AHC: Make Plan Z a reality

[Cryhavoc101]

I remember that quote. I think it came from Battleships 1856-1977. However, IIRC he was referring to the later designs for the H class battleships.

OTOH, IIRC from that book he also wrote that the Kriegsmarine would still have been outnumbered by the Royal Navy and that the British were outbuilding them in all types of warships except submarines. Again IIRC from that book or his Encyclopaedia of the Navies of World War II he wrote that had Plan Z been completed the struggle would have been longer and harder, but the British would still have won.

Possibly was from that book but I took it from His Navies of WW2 (1976 repub 1985)

The other issue is that the plan Z vessels would start arriving at a time when anti shipping airpower had matured and aircraft and carriers where available in vast numbers (Hell from Nov 1940 airpower was striking battleships in their home port)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Germans without other deltas will still face yard congestion issues. Also check dates for Z1 and Z2 they were laid down well before AGNA.

To be honest you need to move things up even more. In 1930 the German government settled on a naval program but was to distracted by domestic chaos to try it on international front. Have the von Papen or the short lived von Schleicher government open talks with the British and allow Hitler to finish program in 1933.

Problem is to get to Z program Hitler needs to break AGNA and he cant much sooner than he did. If he breaks AGNA before Munich Agreement the later becomes very difficult. So you can perhaps get the light cruisers but thats about it before WW2 kicks off.

I agree that the OTL Plan Z was unrealistic and unattainable and probably takes away resources better put into the Heer and Luftwaffe. I also agree that breaking the AGNA before Munich is a non-starter.

Difference is battleships and carriers are ready.

Do you mean Bismarck, Tirpitz, Graff Zeppelin and Aircraft Carrier B. If so I agree. Bismarck and Tirpitz should be ready for the Invasion of Norway. All 5 Hipper class should have been completed and fully worked up by April 1940 too.

I'm not a fan of GZ and CV B. IOTL I think the resources would have been better used to build a third Bismarck, which there was enough tonnage for under the OTL AGNA or used to speed up the completion of Bismarck, Tirpitz and the Hipper class. TTL both ships might be completed before September 1939, but it's been pointed out in other threads that as they were Germany's first aircraft carriers they would take longer than normal to work up and I'm doubtful that they would have been effective warships if completed.

 

[miketr]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

This isn't what I wanted to post to prove your point, but it's interesting none the less.

It is an extract from Volume II Title - Schedules to Third Report of the Third Report of the Defence Requirements Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence dated 21st November 1935.

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON APPENDIX 1—BUILDING PROGRAMME.
(A)—Capital Ships.,​

In paragraph 14 of Annex III to N.C. (M) (35) 50, Report by the British Representatives on the Anglo-German Naval Discussions, it was stated:—

"In these circumstances, it may be essential for the Naval Staff to recommend a more rapid replacement of the British battlefleet in order to ensure that in new ships the British Fleet does not fall behind the capital ship strength of Japan and Germany combined."

2. The more detailed information of the German building programme that has been communicated to us since the date of that report enables the position to be reviewed in greater detail, taking into consideration also the French and Japanese naval building programmes as far as they are known.

German Capital Ship Building Programme.

3. The German capital ship building programme, which it is intended to complete by the end of 1942, comprises five new capital ships. To enable the fifth ship to be constructed the Germans calculate on transferring tonnage into the capital ship category or on " adjusting " the category tonnage.

4. Capital Ships " D " and " E " of 26,000 tons with 11-inch guns (Ships "A," "B" and "C" are Deutschlands) are expected to complete by the end of 1938; Ship "F" of 35,000 tons with 14-inch or 15-inch guns will be laid down on the 1st July, 1936, and should complete in 1940; Ship "G," which will be of 35,000 tons if France builds a second 35,000-ton ship, is expected to complete in 1941; Ship "H" of the maximum qualitative limit that may be agreed upon is expected to complete in 1942.

Japanese Building Programme.

5. The Japanese building programme is not known, but for the purpose of this paper it is assumed to be not less than that indicated by Admiral Yamamoto as his personal programme, viz., 4 ships to be laid down in the six years 1937-1942, of which 2 ships might be completed by the end of 1942.

French Building Programme.

6. France is building 2 Battle Cruisers of the Dunkerque class, laid down in 1932 and 1934 respectively (26,500 tons each with 8-13-inch guns and high speed); she intends to lay down a new ship of the France class of 35,000 tons, with 15-inch guns, towards the end of 1935, and to lay down a second ship of this class on or after the 1st January, 1937. Further programmes are unknown and probably undecided.

Italian Building Programme.

7. Italy is building 2 ships of 35,000 tons and 15-inch guns, which were laid down in 1934.

Summary of New Ships.

8. Thus, at the end of 1942 we may be faced with a German Capital Ship force of 5 new ships (not including the Deutschlands). During the same period, Japan may have completed at least 2 new capital ships, France 4 or more, and Italy 2.

Modernisation.

9. Japan is modernising all her capital ships, and it is anticipated that all 9 ships will have been modernised before the end of 1937.

10. France is modernising the 3 ships of the Bretagne class which were completed in 1915 and 1916. The 3 ships of the Jean Bart class (completed 1913 and 1914) were extensively refitted in 1929, though it is not considered that they can be regarded as "modernised" ships. The Diderot class (completed, in 1911) have not been modernised and are considered to be of small fighting value. It is possible that they may be scrapped on completion of the new ships, and they have not been included in the comparison of numbers.

11. Italy is modernising her 2 ships of the Giulio Cesare class and greatly increasing their speed.

12. Of the British Fleet, Nelson, Rodney and Hood are post-war ships that do not require modernisation. Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Renown will be completely modernised. Barham, Malaya, Royal Oak, and Repulse have been or are now in hand for partial modernisation, but they will not be re-engined, nor will they have improvements to main armament mountings or such increased armaments and aircraft. They cannot be counted as " modernised " ships. The remaining 4 ships of the Royal Oak class and Valiant are not being modernised at all.

13. It is desired to emphasise once again that "modernisation" is not a substitute for a proper replacement programme. As was pointed out in the Appendix to N.C. (M) (35) 1, whatever rate of replacement (within practical limits) is adopted, the extreme age to which some of our ships will necessarily have to last must give cause for the greatest anxiety. The present modernisation programme is designed to make the older ships reasonably able to carry out their functions for the period that they must remain in service; it does not make them comparable to new ships. This especially applies to the partly modernised ships.

14. The minimum situation as regards numbers of capital ships with which we may be faced at the end of 1942 is shown below, together with the British position that will result from the adoption of the different replacement programmes indicated:—

15. The figures for Japan in this table are based on the assumption that Japan scraps a ship for each new ship completed. Should Japan retain her old ships on completion of the new ones her total would be 11, and by retaining 2 of the older ships (which, however, would not be modernised ships) the British total would be 17. It is worth noting that 35 per cent, of the tonnage represented by these 17 ships would not give Germany sufficient tonnage to build more than the 5 ships already allowed for. If, however, the British number was increased to 18, Germany would have a reasonable claim to build a sixth ship.

16. It will be seen that the British total of 15 ships is approximately equal to the total of Germany and Japan, if we count the 3 Deutschlands as only equal to one ship, but there are 7 new ships in the German-Japanese total, and 7 modernised Japanese ships as well. A British building programme of 2 ships a year (Table C of Enclosure No. 3 to Appendix to N.C. (M) (35) 1) would produce only 6 new ships by the end of 1942, and a programme of 3 ships in 2 years only 5, even if the ships laid down in 1939 were started sufficiently early to ensure their completion within the year 1942. Both of these programmes are inadequate in the face of the German and Japanese programme, which, as stated above, will realise 7 new ships at this date.

17. A building programme of 7 ships in 3 years, to provide equality in new ships only with Germany and Japan, is, therefore, the least that gives reasonable security, and then only if the 1939 ships are laid down sufficiently early to be completed within the year 1942. Moreover, the first 2 ships should be laid down at the earliest possible moment, i.e., January 1937. If Japan starts building at a greater rate than has been assumed in this paper the rate of building would require further acceleration.

Edit. Actually it does. See Paragraph 15.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

This is what I meant to post.

It's called A New Standard of Naval Strength. It is dated 29th April 1937 and was produced by the Defence Plans (Policy) Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was an appendix of a Cabinet Paper entitled Defence Expenditure in Future Years which was dated December 1937. See the table at the end.

Capital Ship Strength.​

6. Japan at present possesses 9 capital ships to our 15, and after 1940 her strength will become uncertain as she will probably not scrap any of her existing capital ships when she completes new vessels, which she can lay down after the 31st December, 1936.

7. When operating in the Far East our ships are far from their main repair facilities and sources of supply and have only the facilities of Singapore to rely on. The Japanese fleet, on the other hand, has its full home country resources available close at hand. These facts in themselves are equivalent to an advantage of two capital ships to Japan since at an average moment we could not rely on less than 2 ships being absent.

8. On the other hand, the stakes at issue in the event of a fleet action would be greater for Japan than for us. A British defeat would imperil our interests in the East: a Japanese defeat would imperil her home country. Thus, to achieve our object of acting on the defensive and serving as a deterrent against any threat to our interests in the East it is necessary that our capital ship strength should be such that Japan's chances of obtaining victory in a fleet action would be so slight that she would not seek one. This condition should be achieved if at our average moment we could meet the full Japanese capital ship fleet with a force less in strength than that fleet by one capital ship.

9. When allowance is made for our restricted repair facilities, which are referred to in paragraph 7, it follows that, to avoid at any time being inferior in ships available by more than one capital ship, we must have in the Far East a margin of one ship in excess of the Japanese total.

10. The strength of the German fleet is now calculable, since it is fixed at 35 per cent, of our own. The strategical situation in a future war with Germany must in general be similar to that which prevailed in the last war and while the German fleet would be likely to spend most of its time in harbour the initiative as to when it came out to dispute our control would rest with Germany. It follows that, as in the last war, we must be ready at our average moment to meet the German fleet at its selected moment. Home waters being our vital area in a way that the Far East never can be, it is essential that this margin shall be sufficient for all contingencies. The margin is composed partly of the superiority necessary to give reasonable certainty of success in battle and partly of that necessary to maintain our normal programme of docking. The proper minimum to meet these contingencies is a superiority of 3 ships.

11. The German capital ship fleet does not, unfortunately, correspond numerically to an exact 35 per cent, of our own, since its size is calculated on a total tonnage basis and the earlier German capital ships built and building are less than the maximum unit size. Thus, while our strength remains at 15 capital ships, 35 per cent, ought to give Germany only 5 ships. She will in fact have 6, assuming that the 3 " Deutschland " class are ultimately replaced by one large ship.

Thus, our capital ship strength in Home waters should not be less than 9 ships to six of Germany.

12. When this force is added to the force required in the Far East to meet the existing Japanese strength, we arrive at a total of 19 capital ships. This total would automatically allow Germany a further increase to 7 capital ships, which in its turn raises our number to 20.

13. With the proposed new standard it is clear that as the German strength is fixed at 35 per cent, of our own, both our strength and that of Germany will progress in proportion to the Japanese strength.

14. The capital ship strength required can be worked out mathematically, but, for practical purposes, our requirements to meet the conditions detailed above can be expressed as "1½ times the Japanese strength + 6 ships," or, in tabular form, as follows : —

 

[Dilvish]

If we are talking about Plan Z as actually conceived in 1938, then it was planned to be mostly in place before a war that was expected to start in the late 1940's (1948 I believe was originally considered a likely start point), not something that was being done during a war. Hitler assured the Kriegsmarine that they had a decade, and that was what Plan Z took into account. Those ships should, according to the plan, have been built and in service before Hitler launched any invasions. In that case there is no need to think about an armistice after Dunkirk or French or Russian interventions, because there wouldn't have been the war in 1939 unless either the WAllies or Russia started it. Similarly, only in the later years of WWII would being involved in Plan Z have been a way of avoiding the Eastern Front, when the plan was first formulated it would have been just another part of the German rearmament; keeping the plan going once war had started would have been a way of looking busy, but it wasn't why Plan Z was created in the first place. By then the plan, fanciful as it was in the 1938, was simply impossible. It is doubtful if Germany could have found the resources of men and material before the war started, let alone once it had and they were fighting on 2 fronts. The fact that the war started in 1939, when the plan had barely even been put together, meant that it remained a paper exercise.

If the plan had been given the time to come to fruition then it could not have been kept secret and the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty would have been alarmed and started to increase their building of modern vessels, but they would have been playing catch up slightly. The Royal Navy would have still had the edge in most classes of vessel, and more importantly the experience. German crews, even given much of the decade Hitler had promised, would not have been able to draw on the experiences that the RN or French could.

I was going to ask which version of Plan Z is being discussed. I've been reading the Avalanche Press articles about the new game series (if only I had the time, money, and fellow gamers). I think the older Plan Z versions stayed within the Anglo-German naval treaty. AP's The Long War does take into account the British reacting to Germany's naval expansion.

The French were also building a big new modern fleet, which is another counter and consideration for the Kriegsmarine.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Germans without other deltas will still face yard congestion issues. Also check dates for Z1 and Z2 they were laid down well before AGNA.

To be honest you need to move things up even more. In 1930 the German government settled on a naval program but was to distracted by domestic chaos to try it on international front. Have the von Papen or the short lived von Schleicher government open talks with the British and allow Hitler to finish program in 1933.

Problem is to get to Z program Hitler needs to break AGNA and he cant much sooner than he did. If he breaks AGNA before Munich Agreement the later becomes very difficult. So you can perhaps get the light cruisers but thats about it before WW2 kicks off. Difference is battleships and carriers are ready.

Z-1 and Z-2 were indeed laid down well before the AGNA. That is in October 1934 followed by Z-3 and Z-4 in January 1935. They were ordered in July 1934 and were justified as being the last 4 of the 16 destroyers allowed by the Treaty of Versailles.

But then they ordered Z-5 to Z-16 between August 1934 and January 1935, which was well before the AGNA was signed, and laid down 6 of them before the AGNA was signed.

Hipper and Blucher were laid down shortly after the AGNA was signed, but had been ordered in October 1934 and justified as the last 2 cruisers of the 8 allowed by the Treaty of Versailles. However, they were ordered to a design that broke the Treaty as did Panzerschiffe D and E ordered in January 1934 and laid down in February 1934.

 

[miketr]

Correct on the dates the decession to order ships that were outside of ToV limits was made in 1930 I believe. That is also when when plans for a carrier were started.

Michael

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

This is OTL. Main source German Capital Ships of the Second World War by M.J. Whitley.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

This one has all the capital ships from the Twins to Battleship J laid down, launched and completed 18 months earlier.

Bismarck, Tirpitz and Graff Zeppelin are completed in 1939, which will be interesting if the Germans still invade Norway in April 1940. Aircraft Carrier B isn't completed until the end of March 1941. Battleships H and J are completed in April and May 1942 in they take as long to build as Bismarck and Tirpitz IOTL. However, I think the Germans would have been better off laying down Battleship H as a Bismarck class June 1935 in place of Graff Zeppelin, with a projected completion date of September 1938 and an actual completion date of September 1939.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

This a list of the Kriegsmarine's cruisers built and planned before September 1939. Main source German Cruisers of World War Two by M.J. Whitley.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes Bismarck, Tirpitz and the two Graf Zeppelin class carriers. Also once UK starts laying down new BBs in 1937 it adds tonnage available to the Germans for BBs. So you could see another BB or two laid down on German side and complete in 1941/42.

And this is the list of cruisers ITTL if all cruisers from Kreuzer G (Blücher) were brought forward 18 months. It increases the number of ships completed up to September 1939 from 7 to 9 and the total number completed from 9 to 15.

ITTL Cruisers G and H were ordered only 6 weeks after Cruiser F and were laid down 2-3 months later. I think all 3 ships would have been of the same class. Quote from Whitley's German Cruisers of World War II.

There now followed a five or six years' hiatus in the development path of the light cruiser type because the naval staff could not decide upon the best type with which to continue construction. At this time there was much discussion as to whether to remain with the Leipzig displacement or to increase to 8,000 tonnes. The latter figure would have given better hull strength, allowed superior protection for turrets and magazines, permitted better flak armament and an increase in speed. It was argued that it seemed necessary to match foreign designs, such as the British Leander and the French La Galissonniere types, but pressure was increasing for a switch to the Washington "heavy cruiser" type. This complicated matters and resulted in the years 1933 to 1935 being mainly devoted to the gestation of a heavy cruiser design (to which the next chapter is devoted) and the deferment of the production of a new light cruiser design until 1936-38. The net result of this indecision was that the sixth light cruiser to be put into work, "Kreuzer F," had to be built basically as Leipzig in the complete absence of any other design. Thus the deficiencies evident in the Konigsberg design and, to some extent, perpetuated in Leipzig, were carried over to the new ship as well.

I think the Germans should have built 7 improved Leipzigs displacing 8,000 tonnes instead of the OTL Nurnberg and the 5 Hipper class.

 

[Goku_San]

On the steel situation: in 1942 and '43 the Kriegsmarine received between 122,000 and 180,000 tons of steel per month. This was barely sufficient to keep the submarine programmes running - between 18 and 26 subs left the docks per month (to spend the next up to 24 months with training), depending on various circumstances. There was not much more that could be done with this low amount of steel. Most that was not used for the subs went into mine sweepers, M-boats, torpedo boats and other smaller surface units - and of course repairs.

And even before 1942 the KM received only very little steel to carry out its ambitious plans. It never exceeded 300,000 tons a month. So, unless Germany cuts down steel allocation for their tank and artillery programmes there is no way they could have built the Z-fleet.

 

[thaddeus]

On the subject of oil. This is the production of crude petroleum in Europe (excluding the British Isles), North Africa, Turkey and the Levant in Long Tons for the period 1932-69.

IOTL Austria's peak year was 1955 when 3.6 million long tons were produced and Germany was producing around 7.8 million long tons a year in the second half of the 1960s. Could it have been done in the 1930s and 40s if they knew the oil was there?

my understanding the oil in Austria are produced without extraordinary means, in other words it just needs to be found. in Austria they DID expand production, and in the same Vienna Basin they later found Matzen oilfield, so there would be infrastructure.

I think the Germans should have built 7 improved Leipzigs displacing 8,000 tonnes instead of the OTL Nurnberg and the 5 Hipper class.

I would shrink them further still and built the Spahkreuzers while rebuilding the CLs built during the 1920's, also scrapping their destroyers in exchange for more torpedo boats.

 

[PSL]

german navy was huge by 1942~

Not enough steel to go around, so this will hamper tank and artillery production.

Not enough fuel to supply the vastly larger fleet plus the Heer and Luftwaffe, not to mention civilian needs.

Where are the crews to come from?

German navy was huge by 1942~ 570,000 total personnel. Large # ships were available then....

http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_list.htm