Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[sts-200]

This one?

Hope so, I’ve always kind of liked it.

I'm not a fan, the combination of the liberal Schwarz-Rot-Gold and Imperial Black and White makes sense politically but aesthetically it's inconsistent and too busy.

I was thinking of a plain flag, without the national one at all - to avoid it being too overtly either 'old' Imperial or 'modern' Reichs.

 

[sts-200]

Why should the uk care what France and Italy think?

They both proved to be unreliable allies at best, requiring military, naval and financial support just to keep them in the fight, all the major success that brought about the end of the war came from application of British naval might and fast moving land tactics that France and Italy proved incapable of developing.

Now both nations are bleating about the naval treaties, even when they are incapable of building to the tonnage given so maybe the UK hasn't drunk the kool aid but has got tired with a couple of 2nd tier nations trying to act more important than they are in the ITTL world.

The UK's desire for a continental ally to maintain a balance of power in Europe would better meet by signing a treaty with the nascent new Germany than trying to maintain the unreliable fading alliance that they had to prop up during the last war.

And as i said...the UK had drink his own kool aid because is probable that many ITTL think that way.

Regarding being not being reliable, they had remained in the fight during the most devastating war know to man till that moment? If the answer is yes, they can be considered the most realiable of the ally...even because the UK alone will not have been capable to fight Germany or to stop her achieve continental dominance and the general British prowness had cut an year to the war so while great in term of saved lives and treasure, this hardly bring superbragging right even because Germany is still there in the middle of europe with his little 'unofficial' empire.

Speaking of importance, both France and Italy are great power, more rich and politically stable than OTL in the period and hold worldwide enough strategic position to make the British worry
Btw Italy had not developed fast moving tattic because the terrain in the Isonzo front is totally unsuitable for that and frankly in term of help ITTL had needed basically only money for rearm initially as the pratical help for the Italian front ITTL as been very limited and with this way of thinking the USA had been best served if had throw the entire western europe in the soviet hand as by your term, we were all unreliable ally (British included)

You might not be aware that the traditional UK diplomatic stance is to prevent the aparition of an European hegemon. The UK has always bankrolled the powers oposing the potential hegemon of the day.

Now, the only potential power for that title is still Germany, so it will freeze in hell before the UK consider an alliance.
If the UK look for other powers to counter Germany, you only have France and Italy. Russia is still out, the central european powers are too small and the Netherlands' army is a joke.

Yet, the UK behavior toward France and Italy had been less than strait forward.

The balance of alliances is an awkward one - and one I'll need a little time to get it right (or at least hopefully plausible).

An Anglo-German alliance is very appealing to me (partly because it would be a very different situation), but as Palantir says, it would not be in keeping with British thinking. At present I can;t see that it results in anything other than a German-run Europe, maybe with a British toehold here and there as/when France is 'put down'.
Germany might want British support against Russia, but what do the British get out of it? (given that they don't particularly like either side).
I'll keep thinking there, but I'm not sure it works.

British isolationism and hubris is likely to be very real, probably moreso than in reality. They 'won the war' in Belgium, the Empire is larger than ever, European nations still owe Britain lots of money.
Superficially, they can pat themselves on the back, and be certain that Britain is best ... which could be very dangerous if there is trouble in, for instance, India.

Nevertheless, we can assume that not all Brits will stick their heads in the sand and assume the Empire is independent of the world. A Franco-Italian alliance would be a threat to Britain (unless she was part of it).
At present, I could see an Anglo-Italian alliance/agreement more easily than a close Anglo-French one. Italy hasn't done badly out of the war, there are some historic commercial links, and British and Italian troops and navies have fought together in the various Dalmatian operations in 1915 and '17 (alongside Serbs and Frenchmen). A friendly Italy secures the Med, almost irrespective of what else goes on.
Meanwhile, the British are ruthless enough to know that France has to defend herself against Germany - she doesn't need a close alliance with the British to encourage that.
That's not to say that Britain can afford a hostile France - she can't. A Franco-German alliance would be extremely dangerous for Britain.

And of course it also depends on lots of other things, such as Russia and the Far East.

 

[sts-200]

Were we told any details about the conditions of Willy's abdication? More precisely, what's the status of the Kronprinz in all of this?
With Germany in this state of affair, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Wilhelm von Hohenzollern on the ballot of some radom presidential election in the 1930s...

Details were brief - essentially it was for similar reasons to OTL, but much earlier.
German leaders felt they needed to end the war, and the Kaiser was seen to be in the way, having started to issue increasingly daft orders.

However, that's not to say the Imperial family is discredited, nor is the ex-Kaiser in exile. There's not much chance of a restoration, but the Kronprinz's standing is undoubtedly higher than OTL.

 

[sts-200]

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting the Japanese were building ships for the Russians. I was suggesting the Japanese could send personnel covertly (or overtly with a cover story) to provide expertise and sell components to the Russians. The Russians will use their own shipyards with Japanese components where they can't build their own to build ships that are certainly not treaty legal and will eventually be superior to any treaty ship. They would probably start by building destroyers and cruisers, so that if the treaty is extended in 30-32, it will probably be a continuation of the current one and a set of four Kremlins (Yamatos) built in the mid-late 30s would either make Russia a significant naval power or if transferred to Japan, would make Japan the strongest battlefleet for several years until the US and British built counters. Note, they will also have to do a crash program to provide suitable guns, since only the Russians (and Japanese) have modern 18" (or larger) gun designs.

OK - yes a more subtle arrangement, which would certainly be more likely.
Let's just say I've been considering the underlying idea... a strong Japan and a strong Russia have obvious areas of co-operation.

 

[sts-200]

Guessed the battleships are the Helgolands and Nassaus, and the battlecruisers are the Von der tan, Moltke, and Seydlitz?. Which are the 3 irreparable vessels?
This is quite good, they were arguably ahead of the other powers in the social aspect.

Does Scheer and Hipper are so discredited?

Yes re the battleships. The two junkheaps are Moltke and Thuringen.

Weimar was quite liberal by their standards, and while this isn't Weimar, it's heading in that direction, continuing the Imperial German trend of social insurance etc...

Scheer is 'the man who lost the fleet' (to mutiny), while Hipper's performance at the end of the war wasn't much good either.
Neither are utterly disgraced, and their advice is likely to be of value, but why pick failed leaders for a 'new navy', when you have a popular and successful hero available.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I was thinking of a plain flag, without the national one at all - to avoid it being too overtly either 'old' Imperial or 'modern' Reichs.

I understand, but that is too similar to the Imperial one. Black and white alone is either Prussian or Imperial, it has to have the schwarz-rot-gold somewhere for the republican nature of the “new” Germany. That’s why OTL there was the small window of flags with the “overlapping” natures of the one I shared.

 

[sts-200]

So the German Navy is back ... and not looking very scary at the moment. A handful of increasingly-obsolete capital ships, in poor condition, does not a useful fleet make. The fact that they haven't been able to make up their minds whether to repair or scrap their harbour queens suggests political paralysis (or just indifference) as well as scarce resources. Von Spee may shake things up a bit, but I wouldn't expect any new-build major ships until at least 1930. With the resources they have available, destroyer/minelayers for the Baltic, and maybe light cruisers that can act as destroyer leaders are a better investment. Or submarines, but that might attract hostile comment (did the Stockholm treaty really have nothing in it limiting German submarines? Surprised if the British let that one through).

...

In my original draft, I had a limit on German subs of no more than 6 of up to 250 tons.
I can't see that made it into the story though ... but I don't remember editing it out - maybe a random cut that went too far!

All German subs were surrendered at the end of the war (that made it in), and as you say, there's no way the Brits would allow them any more than a token force - so I'll say 6 of up to 250 tons is their limit.

They still can't lay down any new capital ships until '28, but as you say they'd be well advised to start with something smaller - their need for modern cruisers and destroyers is far more urgent.

 

[admiral charles]

Scheer is 'the man who lost the fleet' (to mutiny), while Hipper's performance at the end of the war wasn't much good either.
Neither are utterly disgraced, and their advice is likely to be of value, but why pick failed leaders for a 'new navy', when you have a popular and successful hero available.

Agree, His Excellency the Graf von Spee is a gentleman and the best option, I guess that he will watch for the due treatment and respect that his fellow officers deserve and that, ultimately, did their best to fulfill their duty. Now I wondered if in this timeline, the meeting between the British and German admirals could occur, oh boy... would be apotheosis. We probably for the 30's, instead of Deutschland class we could see an Admiral class of panzerschiff

 

[admiral charles]

their need for modern cruisers and destroyers is far more urgent.

Definitely, a more stable Konigsberg class is a good place start.

 

[CV(N)-6]

their need for modern cruisers and destroyers is far more urgent.

Were the Coln's and 1918mob's cancelled with the end of the war? Does Germany still have the Konigsberg's and 1916mob's?

 

[sts-200]

I understand, but that is too similar to the Imperial one. Black and white alone is either Prussian or Imperial, it has to have the schwarz-rot-gold somewhere for the republican nature of the “new” Germany. That’s why OTL there was the small window of flags with the “overlapping” natures of the one I shared.

Yes, that's a good argument.
This one might be a bit fussy, but it's a thought based on a proposed German flag of the period.

 

[sts-200]

Were the Coln's and 1918mob's cancelled with the end of the war? Does Germany still have the Konigsberg's and 1916mob's?

The Konigsbergs, Coln and Dresden were surrendered (or rather 'acquired' in lieu of damages) to the Allies at the end of the war, who demanded them following the sale of the battleships to Holland. The later two were incomplete. The other incomplete ones will have been scrapped.

So, Germany has nothing even vaguely resembling a modern cruiser - although she has Von der Tann operable (Seydlitz is in poor shape, Moltke is fit only for static duties).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

This one might be a bit fussy, but it's a thought based on a proposed German flag of the period.

View attachment 548224

Oh dear me, no. That’s just... just... wrong. I don’t know why, but I don’t like that at all.

I’d even prefer one of the Prince Adalbert’s earlier designs like this:

But, it’s your TL and this isn’t a major point to derail a thread on.

Still time for the new “conservative Germany” to pick a proper flag...

 

[admiral charles]

I made this guys, what you think:
already before the expiration date establish in the Treaty of Stockholm, the Reichsmarine admiralty place an order for a design to replace most of their ocean going vessels of great war date. Two designs were requested for financial considerations, one Grosse (big) and one Klein (small), to see which was more viable, but was emphasised that should be long range and as light as possible.

Grosse version:

ADMIRAL CLASS , GERMANY PANZERSCHIFFE laid down 1930

Displacement:
18.385 t light; 19.367 t standard; 20.622 t normal; 21.627 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
657,22 ft / 656,17 ft x 80,00 ft x 25,00 ft (normal load)
200,32 m / 200,00 m x 24,38 m x 7,62 m

Armament:
6 - 12,00" / 305 mm guns (2x3 guns), 900,00lbs / 408,23kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 5,90" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102,69lbs / 46,58kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 6.632 lbs / 3.008 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 20,0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 443,52 ft / 135,18 m 10,73 ft / 3,27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 7,00" / 178 mm 443,52 ft / 135,18 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 443,52 ft / 135,18 m 21,11 ft / 6,43 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 3,00" / 76 mm 9,00" / 229 mm
2nd: 1,00" / 25 mm 1,00" / 25 mm -

- Armour deck: 2,00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 9,00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 102.726 shp / 76.633 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 10.000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.259 tons

Complement:
859 - 1.118

Cost:
£7,331 million / $29,323 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 802 tons, 3,9 %
Armour: 5.692 tons, 27,6 %
- Belts: 2.856 tons, 13,8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 346 tons, 1,7 %
- Armament: 989 tons, 4,8 %
- Armour Deck: 1.355 tons, 6,6 %
- Conning Tower: 146 tons, 0,7 %
Machinery: 3.113 tons, 15,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8.777 tons, 42,6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.238 tons, 10,9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
31.305 lbs / 14.200 Kg = 36,2 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 4,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,14
Metacentric height 4,6 ft / 1,4 m
Roll period: 15,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 66 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,69
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,31

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 2,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30,00 ft / 9,14 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 25,00 ft / 7,62 m
- Mid (50 %): 25,00 ft / 7,62 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 25,00 ft / 7,62 m
- Stern: 20,00 ft / 6,10 m
- Average freeboard: 25,03 ft / 7,63 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106,3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 188,6 %
Waterplane Area: 36.635 Square feet or 3.403 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 156 lbs/sq ft or 760 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,81
- Overall: 1,05
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


Klein version:

ADMIRAL CLASS , GERMANY PANZERSCHIFFE laid down 1930

Displacement:
16.539 t light; 17.380 t standard; 18.560 t normal; 19.504 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
657,22 ft / 656,17 ft x 75,00 ft x 24,00 ft (normal load)
200,32 m / 200,00 m x 22,86 m x 7,32 m

Armament:
6 - 11,00" / 279 mm guns (2x3 guns), 700,50lbs / 317,74kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 5,90" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102,69lbs / 46,58kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 5.435 lbs / 2.465 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 20,0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 443,52 ft / 135,18 m 10,73 ft / 3,27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 7,00" / 178 mm 443,52 ft / 135,18 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,00" / 25 mm 443,52 ft / 135,18 m 21,11 ft / 6,43 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,00" / 229 mm 3,00" / 76 mm 9,00" / 229 mm
2nd: 1,00" / 25 mm 1,00" / 25 mm -

- Armour deck: 2,00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 9,00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 95.410 shp / 71.176 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 10.000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.124 tons

Complement:
794 - 1.033

Cost:
£6,408 million / $25,631 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 653 tons, 3,5 %
Armour: 5.489 tons, 29,6 %
- Belts: 2.839 tons, 15,3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 346 tons, 1,9 %
- Armament: 897 tons, 4,8 %
- Armour Deck: 1.271 tons, 6,8 %
- Conning Tower: 136 tons, 0,7 %
Machinery: 2.891 tons, 15,6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7.506 tons, 40,4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.021 tons, 10,9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
29.111 lbs / 13.205 Kg = 43,7 x 11,0 " / 279 mm shells or 3,9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 4,1 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 15,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,37

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 2,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30,00 ft / 9,14 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 25,00 ft / 7,62 m
- Mid (50 %): 25,00 ft / 7,62 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 25,00 ft / 7,62 m
- Stern: 20,00 ft / 6,10 m
- Average freeboard: 25,03 ft / 7,63 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107,0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 190,3 %
Waterplane Area: 34.345 Square feet or 3.191 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 139 lbs/sq ft or 678 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,66
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I’d go for the klein as you can build more and the 11” guns are going to annoy less people. They’ll smash pretty much any cruiser the Russians can build and should be able to run from WAllied heavies too. Just try and get better ammo for the 1930 guns.

 

[steamboy]

The Klein sounds better, as Stenz said, she's got smaller guns so the RN won't go "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" about it and make you an object of their attention and if she's got 3 turrets she's basically going to look like a small battlecruiser.

 

[admiral charles]

I’d go for the klein as you can build more and the 11” guns are going to annoy less people. They’ll smash pretty much any cruiser the Russians can build and should be able to run from WAllied heavies too. Just try and get better ammo for the 1930 guns.

Actually I did, the shells are 700lb as opposed to 650/660 lb, although I admit that there's a bit of room more a slightly bigger one.

 

[admiral charles]

The Klein sounds better, as Stenz said, she's got smaller guns so the RN won't go "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" about it and make you an object of their attention and if she's got 3 turrets she's basically going to look like a small battlecruiser.

Well, wanted to put more guns but to be honest I tried several designs last night and didn't work, just this ones, Funny enough, I now had come to terms and acknowledge the fact that currently Germany doesn't need nor possess the means for building modern capital ships without going to Bismarck size.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Actually I did, the shells are 700lb as opposed to 650/660 lb, although I admit that there's a bit of room more a slightly bigger one.

How did you figure that out or is it a guesstimate based on WWI shells or comparable guns from other navies?

Is this ship just an improved Deutschland with some better armour and not constrained by the OTL 10,000 tons limit?

 

[FriendlyGhost]

This one?

Hope so, I’ve always kind of liked it.

I was thinking of a plain flag, without the national one at all - to avoid it being too overtly either 'old' Imperial or 'modern' Reichs.
View attachment 548193

I understand, but that is too similar to the Imperial one. Black and white alone is either Prussian or Imperial, it has to have the schwarz-rot-gold somewhere for the republican nature of the “new” Germany. That’s why OTL there was the small window of flags with the “overlapping” natures of the one I shared.

Yes, that's a good argument.
This one might be a bit fussy, but it's a thought based on a proposed German flag of the period.

View attachment 548224

Oh dear me, no. That’s just... just... wrong. I don’t know why, but I don’t like that at all.

I’d even prefer one of the Prince Adalbert’s earlier designs like this:

But, it’s your TL and this isn’t a major point to derail a thread on.

Still time for the new “conservative Germany” to pick a proper flag...

Sorry to continue the minor derail, but if it's very important to have the red and gold, then maybe put the red into the cross and the gold into the inner stripes, like this:
(click thumbnail for larger image)
The red cross could be seen as a nod to socialism as well.
I did play around with changing the colours in the central circle, but all those attempts were just too ... un-subtle.

Anyway, as Stenz said above, this is only a very minor point. It's the story which matters, so I guess we can all just imagine our own version of the flag and continue to enjoy this fine TL.