Groner operated in a curious trough period of history.
What definitly should be taken into consideration in discussing possible changes to a design of a ship, that was started to be discussed (in more seriousness) in 1923 ... to be put on ice by then, because it was rendered an impossible task to create anything usable withing the ToV limits.
For one thing, some technologists fail to recognize, is the cleave year 1935.
And for that I thank you
@McPherson to lead this discussion back well before that date and forget about any discussions leading eventually to Z-plan or any sea-mammalesque operations.
... though I might not agree to some of your conclusions/statements.
Essentially, these are "democracies" in straitened economic circumstances trying to contingency plan for wars they do not want to fight.
Nnnnot fully true. Groener ordered the military to prepare for fights, with some expectation to earn success - how limited these occasions might ever be.
To increase this range of operations was the reason, why Groener not only backed the Reichswehrs publis as well as secret rearmament, but actually induced their enlargement and the reforms of the 1932/1933.
... as well as not only backing but strongly fighting (politically) for the "Deutschlands" in 1928, even though the RM itself wasn't convinced of their design.
So when the RKM lays down the Deutschlands, the decision has been made to create a raider/commerce warfare navy that will alarm Great Britian.
Sry, but ... wrong. You should read more about the processes of discussion, that lead to the lay down of the "Deutschland" and "Adm. Scheer".
They were political ships :
- domestically to actually committ the goverment to (also) naval rearmament ... anything to be started to be build was needed, otherwise Groener saw the sdanger, that there would nevr ever been anything built bigger than the K-class cruisers.
- navy internal, as the navy itself needed anything of whatever use to be kept alive
- foreign. These ships were actually designed to "upset" the Brits, due to their not-fitting into any existing category of "vessels-of-war" as defined not at least by the Wahington naval treaty. ... what they actually did as planned. Reason was the "hope" - also backed by the german foreign office - to bring the Entente-powers to make germany part of the Washington treaties and thereby eliminating a first part of the ToV.
And there was only a decision for two ships, which designs should be - already while built - been reconsidered again. That at least were the orders and comments of the then acting Chief of the RM Admiral Zenker in late 1927/early 1928.
This the Germans do in the ignorance of the evolving potential of the LRMP force that will become inevitable as soon as the British, Americans and Japanese develop four engine bombers and seaplanes.
... something due to treaties and supervision the germans could only start to think and search about well after 1927, when the InterAllied Military Control Mission ended.
Radio in Germany should have been a no-brainer and their planners should have seen it coming, but they repeat their WW I mistakes anyway..
HUH ?!
Why "no-brainer ? ... and why "should have been"
What "mistakes" are you referring to ?
a. Forget about dual purpose guns in 1930. Not even the USN has them yet. That actually is 1933 when all the Hoover administration initiatives hit the fleet. And no one else gets them pre-war. No-one. That is something some people forget. The Japanese and the British do not design the proper mounts or fire directors until the war hits. Germany is struck with what she has and it is not DP.
Sry, but ... with that only by you set ... "rule", you would make this forum as a whole almost moot.
FYI : high-angle 10.5 cm as well as 7.7 cm guns were already tried in WW 1. So : concept on "dual usage" was know.
ITTL would only need some ... "pushing".
b. The only improvements possible are with the arrangement of gun battery and other armament, hull form and powerplant, limited by foreign suspicion, various treaties and how much cheating Weimar, not the maniac, (Chancellors Marx, Muller and Bruning) is going to allow.
Again a quite arbitrary condition you set up there.
About what the politicians would allow ...
After the
Lohmann-affair about the navys secret activities, which eventuelly lead to Admiral Zenkers dismission (and Raeder comming in charge of the RM) there was a "defens council" declared to be set up to actually inform the ministers and the chancellor about all of the armys and navys armaments programs - including the secret ones. However, it was also decided, that this council, after having met only once in its "full" complement shortly, to be continuied by some lesser state secretaries ... if there would be some need.
In other words : there never WAS any political supervision ... with full aprreciation by the politicians, as they now could hide - in case - behind unknowledge.
c. Bulbous bow? Transom stern? (1929?) I believe these would not occur to the German shipwrights.
Actually the Deutschlands HAD a bulbous bow - though not as "extreme" (for its time) as Yamato and todays ships.
There was - also - a hydrodynamic reason, why the Deutschlands did NOT have a transom stern :
the positiv effect of a transom stern on speed and with that fuel consumptions begins at about 19-20 knots.
I might remember you of the K-class cruisers ... laid down 1926 ? ... WITH TRANSOM STERN ?
(No time to discuss the design-history of the K-class here, only that :
the "mixed" propulsion was a veery late addition into the design, too late to change the hull design. ... what was done with the following Leipzig and Nürnberg cruisers)
The "Deutschlands" task profile was : cruising most of the time well below that speed
They might adopt a clipper bow and cruiser stern and include a forecastle flare. They are brown water designers for the most part. Might want to bring in some ocean liner designers. (They have them.) Armament? Suppose they opt for the historic 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28? Guns have poor performance against expected slow dreadnoughts but fair to good against expected WNT cruisers.
The first they were never meant to engage but to flee.
The second was "proved" at the Spees last battle. ... exactly as thought and planned for .... mission accomplished (in terms of tactical operation, I know, that overall the Spee "lost" the battle).
This means "raider", not any kind of vessel useful for capital ship defense (in the Baltic against Russia or France). So unless Krupp designs a better projectile that kind of demands ...
What the "deutschlands" were never really planned for. But hey , they actually could not use any larger guns due to treaty/Entente-decisions post WW1 (ambassadors conferences). 18 cm was the largest they had and even Krupp would not be able to defeat the physics, that make it impossible for ANY 28 cm projectile to endanger interwar BS or other capital ships.