Optimize the Axis Navies for WW2

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 124 which is what I think Germany should have built 1919 to c. 1932.​

This is Part One of what I think the Kriegsmarine's Cruiser Policy should have been.
It is a continuation of Post 124, which was what I think the Reichsmarine's Building Policy should have been.

The situation at 18.06.35, i.e. when the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed.

• The Agreement, allowed Germany to have 35% of the British Commonwealth's Cruiser Tonnage, which according to the still in force First London Naval Treaty, was 339,000 tons, including 146,800 tons of 8in Cruisers and 192,000 tons of 6in Cruisers. That translated into an allowance for 118,650 tons of Cruisers for Germany, which was divided into 51,380 tons of 8in Cruisers and 67,270 tons of 6in Cruisers.
• ITTL Germany already had 8 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class Light Cruisers with an official displacement of 6,000 tons (but they actually displaced 7,200 to 7,500 tons) for an official total of 48,000 tons of 6in Cruisers completed or under construction.
• This left 70,650 tons of unused tonnage including 51,380 tons that could be used to build 8in Cruisers and 19,270 tons that could be used to build more 6in Cruisers.
• The Kriegsmarine's leaders decided to use to the unused tonnage to build 5 Heavy Cruisers armed with 8in guns and 3 Light Cruisers of the ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class. When completed that would give Germany a total of 16 Cruisers consisting of 5 Heavy Cruisers and 11 Light Cruisers as illustrated in the table above.

The Hipper class ITTL.

• I think the ALT- Hipper class Heavy Cruisers should be enlarged version of the ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class Light Cruisers proposed in Post 124.
  • They would mount nine 8" guns in three triple turrets in A, X and Y positions.
  • They would be propelled by a scaled-up ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class Combined (low-pressure) Steam and Diesel (COSAD) machinery.
    • I think that giving them ALT-Leipzig-Nürnberg type machinery would produce ships with higher availability rates.
    • This is because I think it would be more reliable & need less maintenance than the high-pressure steam machinery that the class had IOTL.
    • I think they'd also have much greater ranges than the Real-Hipper class, which would make them more suitable for ocean raiding.
• According to a table on Page 37 of Whitley's book the anticipated completion dates at March 1937 were:
  • 10.10.38 - Blücher - Actual completion 20.09.39.
  • 14.07.38 - Hipper - Actual completion 29.04.39
  • 15.05.39 - Prinz Eugen - Actual completion 01.08.40.
  • 31.12.39 - Seydlitz - Which wasn't completed. According to Page 48 of Whitley's book she was almost complete in May 1942, lacking only catapult, cranes, masts and flak outfit. However, construction was stopped the following June due to the decision to complete her as an aircraft carrier.
  • 01.07.40 - Lützow - Which wasn't completed, because she was sold to the USSR in 11.02.40.
• To summarise.
  • According to the March 1937 schedule each ship would have taken an average of 36 months to build.
  • The 3 ships that were completed were built in an average of 49 months.
  • The delays were due to the German Naval Armaments Industry not being up to the sudden increase in demand for its products. (On the other side of the North Sea so was the British Naval Armaments Industry had exactly the same problem.)
• I wrote in Post 124 that one of the reasons for the Weimar Republic building all the ships it was allowed to build under the Treaty of Versailles was to increase the capacity of the German Naval Armaments Industry.
  • Specifically, IOTL there was a gap of 4 years between the laying down of Leipzig in 1928 and Nürnberg in 1933. However ITTL 6 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class were laid down 1928-33 at the rate of one a year. That's 4 extra cruiser hulls, 4 extra sets of cruiser armament & fire control and 4 extra sets of cruiser machinery. I think that would translate into the capacity to build 2 or 3 times more cruisers at 1935.
  • Therefore, I think that at September 1939:
  • ALT- Blücher and ALT-Hipper would have been completed;
  • ALT-Prinz Eugen would have been completed by or be nearing completion, and;
  • ALT-Seydlitz & ALT-Lützow would have been more advanced than the OTL Seydlitz & Lützow and be completed in the second half of 1940.

More ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class

• The 3 additional ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class would be ordered in the second half of 1935.
• I think these ships would be built quickly because Germany has a larger Naval Armaments Industry due to the extra ships that were built to 1933 ITTL and because they were built to an existing design.
• The OTL Nürnberg was ordered in March 1933, laid down in November 1933, launched in December 1934 and completed in November 1935, 32 months after she was ordered and 24 months after she was laid down.
• Therefore, I think the 3 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class ships ordered in 1935 will be laid down in 1936 and be completed by September 1939.

The situation in September 1939 IOTL

• One Heavy Cruiser (Hipper) and 6 Light Cruisers (Emden, 3 Königsberg class, Leipzig & Nürnberg) completed.
• One Heavy Cruiser (Blücher) nearing completion.
• 3 Heavy Cruisers (Prinz Eugen, Seydlitz & Lützow) under construction and 4 Cruiser M class Light Cruisers on order.

The Situation in September 1939 ITTL

• 2 Heavy Cruisers (ALT Blücher & ALT-Hipper) and 11 Light Cruisers (ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class) completed.
• One Heavy Cruiser (ALT-Prinz Eugen) nearing completion and 2 Heavy Cruisers (ALT-Seydlitz & ALT- Lützow) under construction.
• There would also be some Light Cruisers under construction or on order. These would be additional ships of the ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg type or ships armed with twelve 150mm guns in four triple turrets. These ships are what Part Two will be about.
• The 13 Cruisers in service ITTL were better ships than the 7 Cruisers in service IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 124 which is what I think Germany should have built 1919 to c. 1932.​

Link to Post 141 which is Part One of the Cruisers that I think Germany should have built from 1935 ITTL.​

This is Part Two of what I think the Kriegsmarine's Cruiser Policy should have been.​

Kriegsmarine Plans 1936-39.

While the AGNA was in force (28.06.35 to 28.04.39) the size of the Kriegsmarine's Cruiser Force was a function of the size of the British Commonwealth's Cruiser Force.

The First London Naval Treaty allowed the British Commonwealth to have 339,000 tons of Cruisers, which was enough for 50 ships consisting of 15 armed with 8in guns and 35 armed with 6in guns. That allowed Germany to have 118,650 tons of Cruisers under the AGNA which ITTL was used to build 16 ships consisting of 5 armed with 8in guns and 11 armed with 5.9in guns. Their declared standard displacements were 10,000 tons and 6,000 tons respectively which came to a total of 116,000 tons which left 2,650 tons unused.

However, the British Commonwealth had 56 Cruisers of 338,470 tons at the end of 1936 (against a requirement for 70 ships) which increased Germany's Cruiser quota by 17,315 tons to 135,935 tons. Furthermore, at 03.09.39 the British Commonwealth had 65 Cruisers of 469,240 tons completed and another 23 ships (13 Colonies & 10 Didos) of 158,500 tons under construction, on order to planned for a grand total of 88 Cruisers of 627,740 tons (against a requirement for 100 ships). Had the AGNA still been in force Germany would have had a legal right to 219,709 tons of Cruisers completed, under construction, on order or planned.

That's 101,059 tons more than Germany's allowance at 28.06.35 and because 2,650 tons of the original allowance was unused Germany would have and enough tonnage to justify building another 103,709 tons of cruisers, which could have been used as follows:

• Option 1 - 17 Cruisers of the ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class (17 x 6,000 tons = 102,000 tons).
• Option 2 - 13 Cruisers of 8,000 tons (13 x 8,000 tons = 104,000 tons) as that was the size-limit for Cruisers under the Second London Naval Treaty and German Government might think it better to conform to the terms of that Treaty even though they were under no legal obligation to do so.
• Option 3 - 12 Cruisers consisting of:
  • 8 of 10,000 tons (8 x 10,000 tons = 80,000 tons) armed with 150mm guns.
  • 4 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class (4 x 6,000 tons = 24,000 tons).
  • Total 104,000 tons (80,000 tons + 24,000 tons).

I think the tonnage should be used to built more ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class because they're an existing design which can be built quickly and will be equal to the British Amphion, Arethusa, Dido and Leander classes of Light Cruisers and the Light Cruisers that the French had built and were building.

However, the Kriegsmarine may want some Large Light Cruisers armed with twelve 150mm guns to match the British Large Light Cruisers of the Town and Colony classes that were armed with twelve 6in guns and Hitler may want some for "willy waving" purposes, i.e. "Mine's as big as yours".

• The British had 10 Town class and 13 Colony class building, on order or planned on 03.09.39 (although only 11 Colonies would be built) and had the AGNA still been in force the Germans may have claimed the right to build 8 similar ships (i.e. 35% of 23).
• The ship designed would have been a modified ALT-Hipper armed with twelve 150mm in four triple turrets mounted in A, B, X & Y positions. Its official standard displacement would have been 10,000 tons, but in common with all German cruisers it would have displaced much more than that.
• The 150mm and 8in gunned versions of the ALT-Hipper can be considered analogous to the contemporary Baltimore and Wichita classes in the USN.

Under Option 1

• Germany would have had 33 Cruisers displacing 218,000 tons, completed, under construction, on order or planned at 03.09.39.
• Against the British Commonwealth's OTL total of 88 Cruisers of 627,740 tons completed, under construction, on order or planned.
• That's 37.5% of the number and 34.7% of the displacement of the British Commonwealth's Cruiser Force.

Under Option 3

• Germany would have had 28 Cruisers displacing 220,000 tons, completed, under construction, on order or planned at 03.09.39.
• Against the British Commonwealth's OTL total of 88 Cruisers of 627,740 tons completed, under construction, on order or planned.
• That's 31.8% of the number and 35.0% of the displacement of the British Commonwealth's Cruiser Force.

What they were actually able to build.

The British had laid down 19 of the 23 British cruisers that were building, on order or planned at September 1939, consisting of 6 Dido class in 1937, 5 Colonies & 2 Didos in 1938 and 4 Colonies & 2 Didos to the end of July 1939. And 10 of the 19 Cruisers that had been laid down before 03.09.39 had been launched by that date, consisting of 4 Colonies and 6 Didos, all of which were all launched in 1939.

If the Kriegsmarine had choosen Option 1 (which is what I prefer) the plan would have been to build the 17 additional ships of the ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class at the rate of 4 a year as follows:

• 4 laid down 1936, launched 1937 and completed 1938.
• 4 laid down 1937, launched 1938 and completed 1939.
• 4 laid down 1938, launched 1939 and completed 1940.
• 4 laid down 1939, launched 1940 and completed 1941.
• 4 laid down 1940, launched 1941 and completed 1942.

That's a total of 20 ships because it includes the 3 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class ordered in 1935. Each ship was expected to be launched 12 months after being laid down and completed 12 months after launching for a total construction time of 24 months. That's because the OTL Nürnberg was built in 24 months (1933-35) and the last of the 8 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class laid down 1926-33 ITTL would have taken 24 months to build.

The ships were to have been laid down at intervals of 3 months. Therefore, the situation at 31.08.39 was planned to be:

• 6 ships completed - 4 in 1938 and 2 in the first half of 1939.
• 4 ships launched and fitting out, including one that was due to complete by 30.09.39.
• 4 ships on the slipways, including one that was due to be launched by 30.09.39.
• 6 ships on order or planned, including one that was due to be laid down by 30.09.39.

Although Germany had a larger Naval Armaments Industry and they deliberately used an existing design avoid the delays that would have inevitably happened if they'd gone for a new design, it's unlikely that the above schedule would have been met. I think they could have laid down 4 ships in 1936 as planned, but they would have taken longer than 12 months to launch and more than 12 months to fit out, which would have had a knock on effect on the later ships as the plan was that the 1937 ships would have been laid down on the slipways vacated by the 1936 ships, the 1937 ships would have been laid down on the sips vacated the slips vacated by the 1936 ships and so on.

In Post 141 Germany had 11 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class cruisers in commission at 03.09.39, which consisted of the 8 built by the Reichsmarine and the 3 ordered in 1935 after the AGNA was signed. My guess is that the programme would have been a year behind schedule with the ships taking 36 months to build (about 18 months from laying down to launching and 18 months to fit out) instead 24. Of the 17 remaining ships 4 would be fitting out, 4 would be on the slipways and 9 rather than 6 would be on order or planned. My guess is that the 4 ships that were fitting out on 03.09.39 would have been completed 1940-41, while the the rest would have been suspended in September 1939 and cancelled by the Summer of 1940 with the 4 ships that had been laid down scrapped to clear the slipways.

Thus only 20 cruisers (5 heavy and 15 light) would have been completed, but it's still an enormous improvement on the 9 cruisers (3 heavy and 6 light) completed IOTL in terms of quantity and quality.

 

[marathag]

I think the ALT- Hipper class Heavy Cruisers should be enlarged version of the ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class Light Cruisers proposed in Post 124.

• They would mount nine 8" guns in three triple turrets in A, X and Y positions.

Hmm. Have robust seaplane facilities Forward, like the Italian Heavy Cruisers, but turned to 11

Like have the forward triple in the 'elevated 'B' position, with enclosed hangar at 'A'

Seaplanes should use Jumo Diesels, so no volatile AvGas tankage

 

[Astrodragon]

What hapenned to the carriers??

 

[thaddeus]

In Post 141 Germany had 11 ALT- Leipzig-Nürnberg class cruisers in commission at 03.09.39, which consisted of the 8 built by the Reichsmarine and the 3 ordered in 1935 after the AGNA was signed. My guess is that the programme would have been a year behind schedule with the ships taking 36 months to build (about 18 months from laying down to launching and 18 months to fit out) instead 24. Of the 17 remaining ships 4 would be fitting out, 4 would be on the slipways and 9 rather than 6 would be on order or planned. My guess is that the 4 ships that were fitting out on 03.09.39 would have been completed 1940-41, while the the rest would have been suspended in September 1939 and cancelled by the Summer of 1940 with the 4 ships that had been laid down scrapped to clear the slipways.

Thus only 20 cruisers (5 heavy and 15 light) would have been completed, but its still an enormous improvement on the 9 cruisers (3 heavy and 6 light) completed IOTL in terms of quantity and quality.

thanks for all the info! are you eliminating the "super destroyers" from their fleet?

my speculation would be quite a bit different, build something close to the Spahkreuzer concept, legit under 6,000t, as their 1938 concept was historically https://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/spahkreuzer/index.html or from a perspective of the 1920's it could be viewed as returning to dimensions close to the Emden?

in my plan they would replace the 40 historical destroyers and last 2 CLs built, have no detailed program but am assuming they could build a couple dozen while rebuilding the 3 K-class cruisers (compared to the 1 rebuilt historically)

just think the somewhat smaller cruisers match the resources and personnel of the KM better, also my speculation would be to replace the 1935 and 1937 TB classes with larger ships, a hypothetical Bremse-class and earlier Elbing class, so there is also some shifting of resources.

 

[thaddeus]

What hapenned to the carriers??

taking on water ...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Thanks for all the info! are you eliminating the "super destroyers" from their fleet?

It depends upon whether it's a continuation of Destroyers Version 1 or Version 2 in Post 124.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

A bit hard to quantify, with all the various engine and wing combinations.

Is stall speed more important to carrier landing vs landing speed for airfield??

Stall speed is much lower for He112 is around 120 vs Bf109 150 ???

I don't know - I just recall reading that one of the Criticisms of the HE112 during the competitions with the ME109 was the high landing speeds requiring heavy use of the brakes at the airfield used in order to prevent them from over running the runway

I 'assume' that this was in relation to the 109?

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

I don't know - I just recall reading that one of the Criticisms of the HE112 during the competitions with the ME109 was the high landing speeds requiring heavy use of the brakes at the airfield used in order to prevent them from over running the runway

I 'assume' that this was in relation to the 109?

I saw that, but noted for He100.

Both Bf109 and He 112 had high wing loadings, so interested whether just He100 or both.

 

[Dorknought]

What hapenned to the carriers??

If you can be accepted into the Treaty System in 1930 then you can build 60,000 tons as equivalent to France and Italy. This is more than AGNA and 5 years earlier.

Suggested Plan
1920's
8 'Battleship' replacements - 10,000tons, 8x8" guns (4 twin), 32 knots, light armour
8 'Light Cruiser' replacements - 6,000tons 6x5.9" guns (3 twin A,X,Y), 34 knots splinter protection

All are long range, Steam-Diesel combined plant.

No torpedo boats.

From 1930
Germany has filled her cruiser quota.
2 35,000ton BB can be laid down immediately (5 in total) (build 3 23,000 ton battlecruisers)
60,000 tons of carriers can be built (build 2 23,000tons CV and 1 14,000tons CVL)
~50,000 tons of destroyers can be built (build 30 1,600ton DD)
defer any submarines

By late 30's KM has 4 BC, 2CV, 1CVL, 8CA, 8CL, 30DD
3 Battlegroups
2 BC 1 CV, 3CA, 3CL, 12DD (East Africa/Indian Ocean)
2 BC 1 CV, 3CA, 3CL, 12DD (Med)
1CVL 2CA, 2CL, 6DD (North Sea)

No need for cheating but you can if you want.

Late 30's, build subs and small craft.

 

[Astrodragon]

If you can be accepted into the Treaty System in 1930 then you can build 60,000 tons as equivalent to France and Italy. This is more than AGNA and 5 years earlier.

Suggested Plan
1920's
8 'Battleship' replacements - 10,000tons, 8x8" guns (4 twin), 32 knots, light armour
8 'Light Cruiser' replacements - 6,000tons 6x5.9" guns (3 twin A,X,Y), 34 knots splinter protection

All are long range, Steam-Diesel combined plant.

No torpedo boats.

From 1930
Germany has filled her cruiser quota.
2 35,000ton BB can be laid down immediately (5 in total) (build 3 23,000 ton battlecruisers)
60,000 tons of carriers can be built (build 2 23,000tons CV and 1 14,000tons CVL)
~50,000 tons of destroyers can be built (build 30 1,600ton DD)
defer any submarines

By late 30's KM has 4 BC, 2CV, 1CVL, 8CA, 8CL, 30DD
3 Battlegroups
2 BC 1 CV, 3CA, 3CL, 12DD (East Africa/Indian Ocean)
2 BC 1 CV, 3CA, 3CL, 12DD (Med)
1CVL 2CA, 2CL, 6DD (North Sea)

No need for cheating but you can if you want.

Late 30's, build subs and small craft.

no room on the slips or money in the treasury for all this. What isnt being built, tanks?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I saw that, but noted for He100.

Both Bf109 and He 112 had high wing loadings, so interested whether just He100 or both.

I could not find any further data

But - it certainly 'looks' like it should be a better carrier aircraft if simply for its undercarriage arrangement over the relatively worse ME109s

 

[Dorknought]

no room on the slips or money in the treasury for all this. What isnt being built, tanks?

Don't let that get in the way of superwehrabooconomics!

Emden and K class and Leipzig and the 6TB in 1925 and 1927 would get me at least 6 CA, Deutschland a 7th. There would be space as the yards had grown to lay down 2-3 large ships per year under the HSF and the infrastructure is still there. Germany was also building liners at this time (Bremen & Europa). The CL may be the gap in an expense sense.

 

[Tanner151]

What are 3 things that could improve the Italian Navy for an alternate WW2 (Der Kampf cough cough) with them being the premiere European Axis Navy? It can either be administrative/leadership change, industrial or doctrinal.

 

[marathag]

What are 3 things that could improve the Italian Navy for an alternate WW2 (Der Kampf cough cough) with them being the premiere European Axis Navy? It can either be administrative/leadership change, industrial or doctrinal.

More Oil.
More Steel production
Radar

The ships were honestly pretty good.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

What are 3 things that could improve the Italian Navy for an alternate WW2 (Der Kampf cough cough) with them being the premiere European Axis Navy? It can either be administrative/leadership change, industrial or doctrinal.

No Taranto?

More seriously, radar and a bit longer range so they could stay out longer?. They didn't really need carriers in the Med due to pretty decent land based air, their topedo boats and special units have a good reputation, and their 8" cruisers seem to have been well regarded.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

For Italy concentrate on building the new ships and not trying to build the 4 Littorios and refit…actually rebuild the last 2 WW2 BBs (EDIT) at the same time.

OTL Italian industry struggled to do both resulting in delays.

Getting all 4 Littorios in service ASAP should have the primary concern.

And of course better night training!

 

[thaddeus]

it seems Italy might have achieved more with submarine warfare in the Indian Ocean/African coast, of course they were evicted from Italian East Africa by the end of 1941 so they would need to start rapidly?

edit*not speculating on just the submarines stationed there historically

 

[tomo pauk]

What are 3 things that could improve the Italian Navy for an alternate WW2 (Der Kampf cough cough) with them being the premiere European Axis Navy? It can either be administrative/leadership change, industrial or doctrinal.

Radars, aircraft carriers, better leadership.
Radars are required for situational awareness + night fighting + adverse weather fighting, while aircraft carriers are necessary for air defense (added boon is that a lucky bomb hit can cripple the British or French vessel), since land-based air units will not cut in in the modern (for ww2) warfare. Better/more inspired/more aggressive leadership is probably always a boon.

Germans/KM also need the aircraft carrier dearly.

 

[marathag]

Radars, aircraft carriers, better leadership.
Radars are required for situational awareness + night fighting + adverse weather fighting, while aircraft carriers are necessary for air defense (added boon is that a lucky bomb hit can cripple the British or French vessel), since land-based air units will not cut in in the modern (for ww2) warfare. Better/more inspired/more aggressive leadership is probably always a boon.

Germans/KM also need the aircraft carrier dearly.

Almost anywhere the Italian Navy would be operating, would be in range of land based aircraft. Problem was, the cooperation between the R.A. and R.M. was poor, at best.
Easier to fix that, than working on a useful Carrier Doctrine