crude guidance possible it would have been better than the extreme maneuvers they put the aircraft thru historically? as for jamming that would have to be deployed earlier also? (when the "real" Fritz-X was deployed it was clearly something new, would the RN know immediately the SC-250 bombs were guided?)

 

[thaddeus]

I'm going to slip into this thread with a point related to ship design and numbers: the Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruisers, which honestly could have done a lot for Germany in WW2 if their designs hadn't been so crap.

What ships would have to be sacrificed to build these? If the Scharnhorsts are built more quickly, the Bismarcks are built as upgraded Scharnhorsts (or all four battleships are built to a single, intermediate 35,000 tonne design) and the Graf Zeppelins aren't even started, perhaps this could be done? They were going to build five Hippers anyway.

if you build two sets of the Scharnhorst-class, which would be my vote, but also to continue with the 11" guns, they could be finished fairly early compared to historical? makes more sense than another BB class since they were planning to return to diesel power?

do you think the Admiral Hipper-class too large? (materials and crews) that the KM better off with proper redesign of Leipzig-class? they could reduce the troubled K-class CLs to minelayers like the RN Adventure?