Alternate Kriegsmarine

What the Germans needed was to build 10 Leichter Kreuzer M Class which had a range of 8000 miles at 19 kn
kreuzerm.gif








and 5
Kreuzer P1 with a range of 25000 sm at 13 kn
kreuzerp1.gif
kreuzerm.gif
 
Last edited:
There are several obstacles for Germany to build a politically/strategically useful navy beyond saving more as a fleet in being (imagine T&B + graf zeppelin in Norway).
However, if we are working under the strategic mission at the time, the raider concept, I’d like to put forward an important technical one. The propulsion.

Long range at reasonable speed is an absolute requirement, and diesel is the only solution for that.
Surviving as a raider would require speed, (ideally high pressure) steam is the solution.

What to do? The solution need to be ready in time.
IOTL they did increase the efficiency of the diesels and ended with long range destroyer designs. Could the breakthroughs have been achieved much earlier?
They did have CODOS (combined diesel or steam) on their earlier light cruisers, but the viable solution is CODAS (combined diesel and steam). As I read up on it, it requires some complex gearing, but it is not unknown technology going into it. Eg. If the Germans decide to go codas, it might just work, but it is off course a risk. IOTL they took a similar risk on high pressure steam....
Any thoughts on this subject?

PS. An upside of the CODAS system is that the wear and tear on the possibly still chosen high pressure steam might be reduced if they run diesel only most of the time.
 
Get Göring removed, build a proper naval air arm for long range maritime commerce interdiction, and to support u-boats. Small fleet-in-being is enough to tie down some British ships, but aircraft carriers are a complete waste of resources for Germany if the plan is not to invade Iceland. FW-200 was quite good already for early war, but purpose built fast torpedo bomber would add some impact. Airplanes and coastal artillery are also sufficient to keep the shores safe.

Agreed
Shoot Goring, allow the LW to form four luftflotte.
One strategic (heavy bombers, LR fighters, defence of German, transport), two tactical/ operation (as before), and one maritime (carrier wings ex-KM personal, LP patrol, maritime strike)

Surface fleet.
BC/BB built as 4 330 /350mm 3x3 BC as originally planned. A common 128DP, replace heavy 155. 50mm twins replace 105mm mounts. More vertical and torp protection

Two hippers built as CVL, to escort and recce BC. Use a simpler USN cable with German cat’.

Large ocean destroyer with 128+50mm, an ASW rocket system (like bofors).

Two task forces to inderdict Western and Northern approaches, not deep Atlantic raids. A fifth BC started to replaced expected one BC per year loss.

As carrier experience grows, GZ comes on line to start sortie north. With support of land air in Norway,
 
Last edited:
U-boats
Build many smaller “pelagic” / training mini type 21. 4 x 450mm tubes and snort. Attack Britain “at source” nearer ports in shallow water.

Have a “planned” ocean submarine (ie type 21), not a repeat of WW1 concepts. Make it a true tube (not figure 8) to simply production. Add 2 x 450 tubes at rear, to defend against escorts. A spread of torps is harder to “side step”.

Use “enhance oxygen” torpedoes. Safer than Long Lance, but still faster and less wake than compressed air. Variants of this can be used by S-boats and torpedo bombers.

Allow local commanders fight the battle, and keep Reader and Donitz off the radio!!
 
Last edited:
Seebataillons

Reform a proper Marine-Korps of Seebataillons. Like LW with paratroopers (air-land structure), create a sea-land structure.

Its concept would be closer to Soviet naval infantry in coastal / small ocean assaults.

KM convert cruise ships (strength through joys ships like Europa) into LSI. Use life raft davits to carry LCVP. These ships carry troops to Norway and can refuel DDs. A better use of these ships instead of using them as barracks ships.

For shorter distances, KM needed the Marinefährprahm (LCI or LCM equivalents) in the ‘30s. Would have opened up the whole Baltic and North Sea (and beyond)

The two old battle wagons be rebirthed as marine support vessels. Fitted with thick armour, torpedo nets and 50mm autocannon, would have been a better option than Hipper storming into Oslo!
 
Last edited:
There are several obstacles for Germany to build a politically/strategically useful navy beyond saving more as a fleet in being (imagine T&B + graf zeppelin in Norway).
However, if we are working under the strategic mission at the time, the raider concept, I’d like to put forward an important technical one. The propulsion.

Long range at reasonable speed is an absolute requirement, and diesel is the only solution for that.
Surviving as a raider would require speed, (ideally high pressure) steam is the solution.

What to do? The solution need to be ready in time.
IOTL they did increase the efficiency of the diesels and ended with long range destroyer designs. Could the breakthroughs have been achieved much earlier?
They did have CODOS (combined diesel or steam) on their earlier light cruisers, but the viable solution is CODAS (combined diesel and steam). As I read up on it, it requires some complex gearing, but it is not unknown technology going into it. Eg. If the Germans decide to go codas, it might just work, but it is off course a risk. IOTL they took a similar risk on high pressure steam....
Any thoughts on this subject?

PS. An upside of the CODAS system is that the wear and tear on the possibly still chosen high pressure steam might be reduced if they run diesel only most of the time.

do not know if their hybrid system could be made to work as you project? my speculative fleet was for Admiral Hipper-class (sized) ships at the largest end (with 11" guns) and Spahkreuzer (sized) ships (instead of historical destroyers) with the hybrid steam-diesel. but was operating on the assumption they would operate as in OTL?

(was also assuming they build the supply/tankers which carry fuel oil and diesel, and, luckily, can tow disabled ships!)

perhaps they finish 5 of the "Hipper-class" my suggestion is not to send the Panzerschiff overseas, then you would have 4 sets of ships with 11" guns in Germany and Norway, with couple dozen cruiser sized escorts?

leave a question mark over carriers but they certainly should not have attempted larger than Hipper-sized vessel?

that would be a decent fleet and save all the cemented armor used on the larger BBs they built historically?
 
There are several obstacles for Germany to build a politically/strategically useful navy beyond saving more as a fleet in being (imagine T&B + graf zeppelin in Norway).
However, if we are working under the strategic mission at the time, the raider concept, I’d like to put forward an important technical one. The propulsion.

Long range at reasonable speed is an absolute requirement, and diesel is the only solution for that.
Surviving as a raider would require speed, (ideally high pressure) steam is the solution.

What to do? The solution need to be ready in time.
IOTL they did increase the efficiency of the diesels and ended with long range destroyer designs. Could the breakthroughs have been achieved much earlier?
They did have CODOS (combined diesel or steam) on their earlier light cruisers, but the viable solution is CODAS (combined diesel and steam). As I read up on it, it requires some complex gearing, but it is not unknown technology going into it. Eg. If the Germans decide to go codas, it might just work, but it is off course a risk. IOTL they took a similar risk on high pressure steam....
Any thoughts on this subject?

PS. An upside of the CODAS system is that the wear and tear on the possibly still chosen high pressure steam might be reduced if they run diesel only most of the time.

I read that the Titanic had a dual propulsion system that was new at the time. Not sure I understand exactly how it worked and if that is something that could have been usable in a raider type vessel or not.
 
do not know if their hybrid system could be made to work as you project? my speculative fleet was for Admiral Hipper-class (sized) ships at the largest end (with 11" guns) and Spahkreuzer (sized) ships (instead of historical destroyers) with the hybrid steam-diesel. but was operating on the assumption they would operate as in OTL?

(was also assuming they build the supply/tankers which carry fuel oil and diesel, and, luckily, can tow disabled ships!)

perhaps they finish 5 of the "Hipper-class" my suggestion is not to send the Panzerschiff overseas, then you would have 4 sets of ships with 11" guns in Germany and Norway, with couple dozen cruiser sized escorts?

leave a question mark over carriers but they certainly should not have attempted larger than Hipper-sized vessel?

that would be a decent fleet and save all the cemented armor used on the larger BBs they built historically?
With the caveat that the BB’s were effective as a fleet in being, the large cruisers that could outgun a RN cruiser and spahkreuzer’s would seem an effective combo.But the large cruiser need the range.

A fleet carrier? Very debated but I think it would b highly valuable. Also as a fleet in being.
 
do not know if their hybrid system could be made to work as you project? my speculative fleet was for Admiral Hipper-class (sized) ships at the largest end (with 11" guns) and Spahkreuzer (sized) ships (instead of historical destroyers) with the hybrid steam-diesel. but was operating on the assumption they would operate as in OTL?

(was also assuming they build the supply/tankers which carry fuel oil and diesel, and, luckily, can tow disabled ships!)

perhaps they finish 5 of the "Hipper-class" my suggestion is not to send the Panzerschiff overseas, then you would have 4 sets of ships with 11" guns in Germany and Norway, with couple dozen cruiser sized escorts?

leave a question mark over carriers but they certainly should not have attempted larger than Hipper-sized vessel?

With the caveat that the BB’s were effective as a fleet in being, the large cruisers that could outgun a RN cruiser and spahkreuzer’s would seem an effective combo.But the large cruiser need the range.

A fleet carrier? Very debated but I think it would b highly valuable. Also as a fleet in being.

carrier? still think they could have achieved more success with seaplanes (which they had years operating)
my speculation was to build version of HE-119 instead of HE-115 (so approx. 200 -300) and the little Flettner helicopter (they could drop depth charges)

my take on using Hipper-sized vessel, was to concentrate on the speed, speculating they have enough range but that the Spahkreuzers would have needed the hybrid arrangement? and they both likely need the supply/tankers for extended forays?
 
do not know if their hybrid system could be made to work as you project? my speculative fleet was for Admiral Hipper-class (sized) ships at the largest end (with 11" guns) and Spahkreuzer (sized) ships (instead of historical destroyers) with the hybrid steam-diesel. but was operating on the assumption they would operate as in OTL?
I foundation a link. The Koln Claus frigate is ofte credited with the first modern Codag system (alternative is alternating propellers). The first ship the germans made post war
https://books.google.dk/books?id=cE...AQ#v=onepage&q=first codag propulsion&f=false
 
I foundation a link. The Koln Claus frigate is ofte credited with the first modern Codag system (alternative is alternating propellers). The first ship the germans made post war

thanks for the link. not a ship designer, just do not know that they could fit the "plumbing" into smaller destroyer/cruiser sized ships and/or my speculative Hipper-sized battlecruiser for the diesel to be anything other than supplemental power?

my understanding the last two light cruisers built historically could use both type engines simultaneously? although the ships had to be brought to complete stop to engage (yikes!)

beyond the technical issues if the KM begins construction of entire range of diesel ships that is not lost on UK?

my view you would achieve most of the benefits with less negative with exactly the system they had installed on light cruisers. for example the Spahkreuzer design could make the trek to Narvik and depart if only "crawling" under diesel power?
 
I ink whatever scenario you propose, the value of aircraft carries for the KM is suspect. They had 0 experience operating carriers and their associated airwings. They had no previous design experience in CV's (only token support from Japan). Even if they did manage to overcome the obstacles and get a handful of operational CV's in commission, they would be always outnumbered by the allies. Also each CV would need a dedicated group of ships for support (AA and AS ops) as well as at sea replenishment (something the KM did not have in great numbers)
 
thanks for the link. not a ship designer, just do not know that they could fit the "plumbing" into smaller destroyer/cruiser sized ships and/or my speculative Hipper-sized battlecruiser for the diesel to be anything other than supplemental power?

my understanding the last two light cruisers built historically could use both type engines simultaneously? although the ships had to be brought to complete stop to engage (yikes!)

beyond the technical issues if the KM begins construction of entire range of diesel ships that is not lost on UK?

my view you would achieve most of the benefits with less negative with exactly the system they had installed on light cruisers. for example the Spahkreuzer design could make the trek to Narvik and depart if only "crawling" under diesel power?
The Koln class is 2000 tons and not bigger than the destroyers of WW2.
The Leipzig and Nurnberg used 3 shafts and had diesel engines on the center shaft. Quite a simple solution, but the power was not too well balanced (12000 hp vs. 30000 on the outer shafts.
The Spahkreuzer was diesel only if I recall. Would have been more usefull than the OTL destroyers for sure.
 
I ink whatever scenario you propose, the value of aircraft carries for the KM is suspect. They had 0 experience operating carriers and their associated airwings. They had no previous design experience in CV's (only token support from Japan). Even if they did manage to overcome the obstacles and get a handful of operational CV's in commission, they would be always outnumbered by the allies. Also each CV would need a dedicated group of ships for support (AA and AS ops) as well as at sea replenishment (something the KM did not have in great numbers)
I think the general expectations is that the OTL GZ design gave the germans (a lot) less than what they would get on a similar tonnage in other countries. Having said that, the aircrafts would have been effective dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Immense scouting capability from the Fi-167's. Would the pilots in the Bf109T manage? Thats an unknown and probably a case where some non-combat losses could be expected. Once airborne, not a bad carrier fighter.
As I see it, the role of GZ was to help the task force in scouting, killing lone freighters with Fi-167's, damage pursuants and help keep the task force away from RN heavies.
Thats a good skill set on top of OTL
 
Would the pilots in the Bf109T manage? Thats an unknown and probably a case where some non-combat losses could be expected. Once airborne, not a bad carrier fighter.

They might, but at least at a terrible cost. Those narrow landing gears were just asking for trouble... much like the Seafire in RN service, except in the German's case they have a much steeper learning curve and less resources to deal with said curve.
 
The Koln class is 2000 tons and not bigger than the destroyers of WW2.
The Leipzig and Nurnberg used 3 shafts and had diesel engines on the center shaft. Quite a simple solution, but the power was not too well balanced (12000 hp vs. 30000 on the outer shafts.
The Spahkreuzer was diesel only if I recall. Would have been more usefull than the OTL destroyers for sure.

it seems a stretch for 1930's era to achieve what they did post-war (and then only in limited numbers?)

the (projected 1938) destroyers thru all Spahkreuzer to M-class cruisers all employed hybrid propulsion, all with the same power output ratios we have discussed.

the only exception was the O-class battlecruiser, which projects 176,000 shp, 116,000 from diesel, 60,000 from steam turbine. (of course this would have been in 35,000t ship so we have to consider that)

my understanding the destroyers used the steam turbines to operate all the ship systems, so in harbor they were burning fuel, this was somewhat corrected by having small diesels. (diesels not used for propulsion)
 
it seems a stretch for 1930's era to achieve what they did post-war (and then only in limited numbers?)

the (projected 1938) destroyers thru all Spahkreuzer to M-class cruisers all employed hybrid propulsion, all with the same power output ratios we have discussed.

the only exception was the O-class battlecruiser, which projects 176,000 shp, 116,000 from diesel, 60,000 from steam turbine. (of course this would have been in 35,000t ship so we have to consider that)

my understanding the destroyers used the steam turbines to operate all the ship systems, so in harbor they were burning fuel, this was somewhat corrected by having small diesels. (diesels not used for propulsion)
You are off course right about the spahkreuzer. 3 shafts, 1 diesel. Take a look at this link.
Worth noticing is that the Nürnberg coulis have the diesels operating 3 shafts. Turbines designated om outer shafts.
https://books.google.dk/books?id=7V1EBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=spahkreuzer+propulsion&source=bl&ots=padWZh963S&sig=ACfU3U1_oMtEWYKEC0ikQizroxr7Md7_Lw&hl=da&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRq4S3uerhAhUBcZoKHdK9D30Q6AEwD3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=spahkreuzer propulsion&f=false
And consider the improvements made from konigsberg to Nürnberg. Maybe what they needed most was more time.
 
I ink whatever scenario you propose, the value of aircraft carries for the KM is suspect. They had 0 experience operating carriers and their associated airwings. They had no previous design experience in CV's (only token support from Japan). Even if they did manage to overcome the obstacles and get a handful of operational CV's in commission, they would be always outnumbered by the allies. Also each CV would need a dedicated group of ships for support (AA and AS ops) as well as at sea replenishment (something the KM did not have in great numbers)

In addition, outside of the North Sea or the Pacific their threat axis is 360 degrees. At Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons or Santa Cruz, the USN carriers could be generally sure that no Japanese ships or planes would be approaching east or south, so searches would go north or west. Similarly, the IJN could be sure no US ships or planes would be coming from the west or north. In addition, their own land-based search assets are covering those areas behind them, if not also aiding in the searching in the direction of the threat. If a KM carrier is in the mid-Atlantic, threats can approach from any direction.

Consider what that does to the operational tempo of the airgroup. There are 32 points on a compass rose; assuming each search plane can handle the 11.25 degree search arc and we leave the sea behind us un-searched assuming a straight course, that is 30 planes that need to be up at dawn to search. And they'll need to go out again in the afternoon to maintain awareness and security as sunset approaches. And there will be little to no help from land-based assets operating out of France.

The carrier worked for the large navies because, whether they were on the strategic offensive or strategic defensive, they were in a sea-control operational strategy, meaning they were maintaining control of certain areas and trying to exert control over others. The KM is in sea-denial mode; they control very little of the ocean.

My thoughts,
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Did any of the nations operating Carriers in WWII have no pre-War experience?

I just can’t see one carrier with a mixed group of adapted planes (no specialists amongst its complement) having a great effect. The casualties that the British and Americans (as well presumably the Japanese) took pre-War in learning the basics of Carrier ops - let alone perfecting the craft - would be inflicted on the Germans during the War, whilst operating. A single carrier is a basis for gaining experience, not a weapon for inflicting damage on the enemy.
 
Did any of the nations operating Carriers in WWII have no pre-War experience?'

I can't think of any. IJN, USN, RN, MN. All had carriers in the interwar period.

Of the navies without carriers, I think the RM probably came closest interwar or wartime. The recent book on Impero makes it clear the Regia Marina appreciated it as a weapon, but were constantly blocked from acquiring one because of politics and finances. And the RA had taken over their aircraft in the wake of World War I, so even getting a carrier probably meant RA pilots and aircraft. Which goes back to your point about experience:

I just can’t see one carrier with a mixed group of adapted planes (no specialists amongst its complement) having a great effect. The casualties that the British and Americans (as well presumably the Japanese) took pre-War in learning the basics of Carrier ops - let alone perfecting the craft - would be inflicted on the Germans during the War, whilst operating. A single carrier is a basis for gaining experience, not a weapon for inflicting damage on the enemy.

Good point, and not just with pilots, but deck crews as well. Handling aircraft on a pitching deck, refueling and rearming aircraft on deck and in the hangar, dealing with the corrosion a constant salt water environment causes are all skills that need to be learned. Trying to gather those while in combat might turn that learning curve into a wall...

Those early experiments like Furious, Argus, Langley and Hosho provided valuable experience...

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Top