Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

BTW, Explain how a continental nation, like Germany can be a threat to a maritime nation withj the biggest fleet in the world, by just building three odd cruisers?



The fact that you are unable to answer the question yourself means you have a poor grasp of the whole situation.

These three "odd cruisers" - which were actually, under treaty definition, capital ships - by their design were sending a clear message, in two parts:

1. The range and speed says "we're commerce raiders". And that was being told to a country whose lifeline is the sea lanes.
2. The gun caliber says "we will outgun and overpower your 8"-armed standard cruisers". I.e., if you send out a standard cruiser to protect your merchant shipping, it won't be enough.

So, apart from the treaty definition, functionally these were very threatening ships and nothing like a "cruiser", not even a "heavy cruiser". For three of these, the British wouldn't go to war - my compliments, good guess, in fact it did not happen in OTL. Yet they were enough to start the need for the AGNA. Add 6 Scharnhorsts? Well.

The UK had around 50 cruisers against these three of comparable and slightly smaller size, though with smaller guns.

OK, I'm curious. Could you list these British 50 cruisers? To be of "comparable or slightly smaller size" to warships that displaced 10,800 to 13,000 tons, they have to be at least 9,500 tons in displacement.
 
Last edited:
Not in OTL, yeah.

In OTL you have this sequence:
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland - the British don't worry because after all it's part of Germany and it was an unreasonable clause of Versailles anyway.
- Rearmament - the British don't worry because it was another unreasonable clause of Versailles and because the AGNA contains the naval part of it... the part of German rearmament that is most worrisome to the British.
-Annexation of Austria - the British don't worry because to some extent the Austrians were OK with that.
- Annexation of the Sudeten - the British accept that grudgingly, provided that Germany undertakes a commitment to stop there.
- Dismemberment of the remaining Czechoslovakia - the British enter a military alliance with the next target, Poland, because this is the proof that Germany can't be trusted when it undertakes a commitment, i.e. it's bent on war no matter what.

In this ATL you have a similar sequence:
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland - the British don't worry because after all it's part of Germany and it was an unreasonable clause of Versailles anyway.
- Rearmament - the British don't worry because it was another unreasonable clause of Versailles and because the AGNA contains the naval part of it... the part of German rearmament that is most worrisome to the British.
-Annexation of Austria - the British don't worry because to some extent the Austrians were OK with that.
- Annexation of the Sudeten - the British accept that grudgingly, provided that Germany undertakes a commitment to stop there.
- Blatant violation of the AGNA - the British enter a military alliance with the next target, the rump Czechoslovakia, because this is the proof that Germany can't be trusted when it undertakes a commitment, i.e. it's bent on war no matter what.

Read again my post about vital national interests.
That all depends on the sequence though - if the German naval rearmament starts post the Sudetenland annexation, it might well be too late to contribute to the coming war. Some of the posts have suggested that the Germans should have started laying down such a fleet even before the reoccupied the Rhineland. That then gives you the following sequence.

- The Germans lay down a large fleet of commerce raiding cruisers - the British start to get very anxious, since this is clearly designed as a threat to the UK rather than a national prestige project.
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland - the British freak out and support the French in reoccupying it, since the Germans seem determined to tear up Versailles and start a war. The German forces immediately withdraw without a shot being fired (as per their OTL orders), and Hitler suffers a huge loss in prestige.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It's actually interesting because Blatant AGNA Violation actually turns whatever Germany's next step is (except perhaps the Anschluss?) into The Red Line.
 
While announcing six of these all at the same time in say 1934 or 1935 will certainly be a red flag to John Bull, maybe they could be staggered in pairs. If the last pair is laid down by mid-1938, the British by then are almost starting to react anyway, and this final pair might be ready by mid-1941. Or heck, make that 1939 to 1942. After all, it's not as if the real counterparts were ready in September 1939.

Or maybe make just four of those. Even if you forego the additional two, for what the Bismarck and Tirpitz achieved you are probably just OK anyway, and you've spared money, steel and time.

OK, given the average quality of the posting in this thread, I think I'll try to put down something more productive along these lines.

The requirements are to do as much as possible in this category of naval construction, and at the same time not to provoke Britain (and other powers) too much; at least, not until it's too late anyway.
The items in the list are construction projects and PR/diplomatic initiatives

1929-1935 Build the 3 Deutschland-class ships, hastening the commissioning of the last one a year.
1933-1935 Leak stories according to which these ships undergo embarrassing failures; they are not very seaworthy, their engines break down etc. (no need for excessive exaggerations here). The first one seems to be very disaster-prone.
1935 Lay down the first two Scharnhorst-class ships.
1935 Do not reject all Versailles disarmament clauses openly. Propose a naval conference. Drag diplomatic feet until next year.
1936 Sign AGNA a year later but basically with the same clauses. The only exception is that you undertake a commitment to turn Deutschland into a training ship as soon as Scharnhorst is ready. You can justify this by pointing out that the Deutschland (not the least because of the name) is nothing but a big embarrassment.

Now you have some 190,000 tons available for anything larger than a cruiser. You insist that the existing Deutschland class ships are 11,000 tons (they are bigger, but not officially). The Scharnhorst will count only as a replacement of the Deutschland, so you have an 11,000-ton freebie.

Your official program in 1936 amounts to:
3 Deutschland class, in service, total 33,000;
2 Scharnhorst class, in construction, total 62,000;
Grand total 95,000, you're more than OK.

In 1937, you lay down two more Scharnhorsts. These can't be ready before 1940, but it's not so bad. Your official program now amounts to a total of 157,000. It's enough to make British admirals very unhappy, but you're still within the AGNA limitations and far from making headlines in London.

In 1938, you lay down one more Scharnhorst (will be ready in early 1941) and downgrade the Deutschland as a training ship; you're doing it earlier than you promised, which should give some positive coverage. Your total is now 177,000. More and more worrisome, you are in the headlines now, but still within treaty limitations.

In 1939, you lay down the last Scharnhorst (will be ready in 1942) and countermand the status of the Deutschland, turning it to active duty again, your total is now 219,000 tons but you don't care any more. By mid 1939, 3 Deutschlands and 2 Scharnhorsts will be in service.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm curious. Could you list these British 50 cruisers? To be of "comparable or slightly smaller size" to warships that displaced 10,800 to 13,000 tons, they have to be at least 9,500 tons in displacement.

All I'm getting is the county and the York classes the others being light cruisers would not be able to stand upto a heavy cruiser and a pocket battleship could trash them unless they had a distraction to help them into range.
OK, given the average quality of the posting in this thread, I think I'll try to put down something more productive along these lines.

The requirements are to do as much as possible in this category of naval construction, and at the same time not to provoke Britain (and other powers) too much; at least, not until it's too late anyway.
The items in the list are construction projects and PR/diplomatic initiatives

1929-1935 Build the 3 Deutschland-class ships, hastening the commissioning of the last one a year.
1933-1935 Leak stories according to which these ships undergo embarrassing failures; they are not very seaworthy, their engines break down etc. (no need for excessive exaggerations here). The first one seems to be very disaster-prone.
1935 Lay down the first two Scharnhorst-class ships.
1935 Do not reject all Versailles disarmament clauses openly. Propose a naval conference. Drag diplomatic feet until next year.
1936 Sign AGNA a year later but basically with the same clauses. The only exception is that you undertake a commitment to turn Deutschland into a training ship as soon as Scharnhorst is ready. You can justify this by pointing out that the Deutschland (not the least because of the name) is nothing but a big embarrassment.

Now you have some 190,000 tons available for anything larger than a cruiser. You insist that the existing Deutschland class ships are 11,000 tons (they are bigger, but not officially). The Scharnhorst will count only as a replacement of the Deutschland, so you have an 11,000-ton freebie.

Your official program in 1936 amounts to:
3 Deutschland class, in service, total 33,000;
2 Scharnhorst class, in construction, total 62,000;
Grand total 95,000, you're more than OK.

In 1937, you lay down two more Scharnhorsts. These can't be ready before 1940, but it's not so bad. Your official program now amounts to a total of 157,000. It's enough to make British admirals very unhappy, but you're still within the AGNA limits and far from making headlines in London.

In 1938, you lay down one more Scharnhorst (will be ready in early 1941) and downgrade the Deutschland as a training ship; you're doing it on advance on what you promised. Your total is now 177,000. More and more worrisome, but still within treaty limitations.

In 1939, you lay down the last Scharnhorst (will be ready in 1942) and countermand the status of the Deutschland, turning it to active duty again, your total is now 219,000 tons but you don't care any more. By mid 1939, 3 Deutschlands and 2 Scharnhorsts will be in service.
Probably your best approach to get the 6 Scharnhorst alright.
 
OK, I'm curious. Could you list these British 50 cruisers? To be of "comparable or slightly smaller size" to warships that displaced 10,800 to 13,000 tons, they have to be at least 9,500 tons in displacement.

Just cheque the Internet and you'll see:
3x Deutschland class (10,800 tons)
vs:
Royal Navy Cruisers 1939 of simmilar size:
3x Cavendisch (9,860 tons)
5+2 Kent Class (10,570 tons)
4x London Class (9,830 tons)
2x Norfolk Class (10,300 tons)
1 + 1 York class (9,250 tons)
5x Southampton class (9,100 tons)
3x Gloucester class (9,400 tons)
2x Edinburgh class (10,565 tons) +
-------------
28 in all

and slightly smaller:
5x Leander Class (7,200 tons)
3x Amphion class ( 6,900 tons)
4x Arethusa class (5,220 tons)
2x Emerald class (7,580 tons)
8x Danae class (4,850 tons)
14x C-Class (4,200+ tons) +
--------------
36 in all

Grand total cruisers: 64

When deleting the older, slower, shorter ranged C & D types, that still is 14 smaller cruisers of more or less modern layout.

Not even counting the 16 Dido CLAA, 17 Fiji and succeeding classes building, or ordered.

See the mathematics here???

So tell me how just 3 cruisers can roam the oceans, searching commerceships, can counter this many hunters? (OK not all at once, but still more than enough, considering the Germans too cannot have more than one cruiser at sea at any time, since one will require repair and refit every now and then, while it also will take time to have one on transfer.
 
That all depends on the sequence though - if the German naval rearmament starts post the Sudetenland annexation, it might well be too late to contribute to the coming war. Some of the posts have suggested that the Germans should have started laying down such a fleet even before the reoccupied the Rhineland. That then gives you the following sequence.

- The Germans lay down a large fleet of commerce raiding cruisers - the British start to get very anxious, since this is clearly designed as a threat to the UK rather than a national prestige project.
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland - the British freak out and support the French in reoccupying it, since the Germans seem determined to tear up Versailles and start a war. The German forces immediately withdraw without a shot being fired (as per their OTL orders), and Hitler suffers a huge loss in prestige.

The Deutschland class was a dead end in shipbuilding construction. It only served for a time as politcal statement, not an actual pracitcal weapon. Surface raiders in the Great War had proven to be modestly effective at best, with a very fery exceptions. For that purpose, teh building of purely commerceraiding warships was unwise, if not suicidal. Best option was to do what the Great War had learned: Building lot's and lot's of U-Boote, as well as coastal fast attack craft, with the backing of a small, but powerful core of true heavy units, larger than an ordinary cruiser to play a game of power in the port, as fleet in being. That will exclude the continuation of smaller ships, unable to challange heavy units of the Royal Navy on a one to one base. Only a true modern battleship of superior capabilites would be the sollution, excluding smaller less well armed ones, like Scharnhorst as well. That would mean, the topic would chage 180 degrees to building Bismarck class in place of Scharnhorst, even if delayed by a few years, compared to Scharnhorst!
 
How many guns & what speeds were proposed for those?

Honestly, i cant remember. 6-8 guns, from 280mm to 350 - or even 380? - speeds around 30 kts. Those were if i understood correctly, just studies where to even start. With interesting, may i say, ideas at least. IMHO Zenker was more open minded and able to think out of the box, compared to Raeder for sure, for me, he even appears as a naval reformer kind of guy - his designs were innovative and well, successful.

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.

The original Deutschlands were pretty much more than enough. While the voyage of the Graf Spee get all the attention, the Scheer did his trip too. Anything bigger would have been a waste (as Op. Berlin shows IMHO). Actually, even a design with reduced guns would have sufficed.
 
Just cheque the Internet and you'll see:
3x Deutschland class (10,800 tons)
vs:
Royal Navy Cruisers 1939 of simmilar size:
3x Cavendisch (9,860 tons)
5+2 Kent Class (10,570 tons)
4x London Class (9,830 tons)
2x Norfolk Class (10,300 tons)
1 + 1 York class (9,250 tons)
5x Southampton class (9,100 tons)
3x Gloucester class (9,400 tons)
2x Edinburgh class (10,565 tons) +
-------------
28 in all

and slightly smaller:
5x Leander Class (7,200 tons)
3x Amphion class ( 6,900 tons)
4x Arethusa class (5,220 tons)
2x Emerald class (7,580 tons)
8x Danae class (4,850 tons)
14x C-Class (4,200+ tons) +
--------------
36 in all

Grand total cruisers: 64

When deleting the older, slower, shorter ranged C & D types, that still is 14 smaller cruisers of more or less modern layout.

Not even counting the 16 Dido CLAA, 17 Fiji and succeeding classes building, or ordered.

See the mathematics here???

Yes. I see that you have not listed 50 British cruisers of about 9,500 tons, which could be called of "comparable or slightly inferior" tonnage as a 10,800 to 12,000 (and more)-tons capital ship.

Trying to parade the Danae class with its 4,800 tons, 6x152mm guns, and 76mm armor to the Deutschland is... I'm too courteous to say what it is.

You actually have not 50, but 28 cruisers around 10,000 tons - in 1939. That's already pretty bad as a difference between your claim and the facts.

But I'll remind you that we're talking about 1935, when the AGNA is being discussed.
So let's subtract the last five, which were laid down in 1936. Your claim of 50 is now down to 23.

Now, surely the British, in 1935, already had plans for the Gloucesters and Edinburghs and more... in part exactly because they saw what the Germans were doing.

See the actual mathematics?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
By mid 1939, 3 Deutschlands and 2 Scharnhorst will be in service.
And after all that...


More seriously, of course, there's going to be four light BB available in 1940 instead of three BB and five light BB in 1941 instead of four BB (with six BB in 1942). But OTOH there aren't any of the big heavy "scare off the British" BBs - it's hard to imagine the Scharnhorsts warping naval strategy like the OTL Bismarck class, and against a Lion they'd be lunch.

Going by the charts on NavWeaps for KGV vs Scharnhorst... using Naval Limit for belt penetration if available, otherwise using Effective limit

KGV
British 14" gun
14.7" belt
5" deck

Scharnhorst
German 11" gun or German 15" gun
13.8" belt
2" deck


KGV immune zone vs. German 11" gun

13,000 yards or further for immunity on belt
36,000 yards or closer for immunity on deck
13,000 to 36,000 yards full immunity

KGV immune zone vs. German 15" gun

24,000 yards or further for immunity on belt
32,000 yards or closer for immunity on deck
24,000 to 32,000 yards full immunity

Scharnhorst immune zone vs. British 14" gun
25,000 yards or further for immunity on belt
13,000 yards or closer for immunity on deck
NO immune zone; doubly vulnerable zone from 13,000 to 25,000 yards


I'm not sure who'd win out of 2 Scharnhorsts vs 1 KGV, but if the Scharnhorsts have the 11" gun then they're going to be unable to effectively reply at battle range. With the 15" gun it's a bit better, and the Scharnhorsts have the advantage if only because the one not being shot at will be able to aim and fire in peace.

KGV plus a cruiser vs. two 15" Scharnhorsts? I'd call that even.
 
against a Lion they'd be lunch.

Yes of course. The underpinning of this whole idea is that the Germans should not seek, nor accept, a battleships' slug-it-out. The Germans are building a 100% raiding navy. When a British full battleship shows up, the Scharnhorst generally was on orders to turn tail and exploit its speed and any advantaging situation (say bad weather) to break contact. The no-Bismarck Kriegsmarine would generally be on standing orders like these.

But OTOH there aren't any of the big heavy "scare off the British" BBs - it's hard to imagine the Scharnhorsts warping naval strategy like the OTL Bismarck class,

Well, I don't know that. The first time Scharnhorst was at bay, in November 1939, the Allies tried to tackle it with Nelson, Rodney, Hood and Dunkerque, and the attendant light cruisers and destroyers. Plus, once again, there is the numbers factor. The British might not panic if you send out one Scharnhorst instead of the Bismarck. But if you send two? Or three?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well, I don't know that. The first time Scharnhorst was at bay, in November 1939, the Allies tried to tackle it with Nelson, Rodney, Hood and Dunkerque, and the attendant light cruisers and destroyers. Plus, once again, there is the numbers factor. The British might not panic if you send out one Scharnhorst instead of the Bismarck. But if you send two? Or three?
I mean there was a perception of the Bismarck as "unsinkable".

When a British full battleship shows up, the Scharnhorst generally was on orders to turn tail and exploit its speed and any advantaging situation (say bad weather) to break contact.

Wonder how two Scharnhorst would have done at Denmark Strait...
 
Not really sure. If Germany are going for the 'freak fleet' and Italy and Japan go for conventional fleets it's going to be hard for Britain to figure out a building strategy as they have to counter two distinct threats.

In an ideal world we would see Britain wanting to go for fast light battleships (like the French Dunkquerke) to counter Germany and heavy battleships to counter Italy/Japan. I'm sure the treasury would not approve.

Maybe an increased focus on carriers as it was thought in the 30s that you wouldn't sink a battleship underway at sea but a cruiser was doable. For war in the Mediterranean or Far East the carriers would be till be useful.
I would think that a mix of 9x16" 40+kt fast Lions and 8x8" 11+kt Towns would work against most threats be it PBs, IJN CAs, Italian battleships or Yamato's in sufficient numbers?

Really the KM should not build 6 Scharnhost class they are too big, something smaller like the D class might be better.

My AU RN nightmare....

Something like,
3x3 11"/52 AXY, old lighter guns as PBs)
1x2 150mm/55 B with lots of ammo to kill merchants
4x2 88mm/76 HAA
6x2 37mm/57 Army LAA
2x4 533mm TT on extreme stern
3x Arado Ar 196
6" belt
4" deck
4 shafts, 2 Steam T as S&G and 2 MAN D from PBs for 158,000 shp for 32+Kn but also huge range going slow.
maybe 25,000t?
 
Wonder how two Scharnhorst would have done at Denmark Strait...

They would probably have withdrawn, under orders to do so if discovered. That's what German surface raiders did time and again. The Bismarck, OTOH, was confident it could push through.
 
Yes. I see that you have not listed 50 British cruisers of about 9,500 tons, which could be called of "comparable or slightly inferior" tonnage as a 10,800 to 12,000 (and more)-tons capital ship.

Trying to parade the Danae class with its 4,800 tons, 6x152mm guns, and 76mm armor to the Deutschland is... I'm too courteous to say what it is.

You actually have not 50, but 28 cruisers around 10,000 tons - in 1939. That's already pretty bad as a difference between your claim and the facts.

But I'll remind you that we're talking about 1935, when the AGNA is being discussed.
So let's subtract the last five, which were laid down in 1936. Your claim of 50 is now down to 23.

Now, surely the British, in 1935, already had plans for the Gloucesters and Edinburghs and more... in part exactly because they saw what the Germans were doing.

See the actual mathematics?

That is where you were wrong, as no one except you mentioned the 9,500 ton limmit. Size is basically irrelevant. Capabilities are much more an issue, as the smaller, but well designed Arethusa class was more than capable of dealing with a German cruiser, as long as it could force it to abbandon its primary mission. That is a vastly superior 42 more or less modern cruisers, plus 22 older and less capbable ones, to just the 3 German ones, (not counting the light cruisers which were short ranged and laking seaworthyness) so I winder where you have learned your mathematics.

You seem to not understand what naval warfare is all about. Any raider, far away from friendly ports cannot accept battledamage, while the numerically suprtior defending side can. A singel hit on a raider can deny it to function as a raider, making it useless in her role. The Graf Spee clearly showed this, so even a small Arethusa can do this with her theoretically inferior armament. A Deutschland class cruiser at sea is seriously vulnerable to damage, as its speed is slightly inferior to enemy cruisers, so it cannot outrun them, while her main armament is not sufficient enough to hold off any attacker, since there were too large calliber guns few of them. Mot of it will come to the luck factor in a one vs one engagement. The British naturally would use their advantage in numers to group ships, so this luck factor would be reduced for the german ship in this case.


Also, if speaking of 1935, Graf Spee is not ready for service, so the German navy has an unusable number of raider ships left to effectively deploy. No German battleships either, as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau just were sarted. The odds were even less favourable for the Germans then. Still no Casus belli, or you must put some idiot in charge of the British governement, like in today's rougue - and other questionable states.

Moreover the British cruiserbuilding program was not influenced by the German cruiser builds, but especially by Japan. The Royal Navywas quite happy with their Leander class sized ships and would have continued building these, where it not the Japanese capme with their vastly superior (in tems of number of guns) Mogami design. The Deutschland clas had nothing to do with this, as the British already posessed a number of capital ships of equal speed, (HMS Tiger too was still in reserve before the London Treaty) as well as a large number of the lare and powerfull, but unbritish 8 inch Cruisers. (The Royal Navy was never enthousiastic about the 8 inc treaty cruiser limmitations, as they wanted a larger number of smaller 6 inch cruisers for the roles to be played by the navy.)
 
They would probably have withdrawn, under orders to do so if discovered. That's what German surface raiders did time and again.
Why if they are not going to fight anything over a CA did they always cruise in a pair? Could they not have been split up and covered twice the opportunities?
 
Last edited:

FBKampfer

Banned
Breaking treaties is not enough to go to war. You need a very lot more to trigger a war in those days. We are speaking of the 30's, the time of the illfated League of Nations! Not the 21st century of today with hipocrates ruling in some nations, doing what they want, with no one willing to call them off. (No names to be not insulting, but simply read the news). A minor treaty, like a naval agreement is not enough to trigger a war.

BTW, a minor war at sea perhaps, but with a major escalation risk, you seem to forget. Both UK and France certainly were not strong enough to fight a full blown war, while Germany was more or less ready to do so. (Yes on land, but still a major risk to her neighbours.) Is the UK willing to fight a war against France at the same time? Yes, France would get realy pissed off by an unreliable UK going to war over a minor issue, while France was more or less defenseless still, due to cuts in the defensebudget over the years prior to the late 30's. Fracne would ba allienated from the UK and perhaps even go to war against her, to even the odds, as well as preventing a two front encircling with Germany in the east and UK in the North (Belgium). Compared to Germany France did have a navy of certain power, able enough to defend its shore as well as hurting an enemy at sea, if needed.

As said: The topic is far too simplistic and irrelevant as such. Politcs require a more thourough approach, especially in the 30's.

Conclussion: NO WAR over such an insignificant issue as the breach of a minor naval treaty agreement between the world's biggest navy adn a new born fledgling, which basically was the Kriegsmarine at the time. The Britihs had more arguments to fight wars in other parts of the world (Imperialism still ruling in this period of history), than bringing dissaster uppon their own by foolish single minded issues, that were not important at all.


The Germans aren't in any way ready for major war in 1936. And more to the point (and the part you're completely failing to understand) is that Germany would not go to war against the UK regardless of the circumstances. The UK could demand Hitler do a dance in a skirt and lipstick for the amusement of British noblemen, or have her entire fleet sunk, and Germany still wouldn't go to war, because she knows she has those two, and only those two options if the UK was serious.

She was fully unprepared to attack france by their own estimations, and they were acutely aware of British naval superiority. They lack any kind of bomber suitable for attacking the UK.

So, given the above, how exactly do you imagine Germany would put military pressure on the UK? A repeat of WWI starting from an even less favorable position?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That is where you were wrong, as no one except you mentioned the 9,500 ton limmit. Size is basically irrelevant.
What you said was:

The UK had around 50 cruisers against these three of comparable and slightly smaller size, though with smaller guns.

"Comparable and slightly smaller size" is the key point here. 9100 tons is "slightly smaller" than a Deutschland if you're being very kind, as they averaged 11,500 tons and it's about a 20% difference; to make up your claim of fifty we need to go down to the Danae class, which are less than half the size of a Deutschland. That is not "slightly smaller".
 
Top