Alternate Kaiserliche Marine

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Germany would have to have enough ships to counter 4 Courbet-class, 3 Bretagne-class and 5 Normandie-class Dreadnoughts from the French side (Dantons were pre-Dreadnoughts, IIRC) as well as 4 Gangut-class and 4 Empress Marija-class Dreadnoughts, and the four Borodinos from Russia.

Well, technically the Germans can discount the Imperatritsa Mariya class, unless we're allowing that the Russians manage to win the Straits and can exit the Black Sea. The Germans really only have to counter the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Unless, of course, we're just counting hulls in terms of prestige; then the Germans absolutely must have more than Russia and France combined. But from a military standpoint, the fact that the Russian fleet had to be split between the Baltic and Black Seas cannot be ignored.
 
Well, technically the Germans can discount the Imperatritsa Mariya class, unless we're allowing that the Russians manage to win the Straits and can exit the Black Sea. The Germans really only have to counter the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Unless, of course, we're just counting hulls in terms of prestige; then the Germans absolutely must have more than Russia and France combined. But from a military standpoint, the fact that the Russian fleet had to be split between the Baltic and Black Seas cannot be ignored.

Having the ships in the Black sea does put them at the mercy of Turkey and means that should an unexpected war break out while they are there, they will not be available to link up with the larger portion of the Russian Fleet before the Skagerrak is potentially blocked. HOWEVER, there are two things that make them worth considering:

1. The Turks probably won't block the Russians from leaving if they're not at war with one another and Germany can't necessarily rely on Turkey to join a risky war that involves Russia.
2. If there is advance notice that there is a high possibility of war, the Russians might send the ships to the Baltic in advance.
 
Assuming you're going with a primarily defensive fleet, can't the Germans can do a few things to make sure that they never have to face the combined forces of the entire French and Russian navies at once? Perhaps then parity can be effectively achieved at any given time, regardless of the actual disparity.

What do you mean by a "purely defensive fleet"? Any navy the Germans build would have to be enough to keep the sea lanes to Germany open, and they have to take an active role against France and Russia on the seas to achieve that. Plus, having a big fleet gives Germany the initiative, at least on the seas.
 
Last edited:
Well, technically the Germans can discount the Imperatritsa Mariya class, unless we're allowing that the Russians manage to win the Straits and can exit the Black Sea. The Germans really only have to counter the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Unless, of course, we're just counting hulls in terms of prestige; then the Germans absolutely must have more than Russia and France combined. But from a military standpoint, the fact that the Russian fleet had to be split between the Baltic and Black Seas cannot be ignored.

I think that a purely military standpoint only exists in theory. The Germans will want to build more than France and Russia combined because of prestige if for no other reason.
 
What do you mean by a "purely defensive fleet"? Any navy the Germans build would have to be enough to keep the sea lanes to Germany open, and they have to take an active role against France and Russia on the seas to achieve that. Plus, having a big fleet gives Germany the initiative, at least on the seas.

As machine said, there's nothing pure in practice with these matters. That's why I actually said primarily and I said that because a smaller fleet, which is what we're going with here, is going to have to either be very clever or accept that the enemy will have the initiative. Just meant to be a different way to to describe the scenario we've been going with here which is a German fleet built to the minimum reasonable size.

I suppose you could make a good argument that nobody singlehandedly "started" a naval arms race in the first place and that Britain was, in some ways, as complicit by virtue of its reaction to everything as Germany' naval construction is of provoking that reaction. The naval building then, would be seen as a confirmation of the already existing notion that Germany was, or would soon be, a foe of Britain which had been built up over the past two decades by a series of poor foreign relations decisions, many but not all of which had something to do with the Kaiser.

Regardless of the Kaiser's obsession with the prestige of a big fleet, it is true that Germany can reasonable be expected to need such a fleet in order to effectively wage war with the French and Russians.
 
Last edited:
So, let's imagine that we have more sensible Kaiser Wilhelm, one who decides not to antagonise Britain by having strong KM. So, what alternate KM could look, while being strong enough to protect German interests and not too strong to make alarm in london- starting by 1888?

You would need a POD which removes Tirpitz (or his influence).
Either he has an accident or he doesn´t manage to get his naval programs approved by the Reichstag in 1897/98. So Wilhelm II turns away from him.
(Or - as mentioned - remove Wilhelm II and go with Prince Heinrich as Emperor.)

In that case the influence of Admiral Friedrich von Hollmann (in English) in the 1890s or later Rear Admiral Karl Galster (in German) after 1901 might prevail. Both were considered Anglophiles and horrified about the idea of a war against Britain.
(Add in Prince Heinrich and his interest in submarines and airplanes...)

Von Hollmann also preferred Amoy (Xiamen island) over Tsingtao as a naval base in the Far East. Perhaps an island would have been easier to defend in 1914?

Especially Karl Galster is interesting. He saw quite clearly the advantages of the geographic location of the British isles. The Royal Navy could use a far blockade of the German ports while the German Navy would never be able to blockade Britain.

Friedrich von Hollmann (1890s):

  • Limited number of battleships for the North Sea and Baltic Sea
  • Cruisers for deployment overseas
  • Coastal defense
Karl Galster (after 1901):

  • Use of torpedo boats, submarines, mines and coastal artillery for coastal defense
  • Cruisers for deployment overseas. Although he saw the problem here. Not enough bases for effective cruiser warfare.
  • Limited number of battleships for the North Sea and Baltic Sea. His letters and newspaper articles show his opposition to the German dreadnought building programs starting in 1907 for example.
    One, Germany can never match the British shipbuilding capacities. Especially since Germany needs a strong army too.
    Second, the location of the British isles.
    And third, he points out that the progress in technology and ship design makes battleships almost obsolete inside 5-10 years.
    (Gun caliber going from 11 inch to 15 inches, from triple expansion engines to turbines in just a few years etc.)
    So in his opinion it would make more sense to build just 1-2 expensive dreadnoughts of a new design to gain experience. And use the saved money to build more smaller ships.
In any case the Kaiser Wilhelm canal (todays Nord-Ostseekanal) was build with the intention to rapidly transfer navy ships from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea and back. So essentially the German navy just has to be stronger than either the Russian or the French navy. And with the French navy also needed in the Mediterranean (Italy, Austria-Hungary)....

In OTL the German navy was very unbalanced. Quite a lot of dreadnoughts and battle cruisers but not enough "modern" cruisers and destroyers.

So in a best case scenario before 1906?

  • Less pre-dreadnoughts built
  • More attention to naval bases in the colonies
  • Enlargement of the "Seebattalione" (Marines) for base defense overseas
Best case after 1906?

  • 2 Nassau, Helgoland, Kaiser and König class dreadnoughts built = 8 dreadnoughts by 1914
  • 2 Moltke and 2 Derfflinger class battle cruisers built = 4 battle cruisers by 1914
  • More turbine powered cruisers built, preferably with 5.9 inch guns and better range
  • More large torpedo boats (= destroyers) built, preferably with 4.1 inch guns
  • More ocean-going diesel-powered submarines built
  • Sell or scrap most of the older pre-dreadnoughts, cruisers and torpedo boats. The naval guns can be used either as coastal artillery or railway guns.
    (A pre-dreadnought without guns could also be used as a floating barrack overseas including supplies and small repair shops.)
  • Some of the saved money could be used for the construction of naval bases and their defense overseas. As long as it´s understood that sooner or later they probably will be lost.
 
Nice summary of a possible fleet.

But again, the British were not the victim of German Fleet building, but had a active part in encuraging it. So taking out Tirpitz and Willhelm II is all good and dandy. But the words of the British still stung the German National Pride and threatend the economic survival.
So you just cured the symtomes but not the cause.

Take away the British overreaction over the Kruger Telegramm and you are golden.
 
Nice summary of a possible fleet.

But again, the British were not the victim of German Fleet building, but had a active part in encuraging it. So taking out Tirpitz and Willhelm II is all good and dandy. But the words of the British still stung the German National Pride and threatend the economic survival.
So you just cured the symtomes but not the cause.

Take away the British overreaction over the Kruger Telegramm and you are golden.

Well, without Wilhelm II you might avoid the Kruger telegram at all. :)
However I don´t see how you could avoid all tensions. The rising economic (and therefore military) power of Germany alone would see to that.

A more limited German navy though will make it more difficult for British politicians and admirals to try and paint Germany as the #1 threat to the British Empire.
It´s a simple fact that Germany could never out-build Britain therefore common sense should have told them to not even try. And waste lots of money. Money that would have helped the army a lot more.

So, coastal defense. A limited battle fleet to control the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Plus some naval bases overseas with some cruisers and submarines. That would have been the smart choice.
 
Top