Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

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?

the whole point of the exercise from German point of view IS provocation, to get Soviets (Stalin) to waste time and resources on navy instead of say ... tanks? gain raw materials for themselves and provoke the Allies into striking Soviets.

that was whole point of "offering" Iran, India, all points south in historical Axis talks, to have the Soviets fight Great Britain.
 
the whole point of the exercise from German point of view IS provocation, to get Soviets (Stalin) to waste time and resources on navy instead of say ... tanks? gain raw materials for themselves and provoke the Allies into striking Soviets.

that was whole point of "offering" Iran, India, all points south in historical Axis talks, to have the Soviets fight Great Britain.
I meant that building the ships for the Soviets might be seen as a provocation by Germany. Few people really cared about what the Soviets were doing, even less cared about what the Chinese were doing.
 
I meant that building the ships for the Soviets might be seen as a provocation by Germany. Few people really cared about what the Soviets were doing, even less cared about what the Chinese were doing.

my scenario was not that they would be building MORE ships than historical just that Bismarck-Tirpitz built instead for Soviets (or similar sized ships) so not sure how it would be more (or less) provocative than IOTL? (by Germany)

the provocation would be that Soviets beginning naval expansion, that is directed more at RN and Japan, and US?

have never seen China interested in any large warships? they had deal for u-boats and S-boats not delivered due to Japanese request/pressure.
 
my scenario was not that they would be building MORE ships than historical just that Bismarck-Tirpitz built instead for Soviets (or similar sized ships) so not sure how it would be more (or less) provocative than IOTL? (by Germany)

the provocation would be that Soviets beginning naval expansion, that is directed more at RN and Japan, and US?

have never seen China interested in any large warships? they had deal for u-boats and S-boats not delivered due to Japanese request/pressure.

China actually was so much devided in regions, there was no such thing as a true national navy in the first place. Local commands at a seaboard had their own vessels under local control and supervission, even made more complex due to the Japanese conquest of many parts in the East especially.
 
I always thought a ship halfway between Scharnhorst and Bismarck would be useful..
8 13.8" guns
30 knot speed
Good armour.
Could it be managed under 35,000 tons?
 

hipper

Banned
I always thought a ship halfway between Scharnhorst and Bismarck would be useful..
8 13.8" guns
30 knot speed
Good armour.
Could it be managed under 35,000 tons?

On 26,000 tonnes Strasbourg and Dunkquere 8 x 13.2 11 and a bit inch belt 30+ knots

The French thought so too
 
what was their reasoning on that? they also kept the 2 calibers of secondary guns, as opposed to French ships.
German ships are more likely to be retreating, so want heavy guns to cover that. Plus I think the Germans had higher reserve buoyancy requirements (like the USN and IJN) so get less benefit out of the all forward arrangement

French actually reverted to two caliber secondary arrangement, idea was DD's had gotten so big you needed a 150-155mm gun to reliably stop them, but that was too big for AA so needed a ~105mm gun for that. They also reverted from the all forward arrangement with Gascogne and the Alsace class
 
what was their reasoning on that? they also kept the 2 calibers of secondary guns, as opposed to French ships.
As Raider said.
They also thought that it was better to have as many turrets as possible, which is why they had the twin layout and B&T. The reason being that if a turret was knocked out, they would lose as much firepower as if a quad on, let's say a KGV had.
 
German ships are more likely to be retreating, so want heavy guns to cover that. Plus I think the Germans had higher reserve buoyancy requirements (like the USN and IJN) so get less benefit out of the all forward arrangement

French actually reverted to two caliber secondary arrangement, idea was DD's had gotten so big you needed a 150-155mm gun to reliably stop them, but that was too big for AA so needed a ~105mm gun for that. They also reverted from the all forward arrangement with Gascogne and the Alsace class

The first specifications for the what was to become Bismarck Class were excactly that: 8 x 13.8 inch in four twin mountings. Later it was enlarged to accomodate the 15 inch (and at a time speculated for 16 inch as well).


The German Armamentsindustry so far had not even thought of a dual purpose weapon, let alone design one. A mixed secondary batery was therefor a logical outcome, just as the Frecnh did eventually on the Richelieu, as the DP 6 inch tripples were not relioable to act as AA weapon, though designed to perform in that role at first. Only the US and UK actually had more or less reliable DP mounts on warships, acting as secondaries on both cruisers and battleships, as well as on aircraft carriers. As such these were not always effective in both anti-air and anti surface weapons. Some, like the USN 5 inch/38 were excelent in the AA role, but a bit leightweight (relatively small shell used with low velocity) against larger surfacetargets, while the British 5.25 inch was a good anti surface weapon, but a bit unwieldy as AA gun. Simmilarly the French 6 inch on the Richelieu was a bit on the large size and slow in rate of fire to be an effective AA gun, though superior in surface engagements. The German 5.9 inch secondaries on the battleships were equally excelent in their primary role as deterent against destroyers, while the 4.1 icnh AA guns were excelent in their AA role as well. As such no ship had the best outfit, as the mixed battery on teh german ships waisted weight, but resulted in relatively potent defenses, while the DP outfit on USN and Royal Navy Battelships were a mixed blessing, with either a weak anti surface deterent, or a less effective AA.
 
As Raider said.
They also thought that it was better to have as many turrets as possible, which is why they had the twin layout and B&T. The reason being that if a turret was knocked out, they would lose as much firepower as if a quad on, let's say a KGV had.
Also gunnery worked quiet a bit better in terms of accuracy before radar with at least 3 turrets. The twin turrets meant you could lose a turret and still be functional for accuracy purposes.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Also gunnery worked quiet a bit better in terms of accuracy before radar with at least 3 turrets. The twin turrets meant you could lose a turret and still be functional for accuracy purposes.
Indeed, you would fire ladder salvos with alternating guns on the turrets - spread one for range, one for bearing. That gave you a solution much quicker in the cycle time of one set of guns.
 
Top