Different German Rearmament

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Redbeard

Banned
Good point, especially the French.

They were cashstrapped enough before WWII, if they don't have to build ships because the Germans aren't building any ships either they would have a lot of money to spend on their army instead.

The French could then easily skip some of the next:
-Dunkerque (1935)
-Strassbourg (1936)
-Richelieu (1939)
-Jean Bart (1940)

The British considerations on the composition of the RN were not based on the European situation alone, in the end it was about defending the Empire against the worst threat – where ever that came from. If Germany abstains from building capital ships there still is a substantial threat from Italy and especially Japan. That leaves no room to reduce the number of active capital ships and so the KGV programme will be needed anyway to replace the R-class. But the race to have the first KGVs in service in time to meet Bismarck and Tirpitz will not be necessary, and the KGVs might end up short of some of the OTL initial technical troubles with turret turntables, safety interlocks etc.

The emergency programme to build destroyers and escorts will probably be needed anyway as in OTL, but if the Germans early on (pre war) build many more U-Boats than in OTL, it will show the British that the German rearmament is mainly directed against British interests. In OTL they could to a degree see the German naval rearmament as coupled to a ditto French – and take it easy.

The French in OTL built the Strasbourgs as a response to the pocket battleships, I guess we will see that again (pocket BB’s not in the PoD?). Otherwise the French naval rearmament was much coupled to the Italian ditto, certainly considering cruisers and destroyers. I think we need a significant Italian PoD to have the French cut seriously down on the naval programmes.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

burmafrd

Banned
Well then how do you explain 800 tons of steel as resources vs 40,000.
As regards manpower 40 british 2 engine bombers would have about 200-250 men in it. Now the support for those bombers might be around 4-5 men per plane so that adds another 200. Even if you double that you still do not reach the wartime compliment of a BB which is usually around 1500. And lets not get into the support requirement shall we.
A B17 cost 238000 to make. And its a lot bigger and costs a lot more then a two engine bomber. 40 of them cost just under $10 million. The Iowa cost $125 million. SO you would need to build something like 500 B17's to equal the cost of one Iowa Class BB. Now the manpower part then goes into effect since the 500 B17's need three times the men the Iowa does. Now the Iowa certainly cost more then the KGV did- but I am willing to bet the KGV still cost many times what those 40 bombers did.
 
Yes, the British were worried about the Japanese – and they had been throughout the early 1930s.
Indeed, at that time the Royal Navy followed the principle of the "one-power standard", meaning that they had to be able to wage war against Japan, while leaving strictly defensive forces in home waters.
But this standard, that had held true until 1935, suddenly changed in 1936 to the "two-power standard". Whose purpose was to be able to keep a strong deterrent in the Far East (and to use it, in case as a deterrent it failed, for defensive purposes), while also being able to face another major enemy power.
What had changed?
- the 1930 treaties were expiring,
- the London Naval Agreement had happened,
- as a consequence, a serious Kriegsmarine had happened.

If the German build nothing large, I think the British naval plans will indeed be affected. Japan alone is not two powers; even assuming there is a second power, i.e. Italy, that would not require the actual OTL British construction programs.
 
And what happens if the need for something less than eleven new battleships convinces the UK to build something else, perhaps a modern fleet carrier or two?
 
And what happens if the need for something less than eleven new battleships convinces the UK to build something else, perhaps a modern fleet carrier or two?

Who knows? certainly a modern carrier or two are handy in other circumstances too, while the biggest battleships have a more limited set of uses: a) coastal bombardment, b) killing their peers, c) killing something smaller that could be more cheaply killed by something smaller.
 
And what happens if the need for something less than eleven new battleships convinces the UK to build something else, perhaps a modern fleet carrier or two?

Grimm

Do you mean more carriers than the 6+ Britain was constructing anyway? As far as I am aware there were plans for 9 new BBs, 5KGVs and 4 Lions. Have seen some suggestions for a number of Vanguards to follow on from that as the new ships enter service and the 15" guns of the R class ships become available for recycling. However there was also a major carrier programme as well.

Steve
 
Top