Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...deration-from-the-start.421976/#post-15251820

Who cares what the British want....as I calculated on the above thread, if there was any value behind the British agreement to allow Germany 35% fleet , that would mean they were allowed to build



Looks like 23 by 1939 with another 11 building....so short answer was yes they could build them and were allowed to build them by treaty....plus a lot more!

Two naive mistakes here.

The first is related with the fact that we're talking about Scharnhorst-class vessels here. They are capital ships; battlecruisers, not cruisers. They will never ever be compared with CAs or CLs.

The second is more systemic and fundamental. You are assuming the 35% clause applies to the number of vessels in a class. On the contrary, it applies to the tonnage of vessels in a class.

So, even if you were right - which you aren't - that the Germans could have a 35% ratio of Scharnhorsts for every 100% of British CAs, then the Germans could get one Scharnhorst (30,000 tons) for every 9 10,000-ton British cruisers. This is roughly the top displacement for British heavy cruisers. If you start taking into account light cruisers, you'll need even more British hulls to make up for three times the tonnage of a Scharnhorst.
Assuming that each and every one of those 66 British cruisers of 1939 displaced 10,000 tons (which they didn't), and further assuming that the british would be so foolish to class the Scharnhorst as if it were such a cruiser, you'd get 9 (nine) such units under the treaty, not 23.
 
Two naive mistakes here.

The first is related with the fact that we're talking about Scharnhorst-class vessels here. They are capital ships; battlecruisers, not cruisers. They will never ever be compared with CAs or CLs.

The second is more systemic and fundamental. You are assuming the 35% clause applies to the number of vessels in a class. On the contrary, it applies to the tonnage of vessels in a class.

So, even if you were right - which you aren't - that the Germans could have a 35% ratio of Scharnhorsts for every 100% of British CAs, then the Germans could get one Scharnhorst (30,000 tons) for every 9 10,000-ton British cruisers. This is roughly the top displacement for British heavy cruisers. If you start taking into account light cruisers, you'll need even more British hulls to make up for three times the tonnage of a Scharnhorst.
Assuming that each and every one of those 66 British cruisers of 1939 displaced 10,000 tons (which they didn't), and further assuming that the british would be so foolish to class the Scharnhorst as if it were such a cruiser, you'd get 9 (nine) such units under the treaty, not 23.
He has moved on to talking about a fleet of panzerschiffe instead of Scharnhorst classes.

However according to treaty these are also battleships

I refer to paragraph d of the Anglo German naval agreement deferring the responsibility to set categories that bind the parties of the agna to the agreement of the powers in general naval limitations treaty.

(d)The German Government favour, 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, and to make any variation of this ratio in a particular category or categories dependent on the arrangements to this end that may be arrived at in a future general treaty on naval limitation, such arrangements being based on the principle that any increase in one category would be compensated for by a corresponding reduction in others.

I also refer to article 11 of the Washington naval treaty and article 1B of the second London naval treaty which defines a capital ship as any ship that is either above 10,000 tonnes or carrying a gun exceeding 8 inches.

This strictly means that both Scharnhorst and Gneisau and the panzerschiffe count as capital ships under the agna.

Finally it's important to note that the calculation of the British capital ships 15+5 does not allow the Germans 35% of 20 capital ships (totalling whatever combined tonnage) instead the KGV class was considered replacement ships for the R class under the treaties so it's only 35% of 15 capital ships that the Germans were allowed to build upto.
 
Indeed, it's not by chance that the original poster proposed 6 Scharnhorst-class ships. That would be 186,000 tons, which is close to the figure that Ruge says was allowed for capital ships under the 35% clause (he says 184,000), and only a bit above my own calculation based on the 1939 British order of battle (166,000).

Note however that the Germans, if they wanted to comply with the Agreement, would not only be barred from building the two heavyweights Bismarck and Tirpitz. They would also be barred from building all the pocket battleships and all the battlecruisers.
They would end up having only those 6 Scharnhorsts.
 
Indeed, it's not by chance that the original poster proposed 6 Scharnhorst-class ships. That would be 186,000 tons, which is close to the figure that Ruge says was allowed for capital ships under the 35% clause (he says 184,000), and only a bit above my own calculation based on the 1939 British order of battle (166,000).

Note however that the Germans, if they wanted to comply with the Agreement, would not only be barred from building the two heavyweights Bismarck and Tirpitz. They would also be barred from building all the pocket battleships and all the battlecruisers.
They would end up having only those 6 Scharnhorsts.
I believe 186,000 figure is the British 1939 oob with declared replacements ie with 5 kgv class instead of 5 R class. When the kgv were laid down they were laid down as replacement tonnage for the R class.

You are right that the panzerschiffe which predated the agna would have to be disposed of to get to 6 Scharnhorst class. I wonder how easy it would be to put an 8 inch barrell into a 11 inch turret and convert them into heavy cruisers.
 
I believe 186,000 figure is the British 1939 oob with declared replacements ie with 5 kgv class instead of 5 R class. When the kgv were laid down they were laid down as replacement tonnage for the R class.

You are right that the panzerschiffe which predated the agna would have to be disposed of to get to 6 Scharnhorst class. I wonder how easy it would be to put an 8 inch barrell into a 11 inch turret and convert them into heavy cruisers.

No, 186k is my own calculation of how much 6 31,000-ton Scharnhorst would displace. There is some considerable slack if one keeps in mind that you had standard, empty-weight, official and whatnot displacements. Ruge's figure of 184k is, now I see, referring to the 1936 situation.

Yes, the three Panzerschiffe existed already, so it isn't correct that the Germans couldn't build them - to be precise, they'd have to scrap them, as you say. Or convert them as you mention, though I don't see Hitler going for a smaller gun on anything within his sight.
 
Indeed, it's not by chance that the original poster proposed 6 Scharnhorst-class ships. That would be 186,000 tons, which is close to the figure that Ruge says was allowed for capital ships under the 35% clause (he says 184,000), and only a bit above my own calculation based on the 1939 British order of battle (166,000).

Note however that the Germans, if they wanted to comply with the Agreement, would not only be barred from building the two heavyweights Bismarck and Tirpitz. They would also be barred from building all the pocket battleships and all the battlecruisers.
They would end up having only those 6 Scharnhorsts.

what are you calculating the allowance for carriers to be? and how (opinion) do you think the British look at them with 16 - 5.9" guns? (not the particular flawed design they produced, just the idea of large fast ship equipped with that many guns?)

also if ships are being constructed for another nation (USSR) at what stage of construction does that become issue under AGNA? or they need to be even towed to destination country, etc. or it looks like ... Russian collusion (OMG) ... or is it just your ship until its no longer in your possession?
 
what are you calculating the allowance for carriers to be? and how (opinion) do you think the British look at them with 16 - 5.9" guns? (not the particular flawed design they produced, just the idea of large fast ship equipped with that many guns?)

also if ships are being constructed for another nation (USSR) at what stage of construction does that become issue under AGNA? or they need to be even towed to destination country, etc. or it looks like ... Russian collusion (OMG) ... or is it just your ship until its no longer in your possession?
A carrier is defined by treaty as being a ship over 10,000 guns with no guns greater than 6 inches. I guess they are just trying to sneak under that.

Secondly it's 16 guns in classmates and not turrets. This is an important distinction. It's unlikely to be able to bring more than 4 guns at any target. A light cruiser would have significant advantages over the Graf zepplin in a gun battle.
 
Exploit treaties? If you implicate, that the Deutschland-class was an exploitation of any treaty, well, the ship designed according to the ToV. And you are right, the brits effectively ripped apart that treaty with their naval agreement. Which i found somewhat amusing.

As for the mission kill part... by how? The "common knowledge", hit on the diesel purification plant have no trace in the german AAR, the Uruguayian report or whatsoever. Battle damage was endurable.
Ammo stocks, general wear on machinery on the other hands...

Langsdorff IMHO did not killed himself without a reason. He made a serious row of bad calls right from the decision to turn towards Montevideo.

No - building the 3 Panzerschiffe was fine - building 23 of them not so fine.

Given that France built 2 Dunkerques specifically designed in response to the 3 Panzerschiffe what do you think the reaction would be if they starting building lots more of them?

If the damage was as slight as you suggest why did he retreat?

Langsdorff wanted at lest 2 weeks to repair the damage so it must have been a little less 'endurable' than you suggest and I've not seen the German AAR - does it even exist? - the information must have come from somewhere! I appreciate that sometimes historians repeat flawed information till it becomes 'canon' but I have always seen this damage as one of the main reasons for the subsequent actions i.e. why did the ships run to MV?
 
also if ships are being constructed for another nation (USSR) at what stage of construction does that become issue under AGNA? or they need to be even towed to destination country, etc. or it looks like ... Russian collusion (OMG) ... or is it just your ship until its no longer in your possession?

The Agreement concerned the German navy. A ship built for another country and then commissioned in that country's navy would never be a problem.
I don't think there would be any danger of a "Russian" collusion, nor of a Soviet one. We're talking 1935 to 1939, a period over which the Soviet Union was no longer colluding with Germany. There is a reason if the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in the summer of 1939, came as a surprise to everybody.
 
what are you calculating the allowance for carriers to be? and how (opinion) do you think the British look at them with 16 - 5.9" guns? (not the particular flawed design they produced, just the idea of large fast ship equipped with that many guns?)

With a smirk, i presume. At least the Eagle had big guns, if i remember correctly, the IJN carriers too, not to mention the Lexingtons. By that time, carrier navies were all have the knowledge, that gun CVs are extremely situational and generally a dead end - a knowledge they chose not to share with the germans.
Of course, they should have noticed, that the newer CVs were armed with DP guns mainly AA role in mind, but... well, the idea to create the ultimate merchant raider maybe was too tempting.


No - building the 3 Panzerschiffe was fine - building 23 of them not so fine.

Given that France built 2 Dunkerques specifically designed in response to the 3 Panzerschiffe what do you think the reaction would be if they starting building lots more of them?

A potential number of 6 was enough for the AGNA. Above that number an instant war not out of the question.
If the damage was as slight as you suggest why did he retreat?
Good question. I may be not that wrong, that many would have been interested in the answer.
[/QUOTE]
Langsdorff wanted at lest 2 weeks to repair the damage so it must have been a little less 'endurable' than you suggest and I've not seen the German AAR - does it even exist? - the information must have come from somewhere! I appreciate that sometimes historians repeat flawed information till it becomes 'canon' but I have always seen this damage as one of the main reasons for the subsequent actions i.e. why did the ships run to MV?[/QUOTE]

He wanted 30 days even, the ship before the battle was already need some dockyard time. By the reports to the Embassy, the Uruguayans, etc, any damage to any fuel purification plant were not mentioned.
http://warships1discussionboards.yu...an-Capital-Diesel-Engines?page=3#.WW91cVFLeUk

And why did he? well, he had a concussion just before, in his first command under fire, he was tired and he just made some bad calls before. Im afraid, he lost it.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Indeed I did propose the 6 Scharnhorsts to be at the maximum of capital ship tonnage allowed, though I neglected to consider the Deutschland class would be considered capital ships as well.

In my view, they offer the best bet if Germany wished to pursue capital ships. Massed, they posed a significant threat to even battleships, which would stress the Royal Navy to provide adequate escort for convoys while still maintaining adequate forces for other operations.

Though they would need to be redesigned a bit to be an optimal solution.
 
A carrier is defined by treaty as being a ship over 10,000 guns with no guns greater than 6 inches. I guess they are just trying to sneak under that.

Secondly it's 16 guns in classmates and not turrets. This is an important distinction. It's unlikely to be able to bring more than 4 guns at any target. A light cruiser would have significant advantages over the Graf zepplin in a gun battle.

Graf Zeppeling was designed to act as a commerce raider like most larger german warships of her day, so needed a certain means to deal with merchantships quickly, Her heavy AA was considered not enough for that purpose, so the cassemated 5.9 inch twin guns were included in the design, just for that purpose. These guns were not to be used against warships, as the German Navy correctly assumed that the main defense was by her aircraft. (At some time the Graf Zeppelin was also to have included torpedotubes btw, just for the german practice of finishing off a detained merchant ship quickly, like the HSK´s performed in reality.)
 
There were. With combined diesel-turbine propulsion, 30,5 guns, more armour, etc.

The reference to dual propulsion systems makes me think of the O-Klasse battlecruisers, but they would have had 6x381mms (on 35,000 tons).

More suitable for raiding would have been the P-Klasse heavy cruisers, with 6x280mms on 24,000 tons, but with 25,000 n miles of range. The 280mms are enough for any standard or light cruisers, and the range is very nice.

Both would outrun inter-war battleships, the former with 35 knots, the latter with 33.
 
First off agna was by tonneage not by number of ships.

Secondly the categories were those agreed to by the major naval powers in their treaties.

This meant that anything with guns over 8 inches was a battleship.


BEST Germany can do is to ignore treaty and build what they need
 

Saphroneth

Banned
BEST Germany can do is to ignore treaty and build what they need
If you ignore treaties, you get beaties.

Okay, less slogan-y and more specific - if a nation is ignoring treaties, then it is signalling that it will not follow treaties in future. This has a knock-on effect on the course of the 1930s for Germany, depending on how soon they do it - just as an example, if the Sudetenland Agreement doesn't happen and instead a war breaks out in 1938, Germany is proper fucked.
 
BEST Germany can do is to ignore treaty and build what they need
I suppose a quick 6 month war in which Germany gets beaten down and you avoid the depravations of bomber command and war with the Soviets is the best Germany can do.
 
Last edited:
I suppose a quick 6 month war in which Germany gets beaten down and you avoid the depravations of bomber command and war with the Soviets is the best Germany can do.

No one was prepared to goto war against another European nation in the 30's except Italy and Germany perhaps. UK and France certainly, due to internal problems and economic resession were absolutely not willing to go to war with whoever was irritating them. (Otherwisem they would have fought Italy due to its agression in Abbessina, Germany and USSR due to interfering in the Spanish Civil War and don't forget Japan's agression in China.) It is too simple to state someone would go to war, like an idiot being not treated the way he wanted. We are speaking of civilized democracies here, who were trying to avoid war, whenever possible, not rougue cowboy states.
 
Top