AHC: improved Deutschland-class cruisers.

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?
 
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?

Bismark breakout. And a few times the Arctic convoys, though I don't think the aviation was Condors. It was probably Ju-88s and Arados.
 
PQ-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.
 
PQ-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.
 
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.

I do. My nightmare was always that Reforger would run into SU SAGs, Bears and subs. They learned it from the Germans, not the Japanese.
 
In theory, yes. Although the point about cost mattering, and how many U-boats or aircraft you get for your oversized cruiser is well made - it's not obvious where the balance best lies.

But I'm not particularly happy with the theory. There is no route to success. The surface ship support is too easily countered by old battleships in convoy escort, as OTL proved, so what use are surface ships? WW1 proved that convoys defeat U-boats, so what use are U-boats? Aircraft based in Germany can't easily interdict Atlantic trade, so what use are aircraft? QED - the German Navy is for coastal defence.

All this tells you is that you shouldn't attempt to fight Britain because you can't defeat her, which is great strategy right up until the time she declares war on you, at which point you're stuck. So you can't have a coastal defence navy either. Meaning that the only solution is to outbuild Britain and defeat her in a classic fleet engagement. Which you can't do either. So, over to German diplomacy, I guess.

In reality though, the theory is just too simplistic. Allies, build time, deployment and construction schedules and pure dumb luck all change things. I think a mixed fleet of fast raiders up to battleship size, expendable AMCs, aircraft and U-boats is best, but it needs attrition diplomacy to isolate Britain and to dilute her strength and luck, and it's not predictable where the balance between the different arms should be.
 
Bulbous bow? Transom stern? (1929?) I believe these would not occur to the German shipwrights.

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
879ca1ac3a6ae02d4d3f27c9c65e5eb4.jpg
 
I would suggest what the engineers could have build technically from the resources is very different from what could have been built politically?

True but any WI has to proceed from some POV. I figured no point in half measures, go for the max and posters will prorate results.
 
WOW, cool, do you have a title or a link for further search/research of this booklet ?

I read about the published paper in Koop & Schmolke booklet ADMIRAL HIPPER volume , pp 199-201

VDI [association of German engineers 1957] AUTHOR director of naval construction Dr Ing Fischer& endorsed by Dipl-ing Cordes. "THE inadequate preparation of the German navy as a consequence of defective organisation." Mentioned in Bismarck volume pp 151.

As to the actual 1957 German engineer paper, no luck! I asked around German forums, without any success.
 
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?


This costs have to be spelled out. Going on figures from Groener volumes on German ships 1870-1945 - I make out .....prewar Type VII costs 4.4 to 4.8 million RM. 5 such U-Boat should be 23-24 million and ten should be 44-48 million. KM cruisers were 40 million RM for Nuremberg, while the projections for M Klass was 55-56 million each. 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.
 
In WW2 convoys weren't complete and worldwide at the start; IIRC in 1939 ships were only convoyed to/from about 500nm west of Ireland at which point they'd scatter. This distance was extended and other routes were introduced as the war progressed, but well into the war single ships were still sailing independently in more out of the way places and hunting and protecting these ships is not a job for uboats and corvettes but cruisers of various stripes.
 
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
879ca1ac3a6ae02d4d3f27c9c65e5eb4.jpg

That should have read 11"/52, and by the illustration cutaway supplied; that is not a bulbous bow as in a cylinder prow.
 
... 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?

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. You really cannot do a direct ratio equivalence and say A/B.
 
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?

Well this is a complex subject...how much time do we have?

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 ,but they also laid down over 200 smaller vessels many of which were costal vessels, however all where diesel/bunker oil. In WW-I such ships were always laid down as coal powered, since German coal supply was order of magnitude better/more secure than diesel or bunker oil. Roughly speaking 1/4 to 1/3 million tons diesel every year was consumed by coastal forces. It was a strategic mistake using diesel engines and fuel this way.

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 completed hull form & transom stern, could be built through the 1930s , with 10 completed before war and 3 more early 1940s.

Top speed should be 30 knots standard & 28 knots deep. The armor should be 3000 tons and offer estimated 6-7" belts plus 3" deck [all multiple plates ]. The armament should include 2 triple 11"C28 gun turrets [although 6 of these 20 turrets would have to be removed from the Deutschland class to keep production going ] . In addition 24 torpedoes in 4 triple mounts would also be mounted along the side superstructure. In between those should be 4 twin 4" flak; although most would start off with twin 88 flak turrets and all swap out with 6 twin 4"flak , a couple of years into war.

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 with 6000 tons armor offering 4" deck & 12" belts. The main batteries would initially be either 3 triple 11"C28 or 3 twin 12"SKL 50 [WW-I guns used as coastal batteries in WW-II]. The Panzerschiffe completed from 1940 on- should be armed with twin 13" gun turrets , and all previous Panzerschiffe should be up gunned to the same 3 twin 13" guns standard by 1942/43. Each of these warship should be also armed with 8 twin 4"flak from the start plus 2 dozen torpedoes.
 
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

my 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")
 
my 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")
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 unlikely

Scharnhorst preceded Bismarcks for a reason, nothing near that size had been built in Germany since WWI, need to build up infrastructure to make 15" guns, that takes time, plus they are likely to have a learning curve and make mistakes

Getting the speed to keep up with even a Capital ship with a supply ship pretty much requires a capital ship sized machinery plant, and that sort of machinery is specialist stuff, could very well slow down completion of capital ships and would massively increase costs, plus would require a hullform poorly optimized for carrying supplies
 
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.
 
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.


Yes I agree keep them as auxiliary they had 5 still in the mid 1930s, but I would still risk them to spearhead invasions as armored troop transports - like into Norway.
 
Top