Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

That's very impressive I had not realised that the AGNT banned the construction of Pocket Battleships, the critical tonnage limit the RN was shooting for was no Crusers more than 10'000 tonnes Grainted the Nazis ignored this Limitation when it came to the Hipper class I suspect the limitation was industrial as well as political. ...

Cheers Hipper
It's not that the treaty banned construction of pocket battleships it's that the treaty devolved responsibility for the setting of categories to the naval powers acting collectively through naval agreements which made the and London naval treaty binding on Germany.
 
OTL tells us the opposite.

Definitely. At least ostensibly. They might then turn around and cheat on them, naturally; this is what the Germans had always done. But they were definitely interested in having treaties and agreements and in being thought to be in compliance of those treaties. Not entering treaties, or openly violating them while the ink was still fresh, was not something the Nazis would do, not so early in their mad run to catastrophe.

Adolph Hitler said:
The German Reich Government has disclosed the extent to which the new German Wehrmacht will be built up. It will under no circumstances retreat from these parameters. It does not regard the fulfillment of its program on land, in the air or at sea as constituting any threat whatsoever to another nation. It is nonetheless willing at all times to perform those limitations on its armament which are undertaken by the other states as well. The German Reich Government has already announced certain limitations of its own regarding its intentions. It has thus best illustrated its good will to avoid an unlimited arms race. Its limitation on German air armaments at a level of parity with the other respective major western nations makes it possible at any time to fix a maximum figure with which Germany would then also be obliged to comply.

The limitation on the German Navy, amounting to thirty-five percent of the English Navy, is still fifteen percent below the total tonnage of the French fleet. Due to the fact that the opinion has been expressed in various commentaries in the press that this demand is only the beginning and would be increased to include the possession of colonies, the German Reich Government hereby makes the following binding declaration: for Germany, this demand is final and lasting.

Germany has neither the intention, the need nor the means to enter into any kind of new naval rivalry. The German Reich Government acknowledges of its own accord the paramount importance of and thus the justification for a dominating protection of the British World Empire at sea, just as we are conversely resolved to do all that is necessary to protect our own continental existence and liberty. It is the sincere intention of the German Government to do everything to find and maintain a relationship with the British people and the British State which will rule out forever a repetition of the only battle thus far between the two nations.

This was a public speech on May 21, 1935. Within a month the AGNA was signed in London.
I think the case could be rested at this point.
 
Something noteworthy: Germany did not sign, nor participate in the Washington Naval Treaty, with the legal result it was not bound to the limmitations implied in this agreement. It was however bound innitially to the restrictions imposed by the Versailles Treaty, though these were overruled by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. So legally teh Germans could produce a cruiser of more than 10,000 tons, as they were not bound to the Washington Naval Treaty. They were also not restricted to the gunscalliber on a warship either, so theoretically could have put any type of gun to their liking on the ship.

Historically the Hipper Class was designed to mount the newly developped "treaty" 8 inch gun, rather than the more German 19 cm (7.5 inch) and 21 cm (8.2 inch) guns of Krupp design. The Germans also "officially" stated the Hipper to be a 10,000 ton ship for politcical purposes , just as any nation did when producing something that was actually larger. As such the Hipper was not much different to the Japanese so called 10,000 ton cruisers (Myoko, Takao, Mogami and Tone classes), or the Italian Zara class, that all were overweight on purpose. It is interesting though the Hipper class at first was designed to mount the 19 cm gun and later on even the more common 5.9 inch gun (four tripple turrets), to make use of existing logistics, though in the end overruled by the SKL of the Kriegsmarine to mount 8 inch in the end to get parrity with other heavy cruisers in terms of size of their main artillery. For political reasons the more common 21 cm (8.2 inch) size of previous large cruiser designs from around the turn of the century was not used. (though the germans could have used it very well within the agreement restrictions.)

Also noteworthy is the way the cruisers of the Deutschland class were treated. They were labbeled as capital ships, as they were legal replacements of older, obsolete pre-Dreadnought type battleships that were overage. Though seen as cruisers by the Kriegsmarine, the politcal purpose of these three "Panzerschiffe" was to be maintained in peacetime. In case of war, these cruisers were to be used in a classical way for cruiser warfare, namely, hunting and disturbing enemy commerce. They were not supposed to fight other warships though, if they could avoid such a thing. If they did , the mission was clear the safety of the ship and its crew were priority over winning an actual fight, which is clearly why Langsdorff disengaged when he could, at River Plate. (Admiral Graf Spee also was running short on ammunition by then, as the loadout was just 100 shells for each main gun, when fully loaded. More than 60% was expended, including all HE rounds, leaving the less effective AP rounds mainly. AP on the 11 inch gun was not effective against lightly armored targets, like British Leander and Kent class cruisers, as these had mostly unarmored parts. Against a Renown these AP rounds could have been much more effective.)
 
Something noteworthy: Germany did not sign, nor participate in the Washington Naval Treaty, with the legal result it was not bound to the limmitations implied in this agreement. It was however bound innitially to the restrictions imposed by the Versailles Treaty, though these were overruled by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. So legally teh Germans could produce a cruiser of more than 10,000 tons, as they were not bound to the Washington Naval Treaty. They were also not restricted to the gunscalliber on a warship either, so theoretically could have put any type of gun to their liking on the ship.

[Snipped]

Bolding mine
And yet, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement *did* force Germany to abide by the Washington and First London Naval Treaties, so any gun calibers over 8 inches (so 8.2 inches, for example) would make it a capital ship. So you post is inaccurate, as it implies that Germany Versailles-> AGNA+freedom, when it really went Versaillles-> (AGNA+WNT+1LNT)

To clarify, they could not build a cruiser over 10,000 tons, but could build a capital ship over that. The capital ship could carry guns of up to 16 (probably 16.1 inches, since Nagato), but not exceeding. She could mount a smaller size, but this category is "any ship over 10,000 tons OR carrying gun(s) over 8 inches is a capital ship."
 
Last edited:
AGNA said:
(d)The German Government favour, in the matter of limitation of naval armaments, that system which divides naval vessels into categories, fixing the maximum tonnage and/or armament for vessels in each category, and allocates the tonnage to be allowed to each Power by categories of vessels. Consequently, in principle, and subject to (f) below, the German Government are prepared to apply the 35 per cent. ratio to the tonnage of each category of vessel to be maintained,...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
You need to study the above , basically for every raider at sea in WW-I ,the Germans sank 10 enemy merchants, while the allies needed 10 warships to hunt them down . So 20 raiders is 3 times better than historical, demanding 3 times the Wallie response....especially at the beginning when they had small U-boat fleet.

This doesn't follow. A lot of the value of a raider at sea is that it's hard to find (as it's a needle in a haystack) - but the more ships there are the more needles there are.

Let's do some modelling.


We'll assume that, in a given month, a given raider has a 1% chance of being localized and engaged per hunter group out there. This is obviously a bit inaccurate but we'll work with it.

So in timeline A the Kriegsmarine sends out Der Raider 1 in September and the British form ten hunter groups. There's a 10% chance of the DR1 being found in that month, so the average number of ships localized and engaged is 0.1.

In timeline B the Kriegsmarine sends out three Der Raiders at once in September. The British still form ten hunter groups, and there's a 10% chance for each DR being found - but there's three DRs, so to a first approximation the number of ships localized and engaged will be on average 0.3.
The rate of British shipping lost will also be three times greater, until the first DR is sunk of course.

In timeline C the Kriegsmarine has built enough Der Raiders to send out ten at once, and the British have put together the resources to manage fifteen hunter groups because of their own accelerated building. All ten Der Raiders operate independently, but the amount of shipping sunk is not fifteen times timeline A because there simply aren't many good hunting grounds for the raiders to physically be in. If Convoy PS2 is sunk by DR4, DR5 can't also sink it.
Meanwhile, the density of the RN ships on the oceans means that there's a 15% chance of any given raider being found and engaged in a given month, and what's worse there's so many more targets now that more than one DR ship will be found and engaged on average per month.


Yes, the amount of disruption caused in timeline C will be much greater in the short term. But it's a diminishing returns issue, and once the ships are sunk that's it - while if the Germans build too many ships they're both at risk of pre-1939 disruption to their timetable and 1940 disruption shaped like missing tanks in the Sickle Cut.
 
https://archive.org/stream/ReviewOfGermanCruiserWarfare19141918#page/n1/mode/2up

You need to study the above , basically for every raider at sea in WW-I ,the Germans sank 10 enemy merchants, while the allies needed 10 warships to hunt them down . So 20 raiders is 3 times better than historical, demanding 3 times the Wallie response....especially at the beginning when they had small U-boat fleet.
I would imagaine that if Germany built up naval raiders we would see the British keeping rotating fast battleground in the Denmark Straight and other approaches into the Atlantic.

Otherwise they would sector the oceans and each hunting group would get a sector avoiding the duplication of effort you would have if you had 200 hundred hunting groups trying to track 20 raiders as you suggest.
 
Suppose there's no war in 39... what would be the fate of the AGNT once the Soviet naval buildup starts? 16 Yamato equivalents would raise some eyebrows (disregard quality issues and building problems, politically the simple intention counts).

Hm, not that much IMHO. The Pacific fleet would be mostly a Japanese-USA problem, the Baltic is confined, Black Sea ditto. Northern fleet... seems manageable, under the AGNT - however, the Washington treaty may have some changes, along with the overall political climate: guarantees for Scandinavia - including Finland - at least cooperation with the Baltics, détente with Germany - as long as Adolf stays put and dont try his luck any further.
Turkey... hmhmhmh.. there could be big changes even, up to formal alliance.

always view the Soviet naval plans as best possible scenario for Germany, puts USSR on collision course with GB, Japan ... anybody else? ... Turkey, probably Iran for warm water port?

of course it is ASB or nearly for Germany to collaborate with USSR for more than short term objectives, but added qualifier "nearly" since the Soviets could provoke a shooting war with Allies if they launched so many battleships.

so instead of building two aircraft carriers and/or Bismarck and Tirpitz the Germans build battleships for sale (barter) to Soviet navy? what could they have gotten for those?
 
always view the Soviet naval plans as best possible scenario for Germany, puts USSR on collision course with GB, Japan ... anybody else? ... Turkey, probably Iran for warm water port?

of course it is ASB or nearly for Germany to collaborate with USSR for more than short term objectives, but added qualifier "nearly" since the Soviets could provoke a shooting war with Allies if they launched so many battleships.

so instead of building two aircraft carriers and/or Bismarck and Tirpitz the Germans build battleships for sale (barter) to Soviet navy? what could they have gotten for those?
Random raw materials which Germany itself does not posess, but more importantly is that building the ships puts German shipyards to work, gives them experience in construction, gives the engineers time to work on their plans and refine them for future German warships etc.

Building ships for the Sovet navy might be a bit too much of a provocation though, maybe they could do it for the Chinese one instead?
 
Also noteworthy is the way the cruisers of the Deutschland class were treated. They were labbeled as capital ships, as they were legal replacements of older, obsolete pre-Dreadnought type battleships that were overage.
The Deutschlands did mirror the predreadnought layout (fore-aft main armament), and would not have looked out of place in the Kaiser's navy. Though the aircraft, radar, turbines and triple turrets would have been noteworthy.
 
The Deutschlands did mirror the predreadnought layout (fore-aft main armament), and would not have looked out of place in the Kaiser's navy. Though the aircraft, radar, turbines and triple turrets would have been noteworthy.

It did visually look a bit like a Pre-Dreadnought indeed, with only two turrets for main artillery, thouhg on a typical cruiser shaped hull, with narrow and fine lines suggesting speed, besides basically a modest (even for a cruiser) scale of protection. As such they were cruisers, something the Germans knew already when designing them, as the battleship was ruled out as being not what they intended it to become, within, more or less, the Versailles restrictions.
 
Bolding mine
And yet, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement *did* force Germany to abide by the Washington and First London Naval Treaties, so any gun calibers over 8 inches (so 8.2 inches, for example) would make it a capital ship. So you post is inaccurate, as it implies that Germany Versailles-> AGNA+freedom, when it really went Versaillles-> (AGNA+WNT+1LNT)

To clarify, they could not build a cruiser over 10,000 tons, but could build a capital ship over that. The capital ship could carry guns of up to 16 (probably 16.1 inches, since Nagato), but not exceeding. She could mount a smaller size, but this category is "any ship over 10,000 tons OR carrying gun(s) over 8 inches is a capital ship."


Here you miss the point to be honest: Germany was never mentioned by the Washington Naval treaty (as was the USSR). Although other nations looked at the WNT as a guide to build their new warships, even when not realy a signatory partner of it, some did not. Gemany and the USSR for instance were not bound to the Treaty and could build theoretically what they wanted, though other treaties might put other restrictions on it.

In case of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Germans designed the Hipper class more or less to WNT size, mainly for political purposes, not because they were bound to it. Germany at this time did not want to look much different in a time of relatively less tension (early 30's), just to please the British at this time. Hitler at this stage in his reign wanted to treat teh British as a might be friend still. This would have been more complicated, when openly ordering much more powerful cruisers that had no equals on paper still. Theoretically the Kriegsmarine could have build cruisers with bigger guns, but they simply did not. Whatever other nations would say about the new German designs, they did not have any legitimate reason to do so, as the German and Soviet Navies had no restrictions on size of an individual vessel and type. (Besides the Versailles treaty, untill overruled by the AGNA.) Germany at this stage in history just wanted to play it safe and prevent too much negative attention.

Besides that, no one knew the IJN actually had armed the Nagato's with 16.1 inch (410mm) guns. Officially they had 16 inch (406mm). The correct size was only measured in 1945, after Nagato surrendered to the Allies. (as was Yamato's correct size of guns, officially also a new model 16 inch gun, in reality 18.1 inch (460mm))
 
Here you miss the point to be honest: Germany was never mentioned by the Washington Naval treaty (as was the USSR). Although other nations looked at the WNT as a guide to build their new warships, even when not realy a signatory partner of it, some did not. Gemany and the USSR for instance were not bound to the Treaty and could build theoretically what they wanted, though other treaties might put other restrictions on it.

In case of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Germans designed the Hipper class more or less to WNT size, mainly for political purposes, not because they were bound to it. Germany at this time did not want to look much different in a time of relatively less tension (early 30's), just to please the British at this time. Hitler at this stage in his reign wanted to treat teh British as a might be friend still. This would have been more complicated, when openly ordering much more powerful cruisers that had no equals on paper still. Theoretically the Kriegsmarine could have build cruisers with bigger guns, but they simply did not. Whatever other nations would say about the new German designs, they did not have any legitimate reason to do so, as the German and Soviet Navies had no restrictions on size of an individual vessel and type. (Besides the Versailles treaty, untill overruled by the AGNA.) Germany at this stage in history just wanted to play it safe and prevent too much negative attention.
It's not that the treaty banned construction of pocket battleships it's that the treaty devolved responsibility for the setting of categories to the naval powers acting collectively through naval agreements which made the and London naval treaty binding on Germany.
Categories for the purposes of the agna is set by the traditional naval powers through general naval treaties. One of the general naval treaties says that a cruiser is less than 10k tons with guns of less than 8 inches then it is only those ships less than 10k tons with guns of less than 8 inches that count as a cruiser for germanys allowance in the agna.

It's not that Germany is bound by naval treaties other than the agna but rather that the agna gives the naval powers acting through treaty the right to set categories of ships which will be used in determining tonnage for the agna.
 
Hitler "did" this in OTL, claiming the Twins were 26,000 tons and had 11" armament. Using that, Germany's 175k is 10 ships.

Er, 175 to 184 divided by 26 is 7... and you need to scrap the three Deutschlands, which are in the same class (capital ships).

Alternatively you can keep the Deutschlands and, pushing the envelope (as the Germans were wont to do) you end up with... the 6 Scharnhorst the OP wanted, plus the 3 Deutschlands. As mentioned upthread.
 
Er, 175 to 184 divided by 26 is 7... and you need to scrap the three Deutschlands, which are in the same class (capital ships).

Alternatively you can keep the Deutschlands and, pushing the envelope (as the Germans were wont to do) you end up with... the 6 Scharnhorst the OP wanted, plus the 3 Deutschlands. As mentioned upthread.


decommission the Deutschland strip them down to weather decks . Reuse armaments in follow on raiders and convert Deutschland into simplified flat top.
 
That Depends on you view of minor. The German army was not an existential threat to the UK, the Luftwaffe was more of a threat, and thus the RAF got the major share of rearmament 1937 to 1939 along with AA defenses. .

RN expansion in 1937 was fixed by shipbuilding Infrastructure. It was possible to increase the investment in facilities to increase shipbuilding capacity the AGNA gave the treasury the leverage to prevent this.

Anyway German Naval construction was maxed out they don't have the Yard capacity to lay down 8 14000 tonne ships in one year and don't have industrial capacity to make 48 11 inch guns by 1936 which part of german rearmament should be sacrificed to ensure this happens ?



Actually they did have the NAVAL industry but since I've said that many times you will have to figure this out your self. Her are some resources to study.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/index.html

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

check out Koop & Schmolke books on HIPPER . I'm sure there are other sources.
Its doable
 

hipper

Banned
Er, 175 to 184 divided by 26 is 7... and you need to scrap the three Deutschlands, which are in the same class (capital ships).

Alternatively you can keep the Deutschlands and, pushing the envelope (as the Germans were wont to do) you end up with... the 6 Scharnhorst the OP wanted, plus the 3 Deutschlands. As mentioned upthread.

I was quoting Thrawn but messed up the quotes,

However reviewing german naval procurement shows that this is all a fantasy the Nazis built 10 warships larger than 10000 tonnes and completed 8 of them if they had been smart perhaps they could have built a 10 "10,000 " ton heavy Cruisers with Diesel cursing engines and steam plants for top speed, but that would have maxed out shipyard capacity.
 

hipper

Banned
Actually they did have the NAVAL industry but since I've said that many times you will have to figure this out your self. Her are some resources to study.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/index.html

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

check out Koop & Schmolke books on HIPPER . I'm sure there are other sources.
Its doable

Why did first capital ships built by the Nazis fire a shell that weighed half of the shell of the "poorly armed" KGV ?

Because the naval industry had atrophied After WW1 and they had to reconstruct the infrastructure to build large naval guns.

They did not have the shipyards to lay down 8 PB's in one year and never finished a major warship in less than 4 years.

You seem to be suggesting they can complete a PB in 2 years.
 
It did visually look a bit like a Pre-Dreadnought indeed, with only two turrets for main artillery, thouhg on a typical cruiser shaped hull, with narrow and fine lines suggesting speed, besides basically a modest (even for a cruiser) scale of protection. As such they were cruisers, something the Germans knew already when designing them, as the battleship was ruled out as being not what they intended it to become, within, more or less, the Versailles restrictions.
Sort of like an early 1930s version of the British-built Swiftsure class.
 
Here you miss the point to be honest: Germany was never mentioned by the Washington Naval treaty (as was the USSR). Although other nations looked at the WNT as a guide to build their new warships, even when not realy a signatory partner of it, some did not. Gemany and the USSR for instance were not bound to the Treaty and could build theoretically what they wanted, though other treaties might put other restrictions on it.

In case of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Germans designed the Hipper class more or less to WNT size, mainly for political purposes, not because they were bound to it. Germany at this time did not want to look much different in a time of relatively less tension (early 30's), just to please the British at this time. Hitler at this stage in his reign wanted to treat teh British as a might be friend still. This would have been more complicated, when openly ordering much more powerful cruisers that had no equals on paper still. Theoretically the Kriegsmarine could have build cruisers with bigger guns, but they simply did not. Whatever other nations would say about the new German designs, they did not have any legitimate reason to do so, as the German and Soviet Navies had no restrictions on size of an individual vessel and type. (Besides the Versailles treaty, untill overruled by the AGNA.) Germany at this stage in history just wanted to play it safe and prevent too much negative attention.

Besides that, no one knew the IJN actually had armed the Nagato's with 16.1 inch (410mm) guns. Officially they had 16 inch (406mm). The correct size was only measured in 1945, after Nagato surrendered to the Allies. (as was Yamato's correct size of guns, officially also a new model 16 inch gun, in reality 18.1 inch (460mm))

Again, you are mistaken. Germany went from being limited by the Versailles treaty, to being limited by the Anglo German Naval Treaty, which the text states that classes and tonnages are limited per other treaties, which would be the WNT and the 1LNT. You can read the text, it states that, and Michele was kind enough to quote the applicable part. So again, Germany can either be limited by Versailles, or be limited by the AGNA+WNT+1LNT, or declare Versailles null and void on its own, and face the polical costs. It CANNOT choose the AGNA, but not the WNT and the 1LNT. The text of AGNA means if Germany acts like she isn't bound by the WNT and 1LNT, Germany is breaking international treaties that other nations care about (Munich serious level breach, not Saarland), which means the political tensions of 1939 are brought forward 3 years, while Germany is very weak.

Your very point about the USSR drives this home. Versailles says what Germany can build. AGNA, which Germany signed OTL, includes text that Germany will be bound by the provisions of the WNT and the 1LNT. Look at what Michele quoted; for me, it's post 185. The Soviets never signed any of these treaties, therefore they were not bound. Germany did sign, and was bound. These treaties are widely available, can you please quote the clause in the AGNA that you feel allows Germany to build whatever she desires?
 
Last edited:
Top