Btw :
not the worst "variation" of an alternative "Deutschland" IMO, you've drawn up there.
Whoever demanded to make it "war winner" ?
I never did. All I wanted was a paper exercise improvement in what was doable and sneakable past the watchers.
Btw :
not the worst "variation" of an alternative "Deutschland" IMO, you've drawn up there.
Whoever demanded to make it "war winner" ?
I think the key point is that 1 cruiser + 5 U-boats is (in this example) more effective than 10 U-boats and costs the same. It's not either/or but finding the best combination of ships for the resources you're willing to devote to the fleet. Perhaps 20- U-boats + X Condors is less effective than having 15 U-boats, 1 cruiser and Y Condors (Y < X ). Or vice versa. Pick a mixed force that maximises the use of these resources. Which, indeed, may well end up as looking like a balanced fleet but is designed to do a range of tasks with maximum efficiency.You are missing the cost element. I can build 4-5 U boats for each surface ship able to bust up convoy. And each U-boat will be more effective than the cruiser size ship. Even on a one to one comparison. If not the UK reaction, I would basically build a U-boat fleet with naval aviation for power projection. And just enough surface ships to keep you out of my minefields around my coast line. The Soviet naval strategy is basically what you are looking at here. It is doctrinally correct if you just want to stop freighters from sailing Atlantic. Most bang for the buck. The main difference is that in 1935, you have diesel not nuclear subs. And you have seaboats plus two engine piston planes, not backfires.
While you seem to find it unappealing, if you are primarily a land power where the Army hogs the budget, and you are competing against a naval power where the army gets funded second, you have to live with budget. You need to efficiently spend your money. Being poorer is a harsh god to serve in war.
I think the key point is that 1 cruiser + 5 U-boats is (in this example) more effective than 10 U-boats and costs the same. It's not either/or but finding the best combination of ships for the resources you're willing to devote to the fleet. Perhaps 20- U-boats + X Condors is less effective than having 15 U-boats, 1 cruiser and Y Condors (Y < X ). Or vice versa. Pick a mixed force that maximises the use of these resources. Which, indeed, may well end up as looking like a balanced fleet but is designed to do a range of tasks with maximum efficiency.
Did the KM ever try to use surface raider(s) to break up specific convoys that Condors could have spotted and then sided both them and U-boats towards? Or was it just U-boats and Condors that co-operated?
Thanks, and also to @McPhersonPQ-17 is the classic example.
Elsewhere, Scheer scattered HX-84, but only one merchantman was subsequently sunk (after Scheer's five, I mean). And I think Hipper found and scattered another unescorted convoy, but again made most kills herself.
It is interesting though that few sinkings, aside from PQ17, were made after the convoy scattered. I suppose you need sufficient U-boats and aircraft to find the ships, which weren't available in the early war in the mid-Atlantic, unlike off Norway.
Thanks, and also to @McPherson
Do you agree that the right combination of U-boats + surface raiders + LRMP and n=bombers is better than U-boats only? No matter how many extra U-boats Germany could have built with no major fleet units (heavy cruiser and above) or LRMP.
Bulbous bow? Transom stern? (1929?) I believe these would not occur to the German shipwrights.
I would suggest what the engineers could have build technically from the resources is very different from what could have been built politically?
WOW, cool, do you have a title or a link for further search/research of this booklet ?
I think the key point is that 1 cruiser + 5 U-boats is (in this example) more effective than 10 U-boats and costs the same. It's not either/or but finding the best combination of ships for the resources you're willing to devote to the fleet. Perhaps 20- U-boats + X Condors is less effective than having 15 U-boats, 1 cruiser and Y Condors (Y < X ). Or vice versa. Pick a mixed force that maximises the use of these resources. Which, indeed, may well end up as looking like a balanced fleet but is designed to do a range of tasks with maximum efficiency.
Did the KM ever try to use surface raider(s) to break up specific convoys that Condors could have spotted and then sided both them and U-boats towards? Or was it just U-boats and Condors that co-operated?
Transom sterns were around in the '20s for the 1924 series of German DDs, and I listed that German passenger liners had the start of bulbous bows by time the PBs were laid down, and the PBs themselves had tiny bow bulges. They could have turned the dial to'6' from the '1' they were at
https://books.google.com/books?id=veQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA451
![]()
this is what '11' looks like
![]()
... For me light cruisers are useless as raiders since all allied convoys had cruisers as escorts...almost.
Heavy cruiser is minimum and Super cruiser is ideal....which is why I always go back to faster PBS.
their light cruiser class is best summed up as useless ... with possible exception of Emden ...
what would 21 PBS translate into in terms of BBs?
their light cruiser class is best summed up as useless ... with possible exception of Emden ...
what would 21 PBS translate into in terms of BBs?
what would 21 PBS translate into in terms of BBs?
Shrug... about 4 Scharnhorst class or maybe 3 and 1/3 Bismarks or about three and a half panzer divisions in economic effort, but it all depends on how you measure that industrial capacity used . It actually would take fewer men to build man and train a true battleship than three PBSs (cruisers), but the specialized tech, the raw materials, are much more expensive for the battleship.
I mulled over this and could not make either option work [21 PBS VS 375 U-Boats]...but I still got a damn sight better fleet than historical. As mentioned the KM laid down 21-23 large warships in the prewar Hitler years ...
The German diesel industry might have managed to build enough large diesels for 21-23 big warships, especially if they can switch over to the advanced diesels [late 30s] instead of high pressure/temp boiler-turbines. A 14,000 ton [max] PBC about the size of the AGS with 10 completed before war and 3 more early 1940s.
Along side the PBC program , about 11 larger heavier Panzerschiffe would be completed [6 before 1940 & 5 finished 1940 -1942] . These should be Scharnhorst size @ 27,000 tons max
Converting the Deutschland Battleships into budget Panzerships would cost about as much as just building a new ship the same size, or even more. To get any real increase in speed you would need to alter the hullform, optimized for 18.5 knots, otherwise most of the extra power you add will be wasted, and being able to outrun even the slow British and US battleships would be unlikelymy scenario would take two or more of the WWI-era ships and convert them to budget Panzerschiffe (they converted or were converting two to target ships and were able to swap engines) employ all five (plus) to Baltic-North Sea where they would have land based air support, that is my improved Deutschland-class.
above that build the two mirror image Hipper & Bismarck-classes (albeit not the same size) although using the 4x3 5.9" guns for Hipper-class that was planned to be used on last two IOTL. possibly if they avoided the hash made of the Scharnhorst-class four Bismarcks could be completed?
no carriers but equip the Dithmarschen-class supply ships with handling equipment for seaplanes and their hybird-drive propulsion so they could keep pace with warships for short periods (suggested by Raeder's description of Graf Zeppelin as "floating gas can")
The best use of the old pre-dreads the DKM got from the HSF was to either use them as they did (they were valuable auxiliary vessels) or to use them to support Baltic operations with NGFS missions, possibly extra Flak,etc etc. Converting them into anything requiring more speed is simply uneconomical.