Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

What do you think the chances were of a British and French military response if they had say been building a pair of PB's and a Score of submarines every year from 1933

Which is the response to all german Naval build ups.
Not concerned about the Wallie fleets. They over estimated ASDIC effectiveness and surface raiders effectiveness, so I would not expect much change since there basic efforts were trade protection.
 
Which is exactly why the KM had to ignore treaties.
And by ignoring them in such a more blatant way as to build 3x the otl numbers of surface raiders from 1933 onwards. Ensures that the British agrees to back France in the Rhineland crisis in 1936 at which point it's over since the wehrmacht lacked the forces to fight the French.
 

hipper

Banned
Not concerned about the Wallie fleets. They over estimated ASDIC effectiveness and surface raiders effectiveness, so I would not expect much change since there basic efforts were trade protection.

It's infantry divisions in 1936 you have to worry about not battleships in 1940
 
And by ignoring them in such a more blatant way as to build 3x the otl numbers of surface raiders from 1933 onwards. Ensures that the British agrees to back France in the Rhineland crisis in 1936 at which point it's over since the wehrmacht lacked the forces to fight the French.

Unlikely since they would be violating there own treaty, since Germany could build up 35% of commonwealth tonnage.By most accounts the commonwealth total was ....[35%]
500,000t BB [175,000]
135,000 CV [47,250]
146,800 CA [51,380]
192,200 CL [ 67,270]

TOTAL KM Build [340,900 tons]

The build plan would be in 3 waves of about eight warships each with first wave commissioned in 1937 , followed by a second wave commissioned two years later and a follow on wave of 8 warships commissioned in 1940/41.


First wave would be eight Panzer Kreuzers each 10,773t standard 1937

Second wave would be eight Panzerschiffe each 14,695t standard 1939

Third wave would be eight heavier Panzerschiffe each 19,621t standard 1941

BB quota exceeded some time in 1939, BB& CA quota would not be exceeded until late 1940, The BB& CA & CL quota mid 1941.

It would never have threatened rearmament since war would have broken out long before their quota would be violated.
 
Last edited:
It would never have threatened rearmament since war would have broken out long before their quota would be violated.

Well, now that is clear that your intention is to make sure Germany is defeated on land in 1937 or 1938, yes, that's a good way to achieve that end. There is no need to keep working out the details of naval construction plans beyond 1938 at the latest, though, since the keels will be broken down with the new peace treaty.
 
Unlikely since they would be violating there own treaty, since Germany could build up 35% of commonwealth tonnage.By most accounts the commonwealth total was ....[35%]
500,000t BB [175,000]
135,000 CV [47,250]
146,800 CA [51,380]
192,200 CL [ 67,270]

TOTAL KM Build [340,900 tons]

The build plan would be in 3 waves of about eight warships each with first wave commissioned in 1937 , followed by a second wave commissioned two years later and a follow on wave of 8 warships commissioned in 1940/41.


First wave would be eight Panzer Kreuzers each 10,773t standard 1937

Second wave would be eight Panzerschiffe each 14,695t standard 1939

Third wave would be eight heavier Panzerschiffe each 19,621t standard 1941

BB quota exceeded some time in 1939, BB& CA quota would not be exceeded until late 1940, The BB& CA & CL quota mid 1941.

It would never have threatened rearmament since war would have broken out long before their quota would be violated.

How would that work? Total KM build, as others had tried telling you, would be, according to your numbers, 175,000 tons of ships, no single one can exceed 35,000 tons, and the AGNA specified that the First London and Washington treaties applied, so any ship over 10,000 tons and/or having gun caliber over 8.0 inches was a battleship. Max, going off "10,000" and 11" guns, gives 17.5 ships under the battleship tonnage. although the AGNA was signed 18 June 1935, but the Second London Naval Conference started 9 Dec 1935, signed March 25 1936. Germany didn't sign it, but indicated it would abide by the treaty. That treaty has this:


Article 4

(1) No capital ship shall exceed 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement.

(2) No capital ship shall carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 14 in. (356 mm.); provided however that if any of the Parties to the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament signed at Washington on 6 February 1922, should fail to enter into an agreement to conform to this provision prior to the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, but in any case not later than 1 April 1937, the maximum calibre of gun carried by capital ships shall be 16 in. (406 mm.).

(3) No capital ship of sub-category (a), the standard displacement of which is less than 17,500 tons (17,780 metric tons), shall be laid down or acquired prior to 1 January 1943.

(4) No capital ship, the main armament of which consists of guns of less than 10 in. (254 mm.) calibre, shall be laid down or acquired prior to 1 January 1943.



That means no ships can be built between 10,000 tons to 17,500 tons, nor have gun calibers between 8 to 10 inches. So unless Germany wants to completely throw away the goodwill generated by the AGNA, they can only build 17,500 ton ships with 10" or larger, to 16 inches. Hitler "did" this in OTL, claiming the Twins were 26,000 tons and had 11" armament. Using that, Germany's 175k is 10 ships. CA of 51,380 must be no more than 10,000 tons, and have gun caliber over 6.1" but no more than 8". That means 5, or 6 if about 8563 tons each. Hardly a war winner, since OTL the Panzerschiffes were overweight. CL's must be no more than 10,000 tons and only carry up to 6.1 inch armament. So, 6.7, or possibly 7 of 9,610 tonnage. We haven't even addressed if Germany can build or man all these ships, of course. Hitler was able to hide his goal by upgrading the next class to be small battleships (yes, they were over, but no one knew in time). If Germany decides to churn out your fleet, 2LNT is dead, and Britain starts cranking out ships.
More cruisers- we know, although the British weren't confident, that 3 cruisers can maul a Panzerschiffe, while they can't stand up to a convoy escorted by a Revenge battleships and a few cruisers. I think the Hawkins cruisers could run them down and sink them. You are building, according to your schedule, 360,712 tons of capital tonnage (since Germany is, via the AGNA, a signatory of the Washington and First London treaties) when she was only allotted 175,000; just over twice her allotment.
And if you are going with no AGNA, then Britain will just go with it's triple 15" gun schemes, and start building them. KGV was laid down Jan 1 1937, but might be laid down earlier, as Japan has already indicated she is withdrawing from the treaties. The KGV class, although great, had delays due to treaty constraints (artificial and self enforced from the 2LNT, which won't exist here- since the 1930 Geneva Conference failed, German rapprochement failed, Japan withdrawing...) so Britain can get a design together, and stick to it, ignoring an overweight issues, meaning your 24 ships (plus others?) will face cruisers, 3 battlecruisers, the Hawkins class, and IMO 5 alt-KGV's. And if the British can't finish this, the Germans certainly won't be able to.

I really don't know how to explain to you that although you may say you can take the total tonnages, add the separate classes together, and get 24 ships out of it, that is not what the treaty states, what both German and British leadership expected the treaty to mean, or that Britain will not throw a fit and start building dozens of more ships to counter this.
I still can't figure out if you have the AGNA or not- if not, then Britain just might ignore Italy invading Ethiopia (AGNA in 1935, German starts ordering more Panzerschiffe in 1935- the guns take a long time), Ethiopa in 1936. Also, I've only seen Panzerschiffe, not Panzer Kreuzers, so no idea what they are- this site indicates you are talking about either armored cruisers, or Emden light cruisers, which sucked. And if only laying down in 1937, about 3 years to build- but the start of war delayed most ships construction. Germany is in a Red Queen's race- some options get her closer to victory, but whether in building planes (the UK out-built then in 1940, let alone next years), ships, tanks, everything, she really can't win. Deterministic on an alternate history board, but unless ASB's help out, it is the truth.
 
Last edited:
BB quota exceeded some time in 1939, BB& CA quota would not be exceeded until late 1940, The BB& CA & CL quota mid 1941.

It would never have threatened rearmament since war would have broken out long before their quota would be violated.
Why do you think they get to put the BB and CA and CL tonnage combined against these panzerschiffe
 
All you actually did was repeating what I mentioned. I wonder why?
Nope. Read somewhat more carefully.

As combat ships, combat is a fight between two, or more combattants, not a single handed one sides slauchter of an armed warships against an unarmed merchantship. So all engagements by Admiral Graf Spee, except the last one at Montevideo, were not real combat situations, since the attacker faced no opposition (Merchants in the first year of WW2 rarely carried any armament). As a combat ship, One German cruiser facing three British cruisers was too much to handle for the German ship. (Though technically the superior gunnery of the German ship would have hold them at bay in theory, though not in reality.) The so called superiority in calliber and range did not pay off against theoretically inferior ships wit weaker armeaments, resulting in critical damage to one British and one German ship in the end. One other British cruiser was moderately damged and one unscatched. Graf Spee herself was left unseaworthy and more critically, almost depleted of ammunition.

As for a comarrison between an Admiral Hipper and a Deutschland (the two operated in tandem during the illfated Battle of the Barentzsea) Hipper performed better, scoring some hits on several destroyers and a minesweeper, while Lutzow (ex Deutschland) did nothing at all, inspite of her so called superior guns. The higer rate of fire of the 8 inch gun was compensating for the heavier shot of the 11 inch gun, while both had inferior rate of fire to the British 6 inch weapon. A Hipper also rivaled a Deutschland in gunneryrange, besides considered to be more accurate, mostly due to the higher musclevelocity. In other words: the less bulky 8 inch gun could fire faster and more accurate at longer times, than the heavier 11 inch gun. Since both were about simmilar in protective scheme, with teh Hipper having somewhat more of her hull covered by armor, the volume of shot produced would be critical, which favours the eight gun armed Hipper more than the slower rate of fire six gun ship. As such the Hipper wins with her hands down in a one vs one fight, as her changes of scoring a hit were much higher than a Deutschland.

Hm, Barents Sea. Honestly, in case of the Lützow, i find that engagement worthless for any conclusions, since its actions could e compared to the Tirpitz in the same battle, except the Lützow was there, but what for? As for the Hipper, yes, he did damage to a minesweeper and two destroyers, but i remain unimpressed: no hits on any cruisers while receiving some, causing flooding and speed loss - and these were 150mm cruisers.
Okay, any comparison to any engagement is at least tricky, the circumstances were much different, but in case of the AGS, they were able to wreck a heavy cruiser, damage an another and while receiving hits - even from 203mm guns - the damage received is at least much more open for debate.
In theory, the Hippers were better ships, but in practice, IMHO they not overperformed the Deutshlands.
 
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).
 
The build plan would be in 3 waves of about eight warships each with first wave commissioned in 1937 , followed by a second wave commissioned two years later and a follow on wave of 8 warships commissioned in 1940/41.


First wave would be eight Panzer Kreuzers each 10,773t standard 1937

Second wave would be eight Panzerschiffe each 14,695t standard 1939

Third wave would be eight heavier Panzerschiffe each 19,621t standard 1941


That's not a way to build ships in peacetime unless you are clearly preparing for a war within a few years. And since turrets take time you would probably want to order those before which tells the British what you are planning.
 

hipper

Banned
That's not a way to build ships in peacetime unless you are clearly preparing for a war within a few years. And since turrets take time you would probably want to order those before which tells the British what you are planning.

They would have to cancel contracts with shipbuilders and launch half completed passenger liners to be able to lay down 8 PB's in 1933/34 that's a bit of a signal your planning a war.

To be honest a new naval race is one of the few things that could have precipitated the UK into being more proactive about hitler
 
They would have to cancel contracts with shipbuilders and launch half completed passenger liners to be able to lay down 8 PB's in 1933/34 that's a bit of a signal your planning a war.

To be honest a new naval race is one of the few things that could have precipitated the UK into being more proactive about hitler

Not to mention that laying down 8 or maybe even 16 ships (depending on when in 1935 the second batch is laid down) before the AGNA would make that be scrapped before it even got under way.
 

hipper

Banned
That means no ships can be built between 10,000 tons to 17,500 tons, nor have gun calibers between 8 to 10 inches. So unless Germany wants to completely throw away the goodwill generated by the AGNA, they can only build 17,500 ton ships with 10" or larger, to 16 inches. Hitler "did" this in OTL, claiming the Twins were 26,000 tons and had 11" armament. Using that, Germany's 175k is 10 ships. CA of 51,380 must be no more than 10,000 tons, and have gun caliber over 6.1" but no more than 8". That means 5, or 6 if about 8563 tons each. Hardly a war winner, since OTL the Panzerschiffes were overweight. CL's must be no more than 10,000 tons and only carry up to 6.1 inch armament. So, 6.7, or possibly 7 of 9,610 tonnage. We haven't even addressed if Germany can build or man all these ships, of course. Hitler was able to hide his goal by upgrading the next class to be small battleships (yes, they were over, but no one knew in time). If Germany decides to churn out your fleet, 2LNT is dead, and Britain starts cranking out ships.
More cruisers- we know, although the British weren't confident, that 3 cruisers can maul a Panzerschiffe, while they can't stand up to a convoy escorted by a Revenge battleships and a few cruisers. I think the Hawkins cruisers could run them down and sink them. You are building, according to your schedule, 360,712 tons of capital tonnage (since Germany is, via the AGNA, a signatory of the Washington and First London treaties) when she was only allotted 175,000; just over twice her allotment.
And if you are going with no AGNA, then Britain will just go with it's triple 15" gun schemes, and start building them. KGV was laid down Jan 1 1937, but might be laid down earlier, as Japan has already indicated she is withdrawing from the treaties. The KGV class, although great, had delays due to treaty constraints (artificial and self enforced from the 2LNT, which won't exist here- since the 1930 Geneva Conference failed, German rapprochement failed, Japan withdrawing...) so Britain can get a design together, and stick to it, ignoring an overweight issues, meaning your 24 ships (plus others?) will face cruisers, 3 battlecruisers, the Hawkins class, and IMO 5 alt-KGV's. And if the British can't finish this, the Germans certainly won't be able to.



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
 
Germans had no interest in naval treaties , since they had no navy to speak of , while UK desperately needed Germany to conform -so they could 'afford' any defense. By 1937 the RN building orders were set for war and could not be changed, so there was little they could do to counter any build up prewar. Germany has nothing to fear from these treaties or the threats .

Treaties are only as effective as they can be enforced, which by the mid 1930s were non existent. Repeatedly treaties forbade Germany to expand army size - which was ordered in 1930 before Hitler came to power. Nothing was done. Germany was denied combat aircraft by treaty but Lufthansa became the defacto air-force by the early 1930s. Nothing was done. Germany was denied tanks but ordered some in 1928, but could not afford them, however tanks started production in 1934 . Nothing was done. Germany was denied aircraft carriers and yet ordered two in 1934. Nothing was done.

There was no reason to worry about breaking naval treaties , as it was minor compared to the expansion of the HEER and creation of the Luftwaffe. If these events didn't trigger war - minor naval treaty violations are un likely to be any worse.
 
Since all these alternate surface raiders would be ordered INSTEAD of warship orders -actually placed and built, nothing need be canceled.
In truth the first 6 raiders had already been ordered in 1928 along with 6 more Kreuzers. All that is required is to tweek these orders in the early 1930s and a dozen AGS type raiders could be finished by the late 1930s.
 

hipper

Banned
Germans had no interest in naval treaties , since they had no navy to speak of , while UK desperately needed Germany to conform -so they could 'afford' any defense. By 1937 the RN building orders were set for war and could not be changed, so there was little they could do to counter any build up prewar. Germany has nothing to fear from these treaties or the threats .

Treaties are only as effective as they can be enforced, which by the mid 1930s were non existent. Repeatedly treaties forbade Germany to expand army size - which was ordered in 1930 before Hitler came to power. Nothing was done. Germany was denied combat aircraft by treaty but Lufthansa became the defacto air-force by the early 1930s. Nothing was done. Germany was denied tanks but ordered some in 1928, but could not afford them, however tanks started production in 1934 . Nothing was done. Germany was denied aircraft carriers and yet ordered two in 1934. Nothing was done.

There was no reason to worry about breaking naval treaties , as it was minor compared to the expansion of the HEER and creation of the Luftwaffe. If these events didn't trigger war - minor naval treaty violations are un likely to be any worse.

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.

if Germany Had persisred in Building Pocket battleships and large numbers of Submarines from 1934 then that is an existential threat to the UK. This is known in Germany.

The easiest way of solving it is support for the French in 1936 which is the danger the Germans must guard against Hence the AGNA.
The naval agreement served Germany by convincing the UK that Germany was not constructing a commerce raiding fleet
The naval agreement served the UK because it limited the German Navy to something that could be easily dealt with.

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 ?
 
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.

But back to the original: the tonnage ratios remain unchanged, if the RNs total tonnage goes up, so does the german.
 
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

I was mistaken, the AGNA didn't ban between 10,000 and 17,500 with no guns between 8"- 10", the 2nd London Naval Treaty did. Yes, Germany didn't sign it, but they (and the USSR) indicated a willingness to sign it, so the British went ahead with trying to build 14" armed battleships on 35,000 tons honestly. With the AGNA but no 2LNT, Germany *could* build a bunch of 10,000 ton ships, but Britain will ITTL see no one wants the 2LNT, which likely leads to a balanced and fast 9- 15" 40,000 ton battleship. Even skipping on weight saving measures like the KGV's twin turret saves about 6 months per KGV, but I feel the RN will go for lots of 9 15" battleships.

Also the fact the British bothered putting that into a treaty should show you @PSL just how seriously Britain feared the idea. They wanted the idea of raiders banned, and everyone having powerful battleships too risky to lose by commerce raiding. The British wanted no ship built between 10,000 and 17,500 tons- you don't submit to binding treaties stuff you don't care about. Ignoring that fact will lead to German cries of British betrayal, while the British will churn out enough ships to walk from Halifax to Rosyth and not get their feet wet. Britain is an island. The leaders at the time still feared blockade, and that is a berserk button for the RN, the British politicians, the entire political establishment. They were willing to try treaties, whether with the Japanese, the Americans, the Nazis, but a game theory analyze of them would indicate a "tit for tat" response- the British make an offer, how do the Germans respond. How do the Germans continue to respond?
 
Last edited:
Top