Best possible Kriegsmarine for 1940

[Jukra]

I have to wholeheartedly agree with you there. The Baltic is the only sea that I can see Germany being able to really hope to dominate realistically, and yet they fell far short.

No they did not. Soviet naval threat was rapidly contained in co-operation with Finland. KM did it's job quite well, as the Army did not have Leningrad as it's goal there was no hope of doing a better job. The one sea where German effort fell far short of possibilities was the Black Sea. With more effort put into littoral capabilities which could have been ferried via Danube the supply capabilities for AG South could have been much improved and there would have been even opportunities for amphibious flankings.

As for the Atlantic, outside of forcing the Allies to do convoying and keeping some heavy units out of the Med and Pac I think everything else was ultimately a waste. Less subs, less large surface craft, more AMC's.

Where Germans should have been focusing on, would have been, IMHO, designs which could be deployed via inlands waterways either as modules or full units. Probably even Torpedoboote could have been delivered to Black Sea if designed from the start to for this method of delivery.

 

[thaddeus]

No they did not. Soviet naval threat was rapidly contained in co-operation with Finland. KM did it's job quite well, as the Army did not have Leningrad as it's goal there was no hope of doing a better job. The one sea where German effort fell far short of possibilities was the Black Sea. With more effort put into littoral capabilities which could have been ferried via Danube the supply capabilities for AG South could have been much improved and there would have been even opportunities for amphibious flankings.

Where Germans should have been focusing on, would have been, IMHO, designs which could be deployed via inlands waterways either as modules or full units. Probably even Torpedoboote could have been delivered to Black Sea if designed from the start to for this method of delivery.

that is a very generous assessment of the KM operations during Baltic Sea Campaigns, TWO seaborne evacuations happened right under them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_evacuation_of_Tallinn and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hanko_(1941) despite the Soviet losses they DID evacuate over 50,000 troops and others, 66,000 tonnes (?!) of equipment, and 165 ships.

agree completely with your thoughts on Black Sea operations however, the transport of u-boats via waterways or overland would have helped in the Med too, not having to run the gauntlet past Gibraltar.

(yes, am aware they DID send a handful of u-boats overland to Black Sea, am speculating over a more robust, and earlier, effort)

 

[Zheng He]

One area where I think some of you are being a little too dismissive is with Germany's carrier program. Now I am not suggesting Germany should have fielded aircraft carriers but I do think that OTL they got it just about right by accident. I found this little gem on www.armouredcarriers.com - http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious, a memo from the First Sea Lord to the PM where he states that the Royal Navy needed to keep two big carriers with the Home Fleet due to concerns that the Graf Zeppelin would become operational in 1943.

In other words, the Germans need to have enough of a carrier program that the it worries the navy chiefs in London and Washington, forcing them to take it into account. More or less what they did OTL.

 

[cortz#9]

One area where I think some of you are being a little too dismissive is with Germany's carrier program. Now I am not suggesting Germany should have fielded aircraft carriers but I do think that OTL they got it just about right by accident. I found this little gem on www.armouredcarriers.com - http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious, a memo from the First Sea Lord to the PM where he states that the Royal Navy needed to keep two big carriers with the Home Fleet due to concerns that the Graf Zeppelin would become operational in 1943.

In other words, the Germans need to have enough of a carrier program that the it worries the navy chiefs in London and Washington, forcing them to take it into account. More or less what they did OTL.

Maybe the Germans should've converted some ships into dummy carriers for just the purpose of fooling the British? Although it would've been a difficult thing to do with Enigma.

 

[Shadow Master]

One area where I think some of you are being a little too dismissive is with Germany's carrier program. Now I am not suggesting Germany should have fielded aircraft carriers but I do think that OTL they got it just about right by accident. I found this little gem on www.armouredcarriers.com - http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious, a memo from the First Sea Lord to the PM where he states that the Royal Navy needed to keep two big carriers with the Home Fleet due to concerns that the Graf Zeppelin would become operational in 1943.

In other words, the Germans need to have enough of a carrier program that the it worries the navy chiefs in London and Washington, forcing them to take it into account. More or less what they did OTL.

I'm not posting things here yet, as I need to get my naval treaty threads written and correct and all in one place, and track down the pesky, elusive reason the Germans built 32,000 ton ships with 11" guns. I suspect pressure from the UK, but cannot as yet confirm that this is in fact the case.

Once I have those facts straight, I'll be working on a step by step series of posts, to get us the best Kriegsmarine we can in 1940. And yes, it will include naval aviation, though whether or not there will be aircraft carriers in the CV sense or not remains to be seen.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I'm not posting things here yet, as I need to get my naval treaty threads written and correct and all in one place, and track down the pesky, elusive reason the Germans built 32,000 ton ships with 11" guns. I suspect pressure from the UK, but cannot as yet confirm that this is in fact the case.

Once I have those facts straight, I'll be working on a step by step series of posts, to get us the best Kriegsmarine we can in 1940. And yes, it will include naval aviation, though whether or not there will be aircraft carriers in the CV sense or not remains to be seen.

Siegfried Breyer ("Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970) suggested it was "sensitivity of the British [...] to increases in calibre" coupled with "the long lead time [to develop] new QFG and turrets".

Not sure why they couldn't use the Baden design but perhaps it was thought to be outdated. Maybe elevation was inadequate for a 1930s design.

 

[Dorknought]

I'm not posting things here yet, as I need to get my naval treaty threads written and correct and all in one place, and track down the pesky, elusive reason the Germans built 32,000 ton ships with 11" guns. I suspect pressure from the UK, but cannot as yet confirm that this is in fact the case.

S&G were greatly enlarged Panzerships as the French had countered the Deutschlands with the Dunkerques and further proof that the Versailles Treaty limits were no longer applicable. These were touted as 2nd class battleships of 26,000 tons so the 11" armament was plausible. The 11" triple design was already proven and in production.

 

[NoMommsen]

I'm not posting things here yet, as I need to get my naval treaty threads written and correct and all in one place, and track down the pesky, elusive reason the Germans built 32,000 ton ships with 11" guns. I suspect pressure from the UK, but cannot as yet confirm that this is in fact the case.

Once I have those facts straight, I'll be working on a step by step series of posts, to get us the best Kriegsmarine we can in 1940. And yes, it will include naval aviation, though whether or not there will be aircraft carriers in the CV sense or not remains to be seen.

Siegfried Breyer ("Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970) suggested it was "sensitivity of the British [...] to increases in calibre" coupled with "the long lead time [to develop] new QFG and turrets".

Not sure why they couldn't use the Baden design but perhaps it was thought to be outdated. Maybe elevation was inadequate for a 1930s design.

According to Siegfried Breyer in his 3-part magazine monographs (this is the first) on this class at first it was Hitler insisting in early 1933 and summer 1934 on the 28cm calibre to minimize the possibility to 'upset' the Brits.

And therefore the "twins" were laid down both on 14th February 1934 a first time as ~ 20.000 ts enlarged 'Panzerschiffe'.
... and subsequently stopped on 5th July 1934 and scrapped after the above mentioned decision of Hitler - again - not to increase the calibre but the number of rifles. They were laid down anew in the known form on 6th May and 15th June 1935.

When Hitler in march 1935 'freed' the KM in terms of the calibre-question Raeder wasn't prepared to delay these ships once more for yet another 16 to 22 month for construction of new, bigger calibre rifles and/or according turrets when the triple 28cm turrets were already in production.

 

[NoMommsen]

S&G were greatly enlarged Panzerships ...

nnnot really.
In their first form, as laid down for the first time I could agree, as this proposal was actually a 'simple' enlargement of the prior Panzerships to carry especially more protection and an accordingly improved power plant.

The ships as they were finally built were complete new constructionsarchitecturally based to a large degree on the 'known' Mackensen-class BCs of WW-1.

 

[thaddeus]

I'm not posting things here yet, as I need to get my naval treaty threads written and correct and all in one place, and track down the pesky, elusive reason the Germans built 32,000 ton ships with 11" guns. I suspect pressure from the UK, but cannot as yet confirm that this is in fact the case.

S&G were greatly enlarged Panzerships as the French had countered the Deutschlands with the Dunkerques and further proof that the Versailles Treaty limits were no longer applicable. These were touted as 2nd class battleships of 26,000 tons so the 11" armament was plausible. The 11" triple design was already proven and in production.

my understanding the 11" guns were a concession to UK that they were willing to make due to (as mentioned) they already had them in production, and fabrication of larger caliber weapons was a challenge? (ninja'd)

would add the 11" guns were longest range (across multiple sources, looking now at Fleets of World War II) of guns they produced.

 

[NoMommsen]

Some ... question arising out of checking on the several naval-treaties as listed here by @Shadow Master .

How or as what were the french large destroyers (Guépard-class, Aigle-class, Vauquelin-class, le Fantasque-class) classified according to the LNT of 1930 ?
They were clearly above the 1.880 metric tons weight-limit (~2400 - ~2600 t) as well as above the 5.1" calibre-limit sporting their 5,5 (or 5,46 )" guns.
These requirements were ... "eased" in 1936 but until then all the ships named above were built.

Technically they should have been declared "cruisers class b.". ... Were they ? Does anybody has some knowledge of ?

 

[Jukra]

...and even the most qualitatively best battleships, whether with 10" or 18" guns, cannot defeat the RN as their numbers will be too small. KM cannot defeat RN by sea, and strangling it's trade outside the golden BB chance during the First World War is not realistic. What can you realistically try to reach with even the best foresight KM can get against the combined might of RN and MN?

Should one look at which objectives might be classed as realistic? Why reach for the moon when you have realistic goals you can try to reach, ie. securing littorals, operating in the Baltic and Black Seas, perhaps conduct an amphibious operation in Scandinavia / Baltic / Black Seas, preventing use of Soviet naval forces and supporting Wehrmacht and allied operations, force the Allies to use convoying globally and tie up RN and MN capital ships from operating in the Med and Pac? These are already suggested by others too, in the first page. Can anyone suggest more objectives?

 

[King_Arthur]

...and even the most qualitatively best battleships, whether with 10" or 18" guns, cannot defeat the RN as their numbers will be too small. KM cannot defeat RN by sea, and strangling it's trade outside the golden BB chance during the First World War is not realistic. What can you realistically try to reach with even the best foresight KM can get against the combined might of RN and MN?

Should one look at which objectives might be classed as realistic? Why reach for the moon when you have realistic goals you can try to reach, ie. securing littorals, operating in the Baltic and Black Seas, perhaps conduct an amphibious operation in Scandinavia / Baltic / Black Seas, preventing use of Soviet naval forces and supporting Wehrmacht and allied operations, force the Allies to use convoying globally and tie up RN and MN capital ships from operating in the Med and Pac? Can anyone suggest more objectives?

Be a fleet in being to keep the RN worried and keep some large assets at Scapa Flow.

 

[DER386]

It would have been useful in the early stages to consider the "big" picture. German would have allies, at least Italy, and that would change the dynamic. It would add the need to control the Med. If they were truly thinking ahead, they needed to plan for the exploitation of the Black Sea.

 

[Shadow Master]

Some ... question arising out of checking on the several naval-treaties as listed here by @Shadow Master .

How or as what were the french large destroyers (Guépard-class, Aigle-class, Vauquelin-class, le Fantasque-class) classified according to the LNT of 1930 ?
They were clearly above the 1.880 metric tons weight-limit (~2400 - ~2600 t) as well as above the 5.1" calibre-limit sporting their 5,5 (or 5,46 )" guns.
These requirements were ... "eased" in 1936 but until then all the ships named above were built.

Technically they should have been declared "cruisers class b.". ... Were they ? Does anybody has some knowledge of ?

That is actually a pretty good catch!
They do indeed seem to be over the limit, I wonder how that happened? Were they built later on, or between 1930-1936?

EDIT:
Guepard built 1927-1931
Aigle built not known when laid down, but some launched before the 1LNT went into effect on Oct 27th, 1930.
Vauquelin completed in 1933-1934
Le Fantasque all seem to have been launched in 1933-1934.

I have to say I hate the French fleet wiki pages, the information is not in the same format, nor even all there, compared to other navies of the times.
############################################################################################

I have yet to restart my "Guns of Jutland" database, where I will make charts/tables for all the Dreadnought class battleships built, sorted by the nation that built them. When my HDD on my Win XP computer crashed, I lost all the work I had done. I had not finished all the ships for the UK/US/KM/MN/RM, let alone all the others, but it still was a bit loss.

Have you done many checkups on ship classes?

 

[Shadow Master]

Can anyone suggest more objectives?

Yes!

Right now though, I'm focused upon the naval treaties, and getting a complete thread for each one, and then a one stop shopping combined thread where anyone can go and see everything from all the conferences/treaties/agreements in on place, so we can all be on the same sheet of music, at least, and go from there.

 

[Jukra]

It would have been useful in the early stages to consider the "big" picture. German would have allies, at least Italy, and that would change the dynamic. It would add the need to control the Med. If they were truly thinking ahead, they needed to plan for the exploitation of the Black Sea.

Italy was a naval giant compared to Germany in addition not being a sure ally, so it can be left to it's own devices. However, transportation of naval units to Mediterranean and the Black Sea could be developed, ie. standardization of such light craft (S-boot, subs, R-boats, MFP's, perhaps Torpedoboote), which could be transported between Baltic/Atlantic, Black and Mediterranean seas, as Germans historically did with UB and UC boats during WWI. Furthermore, all these craft could be realistically mass produced during wartime and with exception subs would be outside any naval treaties.

These littoral forces could be used in a war against France in the North Sea / Channel area as well as in a war against Soviet Union in the Baltic / Black Sea as the situation would require, as well as could be sent to the Med to reinforce Italian effort.

As for civilian preparations, I'd suggest construction of Rhine-Main-Danube Canal should be accelerated, as this would greatly easen transportation of naval units as well as easen Army logistics.

Rhine-Main-Danube Canal

As for additional information, here's map of German inland waterways in 1903:

http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/w903d_E_a4_mb.pdf

 

[thaddeus]

One area where I think some of you are being a little too dismissive is with Germany's carrier program. Now I am not suggesting Germany should have fielded aircraft carriers but I do think that OTL they got it just about right by accident. I found this little gem on www.armouredcarriers.com - http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious, a memo from the First Sea Lord to the PM where he states that the Royal Navy needed to keep two big carriers with the Home Fleet due to concerns that the Graf Zeppelin would become operational in 1943.

In other words, the Germans need to have enough of a carrier program that the it worries the navy chiefs in London and Washington, forcing them to take it into account. More or less what they did OTL.

my speculative program was to limit the size of largest vessels to Admiral Hipper-class (approx.), with the option of finishing some as carriers (as historical Weser) and some as heavy cruisers.

also to equip the nine planned supply tankers with aircraft handling (be that seaplanes, CAM ship, or rudimentary carrier function)

probably would have been prescient to convert something like the aging liner SS Columbus for training?

 

[thaddeus]

...and even the most qualitatively best battleships, whether with 10" or 18" guns, cannot defeat the RN as their numbers will be too small. KM cannot defeat RN by sea, and strangling it's trade outside the golden BB chance during the First World War is not realistic. What can you realistically try to reach with even the best foresight KM can get against the combined might of RN and MN?

Should one look at which objectives might be classed as realistic? Why reach for the moon when you have realistic goals you can try to reach, ie. securing littorals, operating in the Baltic and Black Seas, perhaps conduct an amphibious operation in Scandinavia / Baltic / Black Seas, preventing use of Soviet naval forces and supporting Wehrmacht and allied operations, force the Allies to use convoying globally and tie up RN and MN capital ships from operating in the Med and Pac? These are already suggested by others too, in the first page. Can anyone suggest more objectives?

think the issue(s) with no large ships is political, they are seen as force projection and frankly prestige while eliminating fleet construction or limiting it to small asymmetrical ships telegraphs your wartime strategy.

also there is the practical effect that one scenario for Germany was that they might have to fight France and Poland (with UK remaining out), not viewed as very realistic with hindsight, but at the time it was. with no proper warships the French MN might have established a blockade (of sorts)

a reduced or coherent KM plan could build the exact type of fleet you are advocating, construct a German version of French Force de Raid, and still realize substantial savings of resources over historical.

 

[Jukra]

a reduced or coherent KM plan could build the exact type of fleet you are advocating, construct a German version of French Force de Raid, and still realize substantial savings of resources over historical.

I do agree with you completely, some large ships (CA and upwards) are required for a fleet in being reducing the risk of blockade and amphibious landings and to fight Soviet fleet in the Baltic, if for nothing else.

As for littorals and minor combatants, I think, if Rhein-Danube -canal is constructed, something up to 1000ton warships (albeit with pontoon lighters and some disassembly for superstructure) could be transported between North Sea and the Black Sea. It would make sense to standardize maximum size of destroyer / torpedo boat along those lines.