AHC: Best possible German performance in the Battle of the Atlantic

BlondieBC

Banned
there possibly is something between Dithmarschen and aircraft carrier and seaplane tender that would have been effective?

The real problem the Germans had is the lack of fortified ports outside of easy RAF range that have direct access to the major shipping lanes. It is really the major German failure in both naval wars, and reflects the UK spending centuries acquiring a great string of naval bases.

The problem with all these carriers and a lot of ideas are not that they can't work, it is that these ideas tend to be the last thing one builds in the fleet design. There is a natural way to build up your fleet that comes about due to budget limits, training lead time and the like. It also happens to trigger reactions from competitors in a much slower way. If you don't follow this way, you end up spamming out U-boats and hoping they can do the job alone.

One starts with thinking in terms of coastal defense. i.e. Keeping the enemy fleet at least several hundred miles off your shores. It involves the boring, cheap and effective stuff line mines, small surface craft, radar lines, naval aviation, and of course, my love, submarines. After one can deny enemy access to your shores, there are two other objectives that are useful. Control the surface near you shores is desirable. i.e. ability to move merchant traffic with minimum disruption. And then the more distant denial of sea operations to enemies. The final stage is the ability to operate near your enemy shores. This requires decades of spending and only a few nations such as the UK and the USA have achieved this very expense feat.

So how does one go from the theory to practice without blowing up German UK relationships. First one works with the ToV. Whether a line of light houses manned with naval personnel with radio to radar network, you do what the ToV and your budget allows. On training you crews, you have ships near shore reporting to your navy. Be it small torpedo boats or fishing boats with log books that the navy compiles. You stockpile mines. Coastal navy artillery is cheap and can use older guns.

When you start rebuilding the air force, you build some land based naval aviation. Scout planes are first, then fighters, then attack planes. None of this will greatly upset anyone. And most of this can be one with existing air frames or lightly modified airplanes. A lot of the difference between a good naval dive bomber and a Stuka is training. Among other things, naval navigation is quite hard for pilots used to operating over land. And only after a decade or so of these operations will you have the skill to man a carrier air wing. It is quite frankly unwise for German to build a carrier faster than OTL plans.

When you build up surface ships, you build up small to large. Make your mistakes with the cheaper ships, don't do it with capital ship design. And finally, in the process of building a professional navy, you have trained up good staff officers. And these officers will have plans for an 'unexpected major naval' war and the buildup. So you will have thought through things like how to expand U-boat production, how to triple the number of naval aviation squadrons, and AMC conversions.

If you follow this type of progression, you have this cheaper option of much longer range planes that can operate from France that will do much of what is needed. And maybe you can build a few converted 'baby carriers' or 'baby seaplane carriers' that will be quite effective. If one skips this process, then spamming out the type of ships you talk about is a massive resource wasted. OTL Germans learned reasonably well from WW1 lessons, and without building a better navy, the best option is to convert more AMC combined with better communication procedures. A less chatting and more secure coded German Navy does much, much better than OTL.

They type of ideas that you are talking about, the Japanese could not get to work well. And Japan had a great navy with great admirals and highly trained crews with doctrine built up over decades.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
was speaking to your point about Dithmarschen being a waste ... MY scenario would add capability to handle seaplanes (as they had experience doing that and the construction could be portrayed as commercial venture?)

but perhaps proper carrier could serve to resupply u-boats?

Don't try to build one ship to do everything. They just suck at everything. A CVE or CVL would be great at merchant raiding. If you have one and the ability to keep it alive, you simply use it to go sink convoys. And, O BTW, the air cover hole created by these ships are great places for subs to operate. If you want a resupply boat, you want a ship that avoid contact with the enemy, and this includes significant air operations. Now you can work AMC with subs, but you will have an issue with how much radio chatter is generate. The AMC is ok, because it is cheap. And you probably only need a handful of seaplanes that can be operate without a flight deck. This is only a good idea because these are cheap, and expendable.

More sustained operations would require at least a decade of training together. And fortified ports with access to see lanes. The ship you ask for was built. Looks good on paper, but was operationally worthless for the Japanese. You build a cruiser with 6 guns forward since 6 was the minimum considered effective. The back is sea planes. You can now scout for your submarine squadron. The 6" guns can kill any destroyer in the area. You can also send out with a fast supply ship or some AMC if you need a lot of material. The key thing is that this type of ship can only operate well in areas the enemy can't put sustained surface fleet. A cruiser with six 6" guns or even six 8" gun is not going to fair well against a heavy cruiser. Or a couple of light cruisers. Even hits that don't come close to penetrating the armor will wreck the planes on the deck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Ōyodo

This is the ship you want. And IMO, if operation on June 1941 at the concentration of one per long range Japanese submarine squadron would have been highly effective for up to 18 months in the war. But that is just my opinion since it was not effective later in the war. And building this type of ship will absolutely freak out the British because this ship has only one real purpose - Shutting down merchant traffic in the open ocean. Laying down two more Bismarcks in early 1939 will freak out the British less than building two of these ships. The British talk all the time about ships designed to defeat the British Empire, and only the British Empire. This would be the ship that actually be that design.
 

Deleted member 1487

I just don't see this as even a mildly challenging POD. Hitler let the SS have a second army. Hitler let Goering build his 3rd minor Army. Hitler deciding that he need a 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th air force is actually quite easy. It would actually be much harder to have the US Marine Corp folded under the US Army command by a wide, wide margin that the POD discussed. Or to take an OTL change, it is much less likely the USAF is split out of the US Army post WW2 than Hitler doing a naval air force.
Only during the war. Goering's 'private army' only really came online in 1942 as a result of manpower shortages in the army and Goering successfully fighting off attempts to transfer extra men to the army. If anything that just proves that Goering was very successful in preventing Hitler taking any of 'his' men to give to anyone else. Plus pre-war Goering was at an all time high in his relationship with Hitler, being named his specific successor at the start of the invasion of Poland. The Waffen-SS also really didn't exist but for a couple of brigades of experimental units in Poland. They were initially created as a special force under Hitler's direct command pre-war as a praetorian guard against the army rather than a combat unit until Himmler was able to get them released for actual combat use.

Going by the actual history of Goering's political efforts, he was extremely successful in preventing the Luftwaffe from losing anything to other commands until his failures during the war...but even then he was more successful than not in keeping and expanding forces under his command rather than losing them to transfers to other branches of service. James Corum wrote a book "Creating the Operational Air War" which gets into the politics of inter-service rivalry in the naval air realm and details how Goering fought off the navy's efforts to get a naval air unit under their command, while marginalizing the navy in general in resource allocation, as Goering basically took over the economy pre-war with the 4 Year Program (details about that in "Goering: Hitler's Iron Knight" by Richard Overy). What is surprising is how wary Hitler was with challenging Goering on anything in his realm of control, especially pre-war.
 
If you follow this type of progression, you have this cheaper option of much longer range planes that can operate from France that will do much of what is needed. And maybe you can build a few converted 'baby carriers' or 'baby seaplane carriers' that will be quite effective. If one skips this process, then spamming out the type of ships you talk about is a massive resource wasted. OTL Germans learned reasonably well from WW1 lessons, and without building a better navy, the best option is to convert more AMC combined with better communication procedures. A less chatting and more secure coded German Navy does much, much better than OTL.

They type of ideas that you are talking about, the Japanese could not get to work well. And Japan had a great navy with great admirals and highly trained crews with doctrine built up over decades.

thanks for the detailed replies!

think they could have added seaplane handling capability to Dithmarschen-class without hampering its other operations too much? might be more possible to equip with small S-boats and/or helicopters (even if just tethered observer)

the "mothership" concept was not for supply-tanker to engage enemy warships but speculatively command wolf packs and not be in constant communication from every u-boat back to France? maybe impossible? (have also seen suggestion of communication buoys to send messages back to KM after u-boats have left an area)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
thanks for the detailed replies!

think they could have added seaplane handling capability to Dithmarschen-class without hampering its other operations too much? might be more possible to equip with small S-boats and/or helicopters (even if just tethered observer)

the "mothership" concept was not for supply-tanker to engage enemy warships but speculatively command wolf packs and not be in constant communication from every u-boat back to France? maybe impossible? (have also seen suggestion of communication buoys to send messages back to KM after u-boats have left an area)

I can't tell you how hard it is engineering wise, probably yes. Assuming the catapult did not make the ship more vulnerable, it would be a net gain.

As to the mother ship, it has to be a warship, not a tanker. It is not that this ship can't carry some fuel or supplies or spare parts or spare crews, it is that you need to start with the idea that this ship has to fight and will be detected. And so you start with modifying a warship to help a bit with the other duties, and then add a bit of supply. I still have found these ships to be poor performers since they are compromised.

Here is the better solution. Pair the warships with supply ships. I have not gone through the detailed stats of WW2 ships, but here is the process. You take the Graf Spee. You then make plans so U-boats can operate with this ship. Conceptually it works great, but no one ever made it work well. Then you have to build a fleet U-boat with the speed and range to keep up with the Graf Spee. I suspect that you will find this quite hard. Then you build merchant ships that can be convert to keep up with these ships at both cruising speed and run away speed. And, the U-boats have to be able to keep up with the Graf Spee when it is making a multi-day run away from areas with too many British Cruisers. So sure it could work.

Or you could take the same money, and build good land based naval aviation. Build many merchant ships that are convertible to cheap, and therefore expendable AMC's. More training for crews. More testing of weapons. This type of exercise is more about avoiding blunders than brilliant moves.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Only during the war. Goering's 'private army' only really came online in 1942 as a result of manpower shortages in the army and Goering successfully fighting off attempts to transfer extra men to the army. If anything that just proves that Goering was very successful in preventing Hitler taking any of 'his' men to give to anyone else. Plus pre-war Goering was at an all time high in his relationship with Hitler, being named his specific successor at the start of the invasion of Poland. The Waffen-SS also really didn't exist but for a couple of brigades of experimental units in Poland. They were initially created as a special force under Hitler's direct command pre-war as a praetorian guard against the army rather than a combat unit until Himmler was able to get them released for actual combat use.

Going by the actual history of Goering's political efforts, he was extremely successful in preventing the Luftwaffe from losing anything to other commands until his failures during the war...but even then he was more successful than not in keeping and expanding forces under his command rather than losing them to transfers to other branches of service. James Corum wrote a book "Creating the Operational Air War" which gets into the politics of inter-service rivalry in the naval air realm and details how Goering fought off the navy's efforts to get a naval air unit under their command, while marginalizing the navy in general in resource allocation, as Goering basically took over the economy pre-war with the 4 Year Program (details about that in "Goering: Hitler's Iron Knight" by Richard Overy). What is surprising is how wary Hitler was with challenging Goering on anything in his realm of control, especially pre-war.

It almost sounds like you are arguing it would be easier to transfer the U-boats to the Luftwaffe than a few squadrons of planes to the Navy. Politically easier.
 
Have we considered U-boat quality? Is there any good reason why an electroboote could not be designed from 1933?
Yes, ideas, doctrines, but technical?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Have we considered U-boat quality? Is there any good reason why an electroboote could not be designed from 1933?
Yes, ideas, doctrines, but technical?

I have not seen any evidence that the technology is mature in 1933. And it seems like that snorkling would be a more logical tech to move forward.

And since you brought up quality, let's deal with better U-boats. It is easier to correct glaring flaws than build new technology from scratch. The torpedo issue is an easy technical fix. A much more secure enigma is easier than OTL enigma. The commercial one had more rotors than any used by OTL German Navy. So simply have the navy be in a bit of a rush, and just order the off the shelf version. The codes would probably not be broken IOTL. The Germans had some issues related to how the water tight hatches closed, and this was not caught due to never going to full diving depth under testing conditions. This could be fixed. And probably a lot of other small issues could also be caught in this more robust testing procedures. Admittedly at the cost of an additional lost U-boat or two. Boring, but hugely effective. And there are probably a lot of improvements that we don't even think of, but would have been made. Things such as 5% deeper dive depth due to better design and construction. Or shaving 10 seconds off the dive time. These would have huge, but hard to quantify effects.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Now that you bring it up, it does kind of seem that way.

I am playing with an idea of writing a WW2 U-boat ATL. Gives me a good excuse to read books. Do you think I would get fewer ASB complaints if having Goering slowly capture the U-boats than if I go the other way? It probably runs like this.

  • POD to capture some learning in WW1.
  • Not much happens to mid-1930's.
  • Hitler kind of likes idea of naval aviation. Goering instead of fighting idea, see opportunity to gain power. He agrees to these squadrons if Luftwaffe is tasked with merchant warfare.
  • Over time, the Admirals are effectively subordinated to the Luftwaffe command?
I would really like to deal with more technology and doctrine improvements and minimize dealing with Hitler and his inner circle.
 
I have not seen any evidence that the technology is mature in 1933. And it seems like that snorkling would be a more logical tech to move forward.

And since you brought up quality, let's deal with better U-boats. It is easier to correct glaring flaws than build new technology from scratch. The torpedo issue is an easy technical fix. A much more secure enigma is easier than OTL enigma. The commercial one had more rotors than any used by OTL German Navy. So simply have the navy be in a bit of a rush, and just order the off the shelf version. The codes would probably not be broken IOTL. The Germans had some issues related to how the water tight hatches closed, and this was not caught due to never going to full diving depth under testing conditions. This could be fixed. And probably a lot of other small issues could also be caught in this more robust testing procedures. Admittedly at the cost of an additional lost U-boat or two. Boring, but hugely effective. And there are probably a lot of improvements that we don't even think of, but would have been made. Things such as 5% deeper dive depth due to better design and construction. Or shaving 10 seconds off the dive time. These would have huge, but hard to quantify effects.
I dont disagree with your suggestions, but was the Technology that advanced. Same hull shape as hollands’ sub, more batteries?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I dont disagree with your suggestions, but was the Technology that advanced. Same hull shape as hollands’ sub, more batteries?

Can you link the sub? The Hollands that come to my mind are pre-ww1 kerosene power subs.

Also, in 1940-1941 time frame when the war can be won, are these subs better than OTL submarines? Are they better than OTL subs with snorkles?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Have we considered U-boat quality? Is there any good reason why an electroboote could not be designed from 1933?
Yes, ideas, doctrines, but technical?
I have not seen any evidence that the technology is mature in 1933. And it seems like that snorkling would be a more logical tech to move forward.
I dont disagree with your suggestions, but was the Technology that advanced. Same hull shape as hollands’ sub, more batteries?
What 'special' technology you refer too ?

The 'electro-boats' of Type XXI and XXIII used as new technology only their hydrodynamical better form.
Engines and esp. batteries were pretty standard, the same used in Type VII and IX boats , ... maybe more of but in terms of technology the same.
 
and far too valuable. Besides, you'd have them well off the trade routes:
PiEPm1M.png


They are your mobile base network as one stop shops for replenishment, maintenance, sickbay etc.

Thaddeus is right in that the Dithmarschen AOE where too valuable - but that was to accompany high speed long range surface raiders, since this was seen as an enabler for the battle fleet to also support the U-Boat war through surface raiding missions like Berlin. The Dithmarschen were the only tankers fast enough for fleet speeds [KM fleet speeds were 19 knots or more].

As I showed in post 63 , the KM had already trialed AOE through the SPANISH CIVIL WAR and had DOZENS OF TANKERS B4 the war -that could have AOE facilities. These were more than capable of refuel/replenishing the U-Boats fleets....especially since they were already 'disguised' ships and could remain at sea for months/years.

Historically in WWI the key to allied effectiveness against HSK was painstakingly tracking down possible leads and hunting them down to intercept them. Any kind of U-Boat refueling had to be done in secluded sheltered bays , which simplified the detective work.

The KM NEEDED DOZENS of surface raiders to support any U-Boat war, which they were NEVER going to get -building massive Battleships etc. Historically 23 large cruiser sized warships were laid down the prewar Hitler years, so it was possible, they just needed to redirect the historical stream of resources /funding & labor from a small number of capital ship into many more Kreuzers...That includes the Dithmarschen construction.

The other key component would be massive investment in diesel propulsion over bunker oil for main fleet and coal powered warships for the coastal fleet.
 
Last edited:
Now that you bring it up, it does kind of seem that way.

The LW didn't exist 'officially' in the early 1930s and they were in no position to demand anything , however the KM was only in a marginally better position- with the leftovers from WW-I mutiny . In that context -NAVAL PLAN 1928-32 was somewhat revolutionary in that it ordered the KM to build an aircraft carrier and 16 U-Boats, both illegal under the treaty restrictions. This plan also order the KM to build 400 planes for naval aviation. Planes for the aircraft carrier seems a no-brainer , but there seems no enthusiasm for this warship. Of course adding seaplanes to surface raiders was a given, but this expansion also included many sizable long range flying boats . Lufthansa [the de-facto LW] already had excellent long range transatlantic flying boats and services.

This Naval plan 1932 also included building 6 new improved PBS [3 triple 11" turrets ] plus 6 new Kreuzers. Immediately after Hitler took power this 'plan' expanded to 8 Panzerschiffe, while some demanded a dozen raiders. At times the PBS & CL of the Reichmarine fleet were argued into and out of these numbers in order to meet the original plan building window of 1928-1938+5 years .

By 1934/35 the "Ship replacement plan" takes over ordering .....
3 CV
8 Panzerschiffe
18 Kreuzers
48 GTB
72 U-Boats.
But the completion date was shifted to 1949. Obviously by wartime the plan is shifted to ZPLAN.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The LW didn't exist 'officially' in the early 1930s and they were in no position to demand anything , however the KM was only in a marginally better position- with the leftovers from WW-I mutiny . In that context -NAVAL PLAN 1928-32 was somewhat revolutionary in that it ordered the KM to build an aircraft carrier and 16 U-Boats, both illegal under the treaty restrictions. This plan also order the KM to build 400 planes for naval aviation. Planes for the aircraft carrier seems a no-brainer , but there seems no enthusiasm for this warship. Of course adding seaplanes to surface raiders was a given, but this expansion also included many sizable long range flying boats . Lufthansa [the de-facto LW] already had excellent long range transatlantic flying boats and services.

This Naval plan 1932 also included building 6 new improved PBS [3 triple 11" turrets ] plus 6 new Kreuzers. Immediately after Hitler took power this 'plan' expanded to 8 Panzerschiffe, while some demanded a dozen raiders. At times the PBS & CL of the Reichmarine fleet were argued into and out of these numbers in order to meet the original plan building window of 1928-1938+5 years .

By 1934/35 the "Ship replacement plan" takes over ordering .....
3 CV
8 Panzerschiffe
18 Kreuzers
48 GTB
72 U-Boats.
But the completion date was shifted to 1949. Obviously by wartime the plan is shifted to ZPLAN.
I wasn't suggesting it, simply saying that Goering was so politically powerful it would be more likely they'd build a navy than the Kriegsmarine would loosen Goering's grasp on landbased air units pre-war.
 
think they could have added seaplane handling capability to Dithmarschen-class without hampering its other operations too much? might be more possible to equip with small S-boats and/or helicopters (even if just tethered observer)

the "mothership" concept was not for supply-tanker to engage enemy warships but speculatively command wolf packs and not be in constant communication from every u-boat back to France? maybe impossible? (have also seen suggestion of communication buoys to send messages back to KM after u-boats have left an area)

I can't tell you how hard it is engineering wise, probably yes. Assuming the catapult did not make the ship more vulnerable, it would be a net gain.

As to the mother ship, it has to be a warship, not a tanker. It is not that this ship can't carry some fuel or supplies or spare parts or spare crews, it is that you need to start with the idea that this ship has to fight and will be detected. And so you start with modifying a warship to help a bit with the other duties, and then add a bit of supply. I still have found these ships to be poor performers since they are compromised.

Here is the better solution. Pair the warships with supply ships. I have not gone through the detailed stats of WW2 ships, but here is the process. You take the Graf Spee. You then make plans so U-boats can operate with this ship. Conceptually it works great, but no one ever made it work well. Then you have to build a fleet U-boat with the speed and range to keep up with the Graf Spee. I suspect that you will find this quite hard. Then you build merchant ships that can be convert to keep up with these ships at both cruising speed and run away speed. And, the U-boats have to be able to keep up with the Graf Spee when it is making a multi-day run away from areas with too many British Cruisers. So sure it could work.

Or you could take the same money, and build good land based naval aviation. Build many merchant ships that are convertible to cheap, and therefore expendable AMC's. More training for crews. More testing of weapons. This type of exercise is more about avoiding blunders than brilliant moves.

my only reading on the task force idea, an AMC might encounter a Panzerschiffe but idea of joint operations was dismissed due to difference in speeds as you noted.

understand the limits of the tanker-supply ships and others converted to AMCs but still seems easier equation to match them with u-boats? and there are never going to be enough warships?

it would be simpler to marginally increase the effectiveness of AMCs (and if desired the Dithmarschen-class as well) and remain well within AGNA rather than try to use warships? these ships would appear benign pre-war.
 
Thaddeus is right in that the Dithmarschen AOE where too valuable - but that was to accompany high speed long range surface raiders, since this was seen as an enabler for the battle fleet to also support the U-Boat war through surface raiding missions like Berlin. The Dithmarschen were the only tankers fast enough for fleet speeds [KM fleet speeds were 19 knots or more].

As I showed in post 63 , the KM had already trialed AOE through the SPANISH CIVIL WAR and had DOZENS OF TANKERS B4 the war -that could have AOE facilities. These were more than capable of refuel/replenishing the U-Boats fleets....especially since they were already 'disguised' ships and could remain at sea for months/years.

Historically in WWI the key to allied effectiveness against HSK was painstakingly tracking down possible leads and hunting them down to intercept them. Any kind of U-Boat refueling had to be done in secluded sheltered bays , which simplified the detective work.

The KM NEEDED DOZENS of surface raiders to support any U-Boat war, which they were NEVER going to get -building massive Battleships etc. Historically 23 large cruiser sized warships were laid down the prewar Hitler years, so it was possible, they just needed to redirect the historical stream of resources /funding & labor from a small number of capital ship into many more Kreuzers...That includes the Dithmarschen construction.

The other key component would be massive investment in diesel propulsion over bunker oil for main fleet and coal powered warships for the coastal fleet.

agree to a point, my scenario they could have abandoned the diesel propulsion (per historical) for an Admiral Hipper-class with 11" guns (posed as response to French construction) along with a better developed class of fast destroyers.

(scraps the four historical BBs and 1 carrier launched)

they never need to break out into Atlantic, if they can end British convoys along east coast (which was done periodically?) it screws their whole transportation system (YES, they can re-orient it, but not easily and not overnight)

this allows for rebuilds (possibly) of Panzerschiffe and light cruisers?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
my only reading on the task force idea, an AMC might encounter a Panzerschiffe but idea of joint operations was dismissed due to difference in speeds as you noted.

understand the limits of the tanker-supply ships and others converted to AMCs but still seems easier equation to match them with u-boats? and there are never going to be enough warships?

it would be simpler to marginally increase the effectiveness of AMCs (and if desired the Dithmarschen-class as well) and remain well within AGNA rather than try to use warships? these ships would appear benign pre-war.

Easier. Yes, probably easier to increase AMC effectiveness than build fleet submarines. Easier still to build more AMC, or more specifically, have the ability to spam these things out via freighter conversions once the war starts.

And yes, spreading out the AMC plus Panzerschiffe probably does maximize the impact.

Now if we get to prewar doctrine when the ships have to be built, I am not so sure we would reject on speed. The USA built fleet subs to keep up with the fleet. So we have the Gato class with max speed of 17 built to cruise at 10 knots. The cruisers built at same time had top speed of 33 with cruise of 15 knots, so it looks like USA thought subs that are 2/3 as fast on cruise and half of burst speed are fast enough. The German Type IX to compare had top speed of 18 knots with 10 cruise. The Panzerschiffe had a speed of 28/18. So using prewar ideas, the type IX is the fleet sub to keep up with the Panzerschiffe.

Now to what works. When ideas were never tried, we don't really know. We have a real lack of data here. Conceptually, surface ships and submarines used in tandem should have synergy, just like the Luftwaffe spotting convoy and U-boats attacking had a synergy. And in theory, surface ships plus submarines plus good naval aviation based out of captured French ports should have been devastating. But we will never know for sure.
 
Top