Alternate warships of nations

The German King George Vs are going to be far larger than 35000 tons. The Germans had missed out on 20 plus years of development of big ships and no design brilliance was going to fix that
 
As a bit of a thought exercise what if you took the most bloated battleship class of WWII, the Scharnhorsts, and the arguably least bloated design, the KGVs and swapped them. How big would a German designed KGV be? And how much more compact would a British built Scharnhorst be?

Note that by bloat I mean inefficiency in design which resulted in the most extra weight for least added capability.

I have seen argument that Bismarcks were more bloated than Scharnhorsts. (Then again that might have been hypothetical 15" twin Scharnhorsts instead)


Anyway, a British "Scharnhorst" would probably have 12" guns. I think Britain was thinking of such ships at around 25000 tons?

As for German KGV... With how large German 11" triple and 15" twin turrets were I am not sure how big of a ship they would need to fit quad 14", and I don't think I want to think about it either.
I guess they could go for triple 15" like the Littorios?

Edit: If we put Bismarck in place of Scharnhorst, I guess we just get 15" KGV or better protected Hood out of it?
 
Last edited:
I have seen argument that Bismarcks were more bloated than Scharnhorsts.

They were. If the Scharnhorsts had been rearmed with twin 15", the Bismarcks would have been 10-12,000 tons heavier, for a couple more main guns, a couple more 4.1", slower, and in some respects more lightly armoured. The Scharnhorsts aren't perfect - they've still got a mixed secondary battery, those single 5.9", and there are some issues with the armour layout, but they're near the top end of German WW2 ship design.
 
The Germans figured they could get 8 13.8“ guns, 28 knots, and 13.8 inches of belt armor on 37,000 tons or so. The increase in belt armor and gun power to match KGV is going to push the German design to 40,000 tons, easy.

As far as a British Scharnhorst, you’re probably looking at something around 25,000 tons - there was a design drawn up for a ship with 12 9.2” guns and a top speed of 33 knots, but thinner armor than Scharnhorst, which displaced 23,700 tons. The quad 9.2” can be swapped for triple 11” without undue impact, and the 33-knot speed gives you margins to increase displacement without more machinery weight. The extra weight would come from the heavier belt.
 
And how much more compact would a British built Scharnhorst be?
They did have something similar drawn up:
The Large Cruiser:

The British Large Cruiser by Tzoli on DeviantArt


dedmfc2-652f7a0c-2934-4998-a582-fc7b51fdb17e.png


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: Unknown, I've chosen 213,36m(wl) x 26,12m x 7,62m
Displacement: 20.000tons (Standard)
Engines: Unknwon around 140-155.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59-61km/h (32-33knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 76mm Deck, 178mm Belt
Armaments:
3x2 12"/50 (305mm/50) BL Mk XIV Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x8,6x1 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
In 1939 DNC (Director of Naval Constructions) asked for an Alaska like Large Cruiser based on the calculations of the previous year. DNC asked for six 12" cannons in twin turrets on 20.000tons with 7" belt and 3" deck armour. Not much serious work was done but the hull size was based on the 3x3 9,2" cruiser the previous February. Based on this limited data I've come up with this drawing showing a capital ship armed cruiser on relative light displacement but with traditional British styling. Using Springsharp to help with the calculations it isn't possible to construct such a ship on that hull. The 12" cannons were the new type designed in 1933 while the DP-AA turrets are the same used for the HMS Charybdis and HMS Scylla

All credit to Tzoli, in this case on the Secret Projects Forum.
 
So looks like the British could have gotten a Scharnhorsts clone on about ten thousand tons less, while the Germans were to constrained by mechanical concerns to build a KGV clone.
 

Driftless

Donor
A different thought experiment. Hand wave the Italians into a sufficient supply of Libyan oil in by 1938. How might that affect the Italian Navy's operations in WW2?
  • Would they be more operationally active?
  • Would they still be constrained by internal Fascist politics?
  • Does the reality of the oil being in Libya alter both basing and operational planning? (Do you need the Navy, or Army to play goalkeeper for the oil port?)
 
Would they be more operationally active?
Yes, but mostly in 1942/1943, which is when their oil stores ran out.
Would they still be constrained by internal Fascist politics?
Yes.


Does the reality of the oil being in Libya alter both basing and operational planning? (Do you need the Navy, or Army to play goalkeeper for the oil port?)
It would almost certainly prompt Italy to pay more attention to convoy defense and ASW - they got the hang of it OTL through bitter experience, but it would be nice to shorten the learning curve going in. As far as basing, much of Italy’s basing was already in the south to begin with, so if they can scrounge up the funds the main focus would be to expand Tripoli as a harbor, which would relax one of the Axis’ bigger logistical bottlenecks in the region.
 
May I ask a technical question?

In WW1-WW2 time frame, what were the limitations on 21" torpedo tubes launching any 21" torpedo? And in the same vein, were there any special considerations with aircraft launching different 18" torpedoes? As an example did British torpedoes require a specific British Connection (Fire Control?) in its submarines and aircraft to launch their specific torpedo types? If so, what did that look like?

Thanks in advance, Matthew. 🍻
 
May I ask a technical question?

In WW1-WW2 time frame, what were the limitations on 21" torpedo tubes launching any 21" torpedo? And in the same vein, were there any special considerations with aircraft launching different 18" torpedoes? As an example did British torpedoes require a specific British Connection (Fire Control?) in its submarines and aircraft to launch their specific torpedo types? If so, what did that look like?

Thanks in advance, Matthew. 🍻
I'm not sure about air launched torpedoes but finns and propellers and the shape of the torpedoes were sufficiently different that British submarines and American submarines couldn't fire each other torpedoes.

Heres an image of two American torpedos (the top is submarine launched and the bottom is plane dropped)


us_navy_mk_13_and_mk_14_torpedoes_in_the_1940s.jpg


and one of a model of a British torpedo. You will note that the finns are a slightly different angle, the shape of the torpedoes are slightly different etc.

royal-air-force-royal-navy-wwii-mk-xv-torpedo-with-trolley.jpg


Sorry its not the most detailed answer.
 
A different thought experiment. Hand wave the Italians into a sufficient supply of Libyan oil in by 1938. How might that affect the Italian Navy's operations in WW2?
  • Would they be more operationally active?
  • Would they still be constrained by internal Fascist politics?
  • Does the reality of the oil being in Libya alter both basing and operational planning? (Do you need the Navy, or Army to play goalkeeper for the oil port?)
The implications for the colony's infrastructure would be quite significant.
 
In WW1-WW2 time frame, what were the limitations on 21" torpedo tubes launching any 21" torpedo?

Specifically in terms of submarine-launched weapons, the US Mk14 was significantly longer than the preceding Mk10 (20' 6" vs 15' 3"). This meant that the technically obsolete S-class boats were initially a lot more more effective than their successors because their tubes couldn't fit the Mk14 and were therefore limited to torpedoes that could a) hit the target and b) go bang.
 
Top