A better and deadlier German navy?

[thaddeus]

S boats someone mentioned them, how much more effective could they be here?

I mentioned them, but mainly in a “quantity is it’s own quality” kind of way. As in build more of them and they could well be more effective in the Baltic, Scandinavia and possibly the Channel. They’re not going to win the War or anything wankish, but as a use of resources, a well staffed and stocked “Schnellboot Kommando” is probably more use than the twins or the pocket battleships.

my speculation is always an evolution to the immediate post-war version Jaguar-class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar-class_fast_attack_craft since they were pressed into minelaying duties a larger boat could carry 20-odd mines vs. the historical 6

include a Bremse-class https://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/training/bremse/index.html ... as a flotilla leader

it would be interesting to work out what the KM could do with more S-boots

my prior suggestion was for the KM to build trawler-type ships (approx. 1,700 tonnes) allowing the historical Sperrbrecher to be used in other roles.

likewise they could have built and/or converted more trawlers to fulfill the roles of the R-boats, which had a similar profile/hull to the S-boats, thus allowing more to be built.

best role or tactic? probably their historical role as minelayer, with the larger version cited above it would be so much more efficient, able to deploy over three times as many mines.

my view they dropped development of small(er) uboats until too late, seems as though they could have been paired with S-boats in the Channel, Med, and Baltic and Black Seas to great effect.

 

[BlackDragon98]

I wouldn’t bother with either H2O2 systems.
“HMS exploder”, Me 162, Kurst, etc.

That’s why I suggested enhanced 02, over 100% O2. You need compressed air for conventional torps, so the step up to 38% O2 is evolutionary.

True, but Germany only has so many years to rearm and H2O2 is what they had available.
So unfortunately, that what they would have to use.
The research into enhanced O2 would take time, money, and effort, and then they have to design a torpedo around the concept.
5 years is not enough time IMHO

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

True, but Germany only has so many years to rearm and H2O2 is what they had available.
So unfortunately, that what they would have to use.
The research into enhanced O2 would take time, money, and effort, and then they have to design a torpedo around the concept.
5 years is not enough time IMHO

No really.
British already had their enhanced O2 24” torps on Nelson class.

The IJN heard of enhanced O2 and took it to next step, pure or 100% O2. It took 5 yrs to sort that out. The grease free, pre start enhanced O2, start, etc.

However, as RN found, you can increase the 02 in air from 21% to 38%, without changes to power plants and flasks. The same concept of a turbo, push more air in to increase available O2 for combustion. Instead more O2 without changing the thermo-chemistry, and reacting with all combustibles

So not 5 yrs.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1070360/document/5519648.PDF

Perhaps one of the most striking features of a torpedo was the large space given over to carrying a supply of air to operate its engine and controls. The cylindrical structure with domed ends which was devoted to this purpose was known as the air vessel. A torpedo, unlike most other fuel-power operated devices relying on the surrounding atmosphere, had to carry its own supply of air since after being fired the greater part of its journey to a target was made under water. For every pound of fuel consumed, roughly 15 pounds of air was required . The design of a torpedo was therefore influenced more by the air it carried than by its fuel storage. Substitution of pure oxygen for air considerably reduced the amount of storage space required, but at some sacrifice in safety of handling . The Royal Naval Torpedo Factory at Greenock had produced oxygen- enriched air torpedoes as far back as 1921, and these were used by the British and Australian Navies between the two world wars but because o f danger to ships and men they were eventually discarded . The Japanese produced an excellent torpedo of this type with a performance much better than any atmospheric torpedo, and used it successfully ; they did not allow humane considerations to deter them .

#38% means 8lbs instead of 15lbs

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

The german navy in world war II seemed like they had huge problems raging from bad decisions, ships for the wrong task (battleships or pocket battleships for raiding convoys) ill planned ventures like the Graf Zeppelin.

What could or should the Germany have done that would have made it better?

Part 4
Cruisers and destroyers
With the signing of Angio-Berlin NA, GB thought they had trapped the KM into trying to match the Washington Treaty classifications.

As in Part 1&2, the KM doesn’t match up and build smaller but more numerous BB and CVL, it can build Cruiser and destroyers to its advantage.

To support the BB been launched every two years and CVL every 18 mths, escorts are needed.

Cruisers must be below 10,000t, and 6.1-8” for heavies. A “heavy” with 3 x 3 170mm at 7,000t (real displacement 10,000) matches RN CAs. 170mm is in service and faster firing than 8” (no fore charge). Weight savings go into more armour. Usual diesel/turbo triple shaft gives speed and range.

Destroyers are limited to 2,000t. Not big enough for true fleet / destroyer leaders. By using light cruise tonnage build large destroyers of 4,000t. Armed with 4 x 2 128mm, 2 50mm, 4 x 30mm and 2 x 5 enhanced O2 (not long lance!) creates an ocean going escort. Again diesel /turbo propulsion and mass for some basic armour..

This would leave plenty of tonnage in the destroyer classification for 4” small destroyers /torpedo boats.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

More of a case of a complete tosser being promoted to Captain.

Ah! Now I see what you were upset over. My apologies, never thought about your handle. My reference was to Captain D'Oyley- Hughes, commanding officer on Glorious who many reasonable folk on this board blame for the loss of his ship, seeming more interested in returning to Scapa Flow to court martial his flying officer than actually captaining an aircraft carrier in wartime.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Ah! Now I see what you were upset over. My apologies, never thought about your handle. My reference was to Captain D'Oyley- Hughes, commanding officer on Glorious who many reasonable folk on this board blame for the loss of his ship, seeming more interested in returning to Scapa Flow to court martial his flying officer than actually captaining an aircraft carrier in wartime.

My apologies for over reacting.
For an aviator, Capt O’D-H, failed at every level. Not just for his fliers, but also as a ship’s Captain letting his command fall. Had he survived he should have been keel hauled.

 

[thaddeus]

Cruisers must be below 10,000t, and 6.1-8” for heavies. A “heavy” with 3 x 3 170mm at 7,000t (real displacement 10,000) matches RN CAs. 170mm is in service and faster firing than 8” (no fore charge). Weight savings go into more armour. Usual diesel/turbo triple shaft gives speed and range.

Destroyers are limited to 2,000t. Not big enough for true fleet / destroyer leaders. By using light cruise tonnage build large destroyers of 4,000t. Armed with 4 x 2 128mm, 2 50mm, 4 x 30mm and 2 x 5 enhanced O2 (not long lance!) creates an ocean going escort. Again diesel /turbo propulsion and mass for some basic armour..

they struggled with CL designs, with only Emden able to venture into open oceans? it seems they would need ships the size of Hipper-class to employ 170mm guns (which would be a much better idea than unique class of 203mm)

my suggestion would be two sets of "Twins" and two sets of alt.Hipper-class with a fifth Hipper for reserve, while rebuilding the Panzerschiffe with DP secondary gun 128mm.

below that they could rebuild the existing CLs, removing the rear super firing turret in favor of heavy AA array, and rebuild the old WWI-era BBs and CLs with a similar AA array

my suggestion was for Bremse-class of diesel ships, although they might want to return to 1920's torpedo boat designs during wartime.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

they struggled with CL designs, with only Emden able to venture into open oceans? it seems they would need ships the size of Hipper-class to employ 170mm guns (which would be a much better idea than unique class of 203mm)

my suggestion would be two sets of "Twins" and two sets of alt.Hipper-class with a fifth Hipper for reserve, while rebuilding the Panzerschiffe with DP secondary gun 128mm.

below that they could rebuild the existing CLs, removing the rear super firing turret in favor of heavy AA array, and rebuild the old WWI-era BBs and CLs with a similar AA array

my suggestion was for Bremse-class of diesel ships, although they might want to return to 1920's torpedo boat designs during wartime.

The CLs had turbo dominated or turbo /diesel on one shaft drive. Not the best arrangement.

Also they had 7 cylinder diesels. The worst number of cylinders possible. A prime odd number that is always unbalanced.

Leipzig had the same diesel as Bremer, a 30/34 (bore/ displace) but in 8 cylinders. A balanced engine.
Numberg had 7 cylinder but bored out 32/44, the same diesel proposed for late destroyers, but in balanced V-24!
O-class had the same 42/58 as the Pockets. At least the pockets had 9 cylinders, not a prime number but still odd, a bit better. O-class would have V-24.

It was the application not so much the design of diesels that let the side down.

 

[thaddeus]

The CLs had turbo dominated or turbo /diesel on one shaft drive. Not the best arrangement.

Also they had 7 cylinder diesels. The worst number of cylinders possible. A prime odd number that is always unbalanced.

Leipzig had the same diesel as Bremer, a 30/34 (bore/ displace) but in 8 cylinders. A balanced engine.
Numberg had 7 cylinder but bored out 32/44, the same diesel proposed for late destroyers, but in balanced V-24!
O-class had the same 42/58 as the Pockets. At least the pockets had 9 cylinders, not a prime number but still odd, a bit better. O-class would have V-24.

It was the application not so much the design of diesels that let the side down.

my reference was to the structural issues that hampered the light cruisers, "top heavy" begins to describe it but they were literally "twisting?" guess it was "somewhat" solved by adding 700t of armor plating over the hull of Karlsruhe, but the others did not receive the rebuild. (they also had to maintain certain level of fuel as a ballast, reducing range)

my suggestion was to remove the rear superfiring turret to be replaced with AA guns and rebuild them all, use (partly) to escort the uboats?

think it would have been logical to further develop their hybrid engine systems, all the Plan Z ships featured diesel or hybrid arrangements (IIRC) but if the KM had a realistic view of when war would begin, and where their area of operations would be?

as an intermediate plan 4 Scharnhorst-class and 5 or so of alt.Admiral Hipper-class (with suggested 170mm guns) might seem like something they could complete quickly and would be effective in the Baltic and North Sea?

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

my reference was to the structural issues that hampered the light cruisers, "top heavy" begins to describe it but they were literally "twisting?" guess it was "somewhat" solved by adding 700t of armor plating over the hull of Karlsruhe, but the others did not receive the rebuild. (they also had to maintain certain level of fuel as a ballast, reducing range)

my suggestion was to remove the rear superfiring turret to be replaced with AA guns and rebuild them all, use (partly) to escort the uboats?

think it would have been logical to further develop their hybrid engine systems, all the Plan Z ships featured diesel or hybrid arrangements (IIRC) but if the KM had a realistic view of when war would begin, and where their area of operations would be?

as an intermediate plan 4 Scharnhorst-class and 5 or so of alt.Admiral Hipper-class (with suggested 170mm guns) might seem like something they could complete quickly and would be effective in the Baltic and North Sea?

Ok
The CLs were pre 35 and to be fair, really weight limited. The Hippers had much more “nazi” weights (about 25% -50% over)

I wouldn’t take the rear turret off. The old CLs just don’t have the space for AA and FC. Same for pockets. Replacing 150mm with 128mm without FC and stabilisation is a waste of time.

The biggest change with Z-plan was changing straight diesels for V diesels, saving heaps of space and ship tonnage. Range issues disappear and special crew shortages

The ship I proposed is basically a Scharnhorst, with triple 350mm at 35,000t. Much smaller than Bismarck. 280m is not capable off taking on Hood, and fast BC. Or damaging the heavy slow Nelson’s.

Germany will have to secure Norway (for iron ore). It must be able to control the coast from Nth Sea to Arctic circle. With task forces of a pair of BB and CVL patrol this space and Extend into the Greenland /Iceland gap to gain access to Atlantic Ocean proper.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

My apologies for over reacting.
For an aviator, Capt O’D-H, failed at every level. Not just for his fliers, but also as a ship’s Captain letting his command fall. Had he survived he should have been keel hauled.

No need for apologies - I had better pay more attention to the ID's of posters

D'Oyly-Hughes not only threw away the lives of his ship's crew, but also lost several highly-trained RAF fighter pilots whose Hurricanes were being evacuated from Norway. Their loss would be serious in the coming months.

 

[thaddeus]

Same for pockets. Replacing 150mm with 128mm without FC and stabilisation is a waste of time.

they had plans historically for this, replace the 5.9" & 4.1" guns with the 5" gun, to streamline the munitions, also add approx. 700t in longer hull to correct known issues.

 

[SCOUT 5249]

Hydrofoil boats could they have worked? What role would suit them best?

 

[ArtosStark]

Worked, yes. Alexander Graham Bell and Casey Baldwin got one working in 1919 using a liberty engine. And the Germans tested one in 1949 as a mine layer. But hydrofoils tend to be expensive to build and operate and take a lot of maintenance. They might have been useful in some niche roles, but I don’t know if it would justify the cost.

 

[TDM]

Worked, yes. Alexander Graham Bell and Casey Baldwin got one working in 1919 using a liberty engine. And the Germans tested one in 1949 as a mine layer. But hydrofoils tend to be expensive to build and operate and take a lot of maintenance. They might have been useful in some niche roles, but I don’t know if it would justify the cost.

Yep, the last thing the German navy needs is higher maintainence and more expensive

 

[NoMommsen]

Worked, yes. Alexander Graham Bell and Casey Baldwin got one working in 1919 using a liberty engine. And the Germans tested one in 1949 as a mine layer. ....

Well, sry but ... have to somewhat answer back :
In 1915 a first version of something already able to be called a hydrofoil was tested by the k.u.k navy.
Most likely too "new" for the k.u.k top brass to be considered usefull between the uncounted isles of the croation coast and therefore ... forgotten.

Also ... if you would be able to get a look on good ol'

Erich Gröner : Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945, Vol. 2 pages 153 f.f.​

you might see that the Kriegsmarine tested from 1941 onwards several Hydrofoils of differing designs and sizes (after the former designs of 1938 though ordered were cancelled in ... tahdaah : september 1939). ... and I explicitly do NOT mean the Engelmann Boote.

...
But hydrofoils tend to be expensive to build and operate and take a lot of maintenance. They might have been useful in some niche roles, but I don’t know if it would justify the cost.

Of ... what use are high speed boat today ? ... in coastal waters esp. ?
... tasks larger vessels are less good design for or only usefull in releasing even smaller boat/dinghies et.al.

 

[TDM]

...
Of ... what use are high speed boat today ? ... in coastal waters esp. ?
... tasks larger vessels are less good design for or only usefull in releasing even smaller boat/dinghies et.al.

It's not that there is no use a hydrofoil could be put to. It more what extra benefit does being a hydrofoil bring compared to a fast Torpedo Boat / E boat? Especially when you also have to balance in the extra work and resource burden of just being a hydrofoil, especially an early in the technology version.

This is the S-100 Schnellboat it can maintain 44kn and hit 48kn if need be, so there need to be some big advantage or exclusive capability to hydrofoil here.

I actually found this on line, it proports to reference the original trial reports 1940-44

apparent Pros and cons

Advantages Compared to Normal E-Boats

1. Slightly greater speed (E-boats with MB 518 engines reach 44.3 knots, while new V-shaped hull will give a 46.5 to 47 knots speed. However, the maximum sustained speed of E-boats is well below 40 knots, while the equivalent speed figures on future hydrofoil E-boats will attain 45 to 50 knots).
2. Dryer, more stable cruising.
3. Higher speed in rough weather (although E-boats proceed at high speed to ride over swells).
4. Little bow and stern wake.
5. Lessened danger from mines (not affected by magnetic mines, less vulnerable to the acoustic mine, not affected by the pressure mine AD 204, less danger from the snag-line mine).
6. Greater mine-carrying (20) capacity.

Disadvantages Compared to Normal E-Boats

1. Foils sensitive to hits and floating objects.
2. Larger target for detection and gunfire. Hits on the hull would probably sink the craft, since most of the craft is submerged when hullborne.
3. Louder exhaust noises (E-boat exhausts are under water).
4. Greater draft, making docking in E-boat pens and shallow harbors impossible (exceeds 4 meters).
5. Very great turning circle and lessened maneuverability, making “steering way” after torpedo attack almost impossible on hydrofoils.
6. All engines will fail if extremely long and vulnerable cooling-water lead (engines to stern) is damaged.
7. Very low hullborne speed on one engine at 10 - 12 knots (even on two engines hullborne, the hydrofoil drag limits speed to 20 knots absolute max).
8. Unfavorable torpedo initial launch dive (greater height than normal).
9. Slower acceleration from low speed on turns, when engaging enemy.
10. Proceeding in formation difficult when changing course (every boat acts differently on hydrofoils).
11. The boat must always proceed on hydrofoils when passing through mined areas (normal E-boats can travel through moored mines on 1.9 m. draft).
12. Small reserve displacement, since underwater distribution is too small (can be corrected by new designs).
13. Constant repair lay-up, due to damage of foils, armor, and propellers.
14. Heavy cavitation of propellers (unavoidable) since they operate just below water surfaces.
15. Difficulty in coming alongside, due to the projection of hydrofoils 1-1/2 to 2 m on either side of the hull.
16. When proceeding against the sea not on hydrofoils, the boat may be swamped due to the braking effect of the hydrofoils.
17. Silent running impossible even hullborne, due to hydrofoil noise.

 

[BlackDragon98]

It's not that there is no use a hydrofoil could be put to. It more what extra benefit does being a hydrofoil bring compared to a fast Torpedo Boat / E boat? Especially when you also have to balance in the extra work and resource burden of just being a hydrofoil, especially an early in the technology version.

This is the S-100 Schnellboat it can maintain 44kn and hit 48kn if need be, so there need to be some big advantage or exclusive capability to hydrofoil here.

I actually found this on line, it proports to reference the original trial reports 1940-44

apparent Pros and cons

Advantages Compared to Normal E-Boats

1. Slightly greater speed (E-boats with MB 518 engines reach 44.3 knots, while new V-shaped hull will give a 46.5 to 47 knots speed. However, the maximum sustained speed of E-boats is well below 40 knots, while the equivalent speed figures on future hydrofoil E-boats will attain 45 to 50 knots).
2. Dryer, more stable cruising.
3. Higher speed in rough weather (although E-boats proceed at high speed to ride over swells).
4. Little bow and stern wake.
5. Lessened danger from mines (not affected by magnetic mines, less vulnerable to the acoustic mine, not affected by the pressure mine AD 204, less danger from the snag-line mine).
6. Greater mine-carrying (20) capacity.

Disadvantages Compared to Normal E-Boats

1. Foils sensitive to hits and floating objects.
2. Larger target for detection and gunfire. Hits on the hull would probably sink the craft, since most of the craft is submerged when hullborne.
3. Louder exhaust noises (E-boat exhausts are under water).
4. Greater draft, making docking in E-boat pens and shallow harbors impossible (exceeds 4 meters).
5. Very great turning circle and lessened maneuverability, making “steering way” after torpedo attack almost impossible on hydrofoils.
6. All engines will fail if extremely long and vulnerable cooling-water lead (engines to stern) is damaged.
7. Very low hullborne speed on one engine at 10 - 12 knots (even on two engines hullborne, the hydrofoil drag limits speed to 20 knots absolute max).
8. Unfavorable torpedo initial launch dive (greater height than normal).
9. Slower acceleration from low speed on turns, when engaging enemy.
10. Proceeding in formation difficult when changing course (every boat acts differently on hydrofoils).
11. The boat must always proceed on hydrofoils when passing through mined areas (normal E-boats can travel through moored mines on 1.9 m. draft).
12. Small reserve displacement, since underwater distribution is too small (can be corrected by new designs).
13. Constant repair lay-up, due to damage of foils, armor, and propellers.
14. Heavy cavitation of propellers (unavoidable) since they operate just below water surfaces.
15. Difficulty in coming alongside, due to the projection of hydrofoils 1-1/2 to 2 m on either side of the hull.
16. When proceeding against the sea not on hydrofoils, the boat may be swamped due to the braking effect of the hydrofoils.
17. Silent running impossible even hullborne, due to hydrofoil noise.

Basic, making a few hydrofoil S-boats and use them in missions where there are a lot of enemy naval mines.

 

[thaddeus]

think the hydrofoil boats proved a failure, and they certainly attempted over a period of years. one interesting project was a transport version that incorporated a "wet deck" https://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/vs8/index.html (but that could likely be attempted with conventional S-Boat??)

my prior suggestion was for the KM to arrive at the immediate post-war version of S-Boat(s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar-class_fast_attack_craft it would be a logical evolution, with no real technical hurdles (could carry couple dozen mines, the lack of capacity for such limited the S-Boats historically)