Could the Kriegsmarine have assembled a battlefleet for the Atlantic ?

[NOMISYRRUC]

The CLs were treaty ships which automatically limited their potential. They were doomed to be shitty by the nature of their creation.

The German CL were not WNT ships. They were at the most ToV ships. The KM had a design for an "improved Emdem" with 4x2 149mm that would have been a very useful light cruiser, then tried to get more range in small cruisers with advanced propulsion concepts that didn't quite work.

That's what I meant, treaty of Versailles.
Sorry for not specifying the treaty, I think that's what caused the confusion.

The German CL were pretty much big destroyers, kind like the big Zestorer 1945 the Kriegsmarine wanted but never got to building.

FWIW my two penneth is that the Treaty of Versailles limited cruisers to a maximum size of 6,000 tons and for once the Germans didn't cheat by building larger ships and lying about the displacements, which with hindsight would have saved them some trouble.

The K class, Leipzig and Nurenberg carried a main armament of nine 150mm in three triple turrets which is comparable to a Leanders eight 6" in four twin turrets on a hull that was 1,000 tons smaller than a Leanders and only 750 tons larger than an Arethusa that mounted six 6" in three twin turrets. Their diesel and (AFAIK reliable) low pressure steam machinery should have given them the range and reliability for commerce raiding that the succeeding Hipper class hadn't.

The price of this was a weak hull, which wasn't revealed until they joined the neutrality patrols in the Spanish Civil War. This meant they had to keep a lot of their fuel to maintain stability which in turn considerably reduced their range.

The plan was to correct these faults by rebuilding the K class and adding extra hull plating to Leipzig and Nurenberg. However, this was only a few years before the start of World War II and the shipyards were full of the new construction made possible by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. As a result they were only able to rebuild Karlsure before the end of 1939.

The Reichsmarine as it still was in the early 1930s wanted to build Kreuzer F which became Nurenberg to a "Super Lepzig" design displacing 8,000 tons that would have avoided all the faults that were later revealed in the "Versailles Treaty" Light Cruisers. Unfortunately, this couldn't be done because the designers were working on what became the Hipper class.

After the Hipper class there was the Kreuzer M design which was similar to the "Super Leipzig" because it displaced 8,000 tons and returned to the mixed diesel and steam plant of the earlier light cruisers, but it had a main armament of eight 150mm in four twin turrets. Though unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) they spent several years deciding what the specification should be with the result that the first four ships weren't ordered until May 1938, only 2 of them were laid down before war broke out and both of them were broken up afterwards.

This machinery arrangement was also applied to the proposed scout cruisers that they carried six 150mm guns in three triple turrets and ten 21" torpedo tubes on 6,300 tons.

The O class battlecruisers would have had mixed steam and diesel machinery too. However, they had diesels working the two outer shafts and the steam machinery providing the power for the central shaft. It was the other way around for the light cruisers and scout cruisers.

All the designs from the Leipzig class onward could run the steam and diesel engines at the same time so in modern terminology it might be called Combined Steam and Diesel (COSAD) while the earlier K class might be called Combined Steam On Diesel (COSOD).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Even if it could have assembled a battle fleet for the Atlantic which I suppose it could, is anyone seriously arguing that it would change the ultimate outcome one iota?

Changing the actions of the Axis powers rarely does.

What they do is increase the number of people who are injured, maimed and killed, increase the amount of material destruction, increase the national debts of the wining nations, increase the time it takes the nations of the World to recover when it finally ends and increases the mental damage done to the survivors.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

After the Hipper class there was the Kreuzer M design which was similar to the "Super Leipzig" because it displaced 8,000 tons and returned to the mixed diesel and steam plant of the earlier light cruisers, but it had a main armament of eight 150mm in four twin turrets. Though unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) they spent several years deciding what the specification should be with the result that the first four ships weren't ordered until May 1938, only 2 of them were laid down before war broke out and both of them were broken up afterwards.

FWIW I think the Germans should have built six Super Leipzigs instead of Nurenburg, Blucher, Hipper, Prinz Eugen, Lutzow and Seydlitz. Their inferior armament would have been offset by their greater range and availability rates and because they need less steel and shipyard workers there's a chance of completing the six ships by the August 1940.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

If you're sure. Although out of curiosity, why Hermione?

As I noted upthread, an RN sub could have been sent after the rudder damage on Bismarck forced her to cut holes in the water and it would have been the same as if the Dorsetshire had put her down. Torpedoes do not care about all that useless artillery making circles in the middle of nowhere. The launch platform could just as easily been a PBY or a Sunderland or a PT boat.

Not sure why the RN would have a submarine within 100 miles of the Denmark Strait given they should be out hunting Italian shipping in the Med.

They would be a picket line at Brest (watching the Twins) and off Norway, but not in the middle of the Atlantic, surely?

At this stage of the war the only weapons platform seen to be able to put down a BB was another BB. Taranto was shooting fish in a barrel, just as was Mers-el-Kebir. At Matapan the plan was to slow down VV so the Med Fleet's BBs could finish her off.

Vian's destroyers did try to torpedo the Bismarck during that last night, whilst she was barely under way and couldn't manouevre, but the fire from her secondary batteries helped keep them at arms' length. They would not have got close enough during daylight. The big guns of Rodney & KGV finished Bismarck as a fighting unit, ensuring even if her rudders could be miraculously repaired, it would only be as a heap of scrap iron, and removed her last defenses so that the cruisers could torpedo her/him.

 

[McPherson]

They would be a picket line at Brest (watching the Twins) and off Norway, but not in the middle of the Atlantic, surely?

Divert a boat and send it out there. What are the Germans going to do? Send out a tug? Two for one sink-ex. Besides think of the morale boost when HMS Taku mistakes RKMS Bismarck for a KGV and tries to torpedo her like she almost sinks HMS Ashanti?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

OK, but that then leaves you with a very lopsided force.

OK so you then just ended up playing kiss chase with your four most expensive ships, seems a bit of a waste of resources and and fuel. Not to mention you have to stay lucky every time, the RN only has to catch you once. One other thing is you can still do this with one or two battle ships. That's still a threat too great and a target too juicy for the RN to ignore. And what you describe is pretty much what happened anyway without 4 battleship sorties, so I'm not sure what extra benefit you gain from this but I see extra risk.

Without an early POD a lopsided force is what the Germans have, no real choice, and 4BB and 2CA is less lopsided than say 2BB alone

I don't think you need that much luck to avoid decisive engagement, a majority of surface sorties by the Germans did avoid engagement unless they chose to inatiate it, eventually of course they will be intercepted and destroyed, but sorties will be few enough that the war likely ends one way or another before the odds catch up to them. 4 Battleship sorties mean 6+ fast Battleships sitting in Scapa to counter them, 1-2 Battleship sorties mean 3 or 4, more resources tied up.. It uses fuel, but a sortie every 6-18 months is not that much in the grand scheme of things

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Divert a boat and send it out there. What are the Germans going to do? Send out a tug? Two for one sink-ex. Besides think of the morale boost whenHMS Taku mistakes RKMS Bismarck for a KGV and tries to torpedo her like she almost sinks HMS Ashanti?

By the time a sub can make it out there, the enemy has either moved on or been sunk. Better to leave the subs waiting outside possible destinations and catch the enemy on the way back.

 

[TDM]

Without an early POD a lopsided force is what the Germans have, no real choice, and 4BB and 2CA is less lopsided than say 2BB alone

True but if you have weakness it best not to maximise the weaknesses effect, and 4BB and 2Ca in sortie really is almost everything now.

I don't think you need that much luck to avoid decisive engagement, a majority of surface sorties by the Germans did avoid engagement unless they chose to inatiate it, eventually of course they will be intercepted and destroyed, but sorties will be few enough that the war likely ends one way or another before the odds catch up to them. 4 Battleship sorties mean 6+ fast Battleships sitting in Scapa to counter them, 1-2 Battleship sorties mean 3 or 4, more resources tied up.. It uses fuel, but a sortie every 6-18 months is not that much in the grand scheme of things

Kind of only German BBs safely in port not going on sortie still tied up RN assets in case they use one sortie to mask another so best of both worlds. Also if you are making one sortie aver 6-18 months, then your ships are never going to pay you back the resources you invested in them or not as well as other naval assets might

This was one of the things Hitler didn't like about Big ships, they tie up a lot of resources, if you only have a couple their value can perversely disincentavise you from using them, because they leave an un-fillable hole when they sink, plus you can't hide it when they do.

The issue was while Germany can cheat the treaties and make a ship bigger and with more DAKKA than any single RN ship, it can't make enough of them to beat the RN and have naval supremacy* and do what it wants in the Atlantic (or where ever). So they end up with this weird situation where they have these magnificent beasts but they have to keep them caged safely away for fear of losing them, or only let them out for very quick jaunts for fear of losing them.

So yeah the temptation is to use them even if you risk losing them. Well OK, but all in one go is not a very efficient use of them, but if you do loose them you've just improved the RN's options a lot.

It's a bit of a paradox having a weapon that's too expensive to afford using is a waste, but that still doesn't mean you can afford to lose it.


*and the daft thing is they don't need it to achieve their naval goals, which was to starve Britain (don't get me wrong having it would have made that goal easier, but we get back to the old calculation of how many type 7 U-boats can you build, crew and run for each BB).

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Kind of only German BBs safely in port not going on sortie still tied up RN assets in case they use one sortie to mask another so best of both worlds. Also if you are making one sortie aver 6-18 months, then your ships are never going to pay you back the resources you invested in them or not as well as other naval assets might

This was one of thing Hitler didn't like about Big ships, they tie up a lot of resources, if you only have a couple their value can perversely disincentavise you from using them, plus you can;t hide it when they sink.

The issue was while Germany can cheat the treaties and make a ship bigger and with more DAKKA than the RN, it cant make enough of them to beat the RN and have naval supremacy* and do what it wants in the Atlantic (or where ever). So they end up with this weird situation where they have these magnificent beasts but they have to keep them caged safely away for fear of losing them, or only let them out for very quick jaunts for fear of losing them.

So yeah the temptation is to use them even if you risk losing them. Well OK, but all in one go is not a very efficient use of them, but if you do loose them you've just improve the RN's options a lot.

It's a bit of a paradox having a weapon that's too expensive to afford using is a waste, but that still doesn't mean you can afford to lose it.


*and teh daft thing is they don't need it to achieve their naval goals, which was to starve Britain (dont get me wrong having it would have made that goal easier, but we get back to teh old calculation of how many type 7 u-boats can you buld, crew and run for each BB).

By 1940 the ships are a sunk cost, hence paying back their cost is irrelevant, Germany already spent the resources to build them. Sitting in port tying down resources that would otherwise be fighting the RM or IJN is useful, and the occassional low risk sortie adds to the menace of a force compared to just sitting in port for 5 years

I think all in one go is liable to get more reaction out of the British than piecemeal, and a large sortie is harder to deal with than a small one, as you need a larger intercepting force to do so, catching S&G, B&T and 2 Hippers with only Renown is actively counterproductive for example, and Britain can scrape up fewer task forces of 4 capital ships than of 2 capital ships. One force has a harder time intercepting an enemy than two or more forces, simple geometry

It's a delicate balance, simultaneously trying to conserve your force while projecting the appearance to ones enemies that you intend to use it on them. It is easier to project the idea that you are actively seeking an opening to break out into the Atlantic and wreak havoc at a moments notice if your ships actually leave port and head towards the entrance to the Atlantic every so often

The problem with the U-Boat for BB swap is that has to happen while the AGNA is in force, which means breaking that or never signing it, which does bad things for Germany's diplomacy, which has the real potential to derail Munich, get a guarantee for Czechoslovakia or get Britain rearming earlier

 

[BlackDragon98]

Changing the actions of the Axis powers rarely does.

What they do is increase the number of people who are injured, maimed and killed, increase the amount of material destruction, increase the national debts of the wining nations, increase the time it takes the nations of the World to recover when it finally ends and increases the mental damage done to the survivors.

Especially when the change happens during WW2.
Once WW2 started, the Axis were doomed to fail, regardless of what you change.
The only way to create a plausible Axis victory is to have the POD occur during WW1 or right afterwards.

ITTL they have a snowball effect, where one thing leads to the other.
Here are a few things that could be plausibly changed from OTL with a WW1 or post-WW1 POD:
-High Seas Fleet scuttled in Kiel due to the Mutiny. German naval officers feared an Aurora/Potemkin incident and decided it was safer to scuttle the fleet.

-German troops in Baltics don't demobilize quickly as they are used to fight communists in Bavaria and elsewhere (because the Kiel Mutiny was worse ITTL) and are available to crush the Silesian Uprisings before the Allied commission can respond.

-Scuttling of the HSF causes anger in France as the French wanted those ships (they believe the Mutiny was just a ploy for the Germans to scuttle the fleet), leading to an earlier occupation of the Ruhr. This given the Freikorps a chance to develop guerilla warfare skills and allows for better counter-insurgency in Nazi occupied territories.

-French occupation of Ruhr causes migration to Silesia, which remains completely German due to efforts of Baltic Freikorps. This also means that many big factories will be located here instead of the Ruhr, which was stripped by the French as a final insult to the Germans when they leave in 1924 or 1925. Silesia is beyond the range of all Allied aircraft until late in the war, which means strategic bombing will affect Germany less ITTL.

A few of these changes are featured in my Red Baron TL, and readers have generally found my TL to be plausible.

 

[TDM]

By 1940 the ships are a sunk cost, hence paying back their cost is irrelevant, Germany already spent the resources to build them. Sitting in port tying down resources that would otherwise be fighting the RM or IJN is useful, and the occassional low risk sortie adds to the menace of a force compared to just sitting in port for 5 years

Right and that's what they did OTL, a big all your eggs in one basket and go and sit in the middle of the Atlantic is not that. I agree once they're spent you can't un-spend resources, it becomes a matter of how much they pay you back in kind

I think all in one go is liable to get more reaction out of the British than piecemeal, and a large sortie is harder to deal with than a small one, as you need a larger intercepting force to do so, catching S&G, B&T and 2 Hippers with only Renown is actively counterproductive for example, and Britain can scrape up fewer task forces of 4 capital ships than of 2 capital ships. One force has a harder time intercepting an enemy than two or more forces, simple geometry

You are right It will most certainly get a bigger reaction out of the RN! Only the RN has far more assets to pull from to create a task force to find and attack this one big sortie (especially if they don't have to worry about covering KM ships held back). Again there is this idea that only battle ships can fight battle ships, and while yes that was the attitude held by some at the time and pre-War it was not universal and shown not to be true during WW2.

But there's also the risk issue for the Germans, that's all their heavies, all of them. And it's not like they're left with a plethora of lighter ships after that either. It will functionality wipe out the KM as an offensive surface force in the Atlantic and Arctic, This will have a knock on effect on RN/RAF operations

It's a delicate balance, simultaneously trying to conserve your force while projecting the appearance to ones enemies that you intend to use it on them. It is easier to project the idea that you are actively seeking an opening to break out into the Atlantic and wreak havoc at a moments notice if your ships actually leave port and head towards the entrance to the Atlantic every so often

I agree and again this is what they did OTL, but not what is planned in the OP

The problem with the U-Boat for BB swap is that has to happen while the AGNA is in force, which means breaking that or never signing it, which does bad things for Germany's diplomacy, which has the real potential to derail Munich, get a guarantee for Czechoslovakia or get Britain rearming earlier

Well they were already breaking treaties anyway, but I agree swapping BBs for Uboats is a hindsight POD. The issue here is the KM is the unloved red haired stepchild of the armed forces (along with the paratroopers I guess, and you could argue the LW are initially seen as primarily an appendage of the Army* as well). And to make matters worse their primary opponent is as of pre-war the largest navy in the world. It's a losing proposition.


*and to be fair to German resource allocation, Germany needs the best possible army it can field in order to fight the wars it wants to fight in the way it want's to fight them (decisively and more importantly quickly) and it get's that. The KM is pretty irrelevant for Poland, France and Russia campaigns, and it wasn't needed to chase the British off the continent either!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is what the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers were doing in October 1940 according to the Naval History Net website.

In commission
Argus - Deployed in the NW approaches for AS patrols and convoy defence.
Hermes - Convoy defence and interception duties in the Atlantic.
Eagle- Mediterranean Fleet
Furious - Home Fleet conduction anti-shipping operations of Norway
Ark Royal - Refitting at Liverpool from 9th to 28th October
Illustrious - Mediterranean Fleet

Under construction
Formidable to complete 24/11/1940
Victorious to complete 15/05/1941
Indomitable to complete 10/10/1941
Implacable and Indefatigable wouldn't be completed until 1944

The three aircraft carriers that were capable of doing significant damage to a German capital ship were Ark Royal, Furious and Illustrious. IOTL one was in the eastern Mediterranean and the other was refitting at Liverpool.

However, ITTL Ark Royal's refit might be postponed if the Admiralty thinks the Germans are preparing a sortie in October 1940 and Illustrious won't be sent to Alexandria ITTL because Scharnhorst and Gneisenau weren't put out of action in June 1940 and Bismarck and Tirpitz were completed on schedule instead of a year late.

This means that there isn't the OTL attack on Taranto. The OTL attack on Taranto was part of Operation MB8 which will have to be cancelled because Force H will be hunting the German battleships.

They'll also be trying to get Formidable into service as soon as possible.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is the status of the Fleet Air Arm's front-line squadrons at the beginning of September 1940.

Though ITTL they're going to cram as many of the aircraft as possible from the 7 TSR squadrons with Coastal Command IOTL aboard the aircraft carriers.

 

[thaddeus]

FWIW I think the Germans should have built six Super Leipzigs instead of Nurenburg, Blucher, Hipper, Prinz Eugen, Lutzow and Seydlitz. Their inferior armament would have been offset by their greater range and availability rates and because they need less steel and shipyard workers there's a chance of completing the six ships by the August 1940.

my speculation is always to recast the Admiral Hipper-class as the largest ships of the KM, somewhat larger than historical, to replace the Scharnhorst-class? (not sure if you could finish five? even with scrapping the carriers?)

if you rebuilt the existing CLs (and maybe the Panzerschiffe) that would be a pretty large force, 8 ships with 11" guns and 10-11 CLs.

(leaving aside any Bismarck-class)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

(not sure if you could finish five? even with scrapping the carriers?)

They managed to complete 3 Hippers by August 1940 IOTL, Seydlitz was virtually complete by May 1942 and they'd probably have got that far with Lutzow had she not been sold to the USSR.

The Super Leipzig needs less steel and shipyard workers than a Hipper to build the smaller hull. The machinery is less powerful so it might require less labour and materials to construct. Also 5 Super Lepzigs have 15 turrets and 5 Hippers have 20 turrets so there's less demand for gun pits. The 3 ships completed to August 1940 IOTL had 12 turrets that is the equivalent of 12 Super Leipzigs.

 

[McPherson]

my speculation is always to recast the Admiral Hipper-class as the largest ships of the KM, somewhat larger than historical, to replace the Scharnhorst-class? (not sure if you could finish five? even with scrapping the carriers?)

if you rebuilt the existing CLs (and maybe the Panzerschiffe) that would be a pretty large force, 8 ships with 11" guns and 10-11 CLs.

(leaving aside any Bismarck-class)

How does that work here?

a. Grey is the German vital trade routes for iron ore.
b. Red is the end points of converging trade SLOCs for the UK.
c. BLUE is the place where the United States Navy will show up according to Mahan.

Now the Weimar navy, which is where the KM program begins, has to factor the Russian Baltic and Arctic naval "fronts" and the French Marine National as its likely first naval opponents, Always first consider the 1925 problem where Raeder and Marshall start their feud in what kind of Kriegsmarine (German navy) to build..

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

My speculation is always to recast the Admiral Hipper-class as the largest ships of the KM, somewhat larger than historical, to replace the Scharnhorst-class? (not sure if you could finish five? even with scrapping the carriers?)

if you rebuilt the existing CLs (and maybe the Panzerschiffe) that would be a pretty large force, 8 ships with 11" guns and 10-11 CLs.

(leaving aside any Bismarck-class)

They couldn't build more than 5 Hipper class because of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.

Germany could build five 10,000 ton heavy cruisers armed with 8" guns. That's because the British Commonwealth was allowed 146,800 tons of 8" cruisers by the First London Naval Treaty and 35% of 146,800 tons is 51,380 tons.

They could have built additional 10,000 cruisers armed with 6" guns. However, the LNT allowed the British Commonwealth to have 192,200 tons of 6" cruisers and 35% of that is 67,270 tons. Deduct the 39,600 tons for the 6 existing light cruisers leaves 29,050 tons (i.e. 27,670 tons plus 1,380 tons).

Or put another way the London Naval Treaty allowed gave the British Commonwealth a cruiser quota of 339,000 tons and 35% of that is 118,650 tons.

39,600 tons Emden to Nurnberg​

50,000 tons Hipper class​

89,600 tons Total​

​

29,050 tons left for additional ships​

​

Though the tonnage quota of 339,000 tons was enough for 50 cruisers (13 County, 2 York and a mix of 35 Leanders and Arethusas). The Second London Naval Treaty which was signed on 25th March 1936 and came into effect on 1st January 1937 abolished the tonnage quotas. This allowed the British Government to announce its intention to increase its fleet to 70 cruisers by 1942 and that allowed Germany to have more than 118,650 tons of cruisers by 1942.

 

[kmmontandon]

All this entire conversation does is remind me that the Kriegsmarine was essentially schizophrenic - it tried to be both a global raiding fleet and one that could fight at short range in the North Sea ... using the same ships.

They should've just gone all in on the latter. Build a fleet that could dominate a chunk of ocean long enough to achieve tactical goals (invading Norway, forex, or completely shutting down the northern Lend Lease route to Russia instead of just poking at it), and be too strong for the British to risk going into German home waters or the Baltic. B&T should never have had "merchant raiding" in their job description, and the Twins shouldn't have been built at all. Also, scratch the whole silly "pocket battleship" concept, the Deutschlands were a waste of resources. And FFS, catch up with modern design and give your battleships 3x3 turrets. They should've basically built their own South Dakotas - compact, heavily armored brawlers.

Leave commerce raiding to the subs.

 

[thaddeus]

They couldn't build more than 5 Hipper class because of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.

Germany could build five 10,000 ton heavy cruisers armed with 8" guns. That's because the British Commonwealth was allowed 146,800 tons of 8" cruisers by the First London Naval Treaty and 35% of 146,800 tons is 51,380 tons.

my speculation was for "Hipper-class" counting against the BB tonnage, armed with 11" guns, so smaller than historical Scharnhorsts but larger than historical Hippers? possibly pose that 2-3 were to be built as heavy cruisers and in the end finish them as BBs/BCs?

 

[sarahz]

Was it possible for the Kriegsmarine in WW2 to forgo the piecemeal surface raiding actions they did with only one or two ships and assemble a larger force to break into the Atlantic ?

Specifically could they have combined Bismarck, Gneisenau , Scharnhorst , Scheer, Lutzow , Hipper, Prinz Eugen and a number of destroyers into a single fleet and sent that out into the Atlantic ?

yay the world's biggest flottilla of Submarines......