German Naval Laws, a WI.

[Shadow Master]

Ok, so this is my first WI.

Please be gentle.

Historically, the Germans went with the choice of building up a fleet of battleships.

But what if...

They had instead taken the road not traveled and the school of thought that a larger number of smaller, cheaper ships would have served their interests better had won out?

Specifically, how would the thinking in the UK have differed from OTL without the Kaiser building up a large battle-fleet, but instead building long range cruisers, in numbers, for the protection of German trade around the world? What if the Germans dismissed ships larger than cruisers as to expensive, to short ranged, and to few for their needs?

Would the French and Russians have remained the two most likely opponents in the minds of the Admiralty in the 1890's to 1910's?

Any thoughts on how the political aspects of this might play out?

Also, what type of ocean going ships would these alternate German naval laws require?

I think that if the Germans were going to go the other way from a powerful, but short ranged fleet of battleships, their ships would have an entirely different character and nature.

I would propose design criteria in this order:

1) Absolute priority to have the ships be able to sail at very low speeds (equivalent to a contemporary merchant ship of the day), to achieve the greatest range possible. Secondarily, the vessels would be designed to have the ability to achieve very high speeds for brief periods of time in combat. Read this as being as fast as a destroyer, more seaworthy, and able to maintain this speed for longer due to larger fuel capacity.

2) Resist the temptation to build any ships armed with guns larger than 5", and ships with armor sufficient to ward off guns heavier than 5", as the role of these ships is to protect commerce around the world, and not to fight large enemy warships. The ships are to be as cheap as possible so as to be as numerous as possible.

3) Have accommodations sufficient for crews to be comfortable on long cruises. Also, each new fiscal years budget would also include the mandatory construction of overseas bases and fueling stations to support the naval vessels operations around the world.

I'm thinking that a fleet of long range, ocean going cruisers would be composed of ships something like 2,00 to 4,000 tons initially, and perhaps end up ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 tons by 1915 of so.

I would very much like to read some alternative designs for this ATL, and the reasoning behind the designs.

Back to the politics for a moment, If the German fleet is composed entirely of such small craft, will Britain see Germany as friend or foe?

And if as a friend, what interesting things might happen in the course of the years 1890-1915 on the diplomatic front?

Any thoughts?

 

[Shadow Master]

Several views, but now replies as yet. Too speed some things up a bit here is a link to some basic background info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Naval_Laws

For this thread, let us assume that Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, the does not replace Admiral Friedrich von Hollmann, and that the Kaiser sticks with the original idea of cruisers.
I think that we would see some rather large butterflies developing rather quickly, and history as we know it would be radically altered from OTL.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Increased speed reduces other ship's capacities.

Increased range reduces other ship's capacities.

Likewise improving quality of life on the ship.

You rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns by emphasizing one area but three...


Cruisers that can go as fast as destroyers but for a longer period may not be technically possible or may require a cruiser which is hideously lacking in one or more other areas.

Ships with nothing larger than 5" guns and whose armor can not withstand 5" guns may not even qualify as cruisers, will be outclassed by every cruiser afloat and a few destroyers, plus a startling number of outdated ships whose armament will still be more than sufficient against such vessels.

OTL the German navy was convinced that their lighter caliber guns could with accuracy or rate of fire prove superior to larger caliber guns of greater firepower and range in other fleets. This did not prove to be correct but did cause some harm to Germany's naval capabilities.



Bases and refueling stations...installations in German colonies will be seized in time of war and installations elsewhere will be shut down by the nations in which they exist.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Germany faces both hostile France and Russia so needs to seek naval dominance in both the Baltic and North Sea in order to keep her ports open for trade. The Kiel Canal allows her to transfer ships back and forth rapidly in this instance.

While maintaining open ports on the North Sea is import the other problem is Britain across the way. As long as Britain remains in 'splendid isolation' there is no reason to believe that they will not unilaterally act in their own interests and close trade routes to the Atlantic or worse. Remember what the British did at Copenhagen.

In order to maintain one's ports open you will need a battle fleet capable of raising any blockading force, this still being the age of the close blockade.

Long distance cruisers are worthless without the ability of a blockade being lifted so that they get out to raid commerce lanes and then, hopefully, return.

A nation not willing to secure seapower for itself and it dependent upon the goodwill of another to protect its maritime commerce is a second class (or worse) power. The Germans were entirely justified in building the navy they did given the geopolitical situation at the time.

 

[David S Poepoe]

OTL the German navy was convinced that their lighter caliber guns could with accuracy or rate of fire prove superior to larger caliber guns of greater firepower and range in other fleets. This did not prove to be correct but did cause some harm to Germany's naval capabilities.

Just adding, that the lighter caliber and high rate of fire also fit in with where they planned to have their 'decisive battle' - the North Sea and the Baltic, against either Britain, France or Russia. Visibility is problematic.

 

[Cockroach]

British response? Likely more resources devoted to Armoured Cruisers rather than Battleships and once the ideas behind Dreadnaught come along expect more resources spent on Battlecruisers rather than Battleships (quite rightly here... BCs were brilliant at killing Cruisers -see the end of S&G off the Falklands- just not at facing large numbers of equivilently armed ships).

 

[Shadow Master]

Thanks for the reply.

Increased speed reduces other ship's capacities.

Increased range reduces other ship's capacities.

Likewise improving quality of life on the ship.

You rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns by emphasizing one area but three...

I know it will be a trade off (what isn't) but that is why I ordered the capabilities. Increasing gun size, armor thickness, and overall size will reduce speed, which is why I posit very light tonnage and the gun and armor restrictions that I did. I would be interested in hearing some design ideas from you that would fit the alternative strategy, as I find that others often think of things I overlook.

Added range (fuel bunkering) wouldn't really seem to be an issue here as far as I can tell. What were the tonnages of the destroyers on the time period? I remember reading that a BIG destroyer on WWII was 1,000 tons, so what are we talking about for the 1890's -1915 period? Wouldn't a heavier ship be able to handle heavier seas at speed than a lighter ship? I am thinking that the heavier ship will also have more room for larger and more powerful engines, so this is an area that I would think holds some interesting possibilities if the hull can be properly optimized.

The increased size of the ship should easily provide the extra accommodations to make long voyages much less stressful for the crew, I would think.

Cruisers that can go as fast as destroyers but for a longer period may not be technically possible or may require a cruiser which is hideously lacking in one or more other areas.

Ya got me here, as I don't really know what the ratios of hull length, beam, and draught are going to do to the vessels speed capabilities. Does anyone else have some idea if it is possible to build a well balanced ocean going ship on just 2,000 - 4,000 tons displacement? I know that in heavier whether, the heavier ship is going to be able to maintain higher speeds than the lighter one, but don't know about calm seas.

Keeping in mind the mission of these ships, if they were at war then the 'commerce defending' would rapidly become 'commerce raiding'. And if such ships were to serve in that capacity, there would be no need to engage an enemy destroyer except on favorable terms. Remember, that little destroyer can go fast, but it cannot maintain that speed for very long and still operate very far from a refueling station or naval base.

Ships with nothing larger than 5" guns and whose armor can not withstand 5" guns may not even qualify as cruisers, will be outclassed by every cruiser afloat and a few destroyers, plus a startling number of outdated ships whose armament will still be more than sufficient against such vessels.

The idea was to have them armored against up to and including 5" guns. Again, they are not designed for fighting enemy warships above destroyer size. For that, we can wait a bit and see what develops.

Bases and refueling stations...installations in German colonies will be seized in time of war and installations elsewhere will be shut down by the nations in which they exist.

This is assuming what (or who) as enemies for Germany? And who for allies? Historically, the German navy was (IIRC) incapable of reaching their colonies due to the limited range of their battleships, and therefore the colonies were not heavily defended as their would be no relief forthcoming.

With the German fleet being made up of such inferior vessels, would the relations between the UK and Germany have gone as they did OTL?

 

[Shadow Master]

OOOps! I took so long that I missed your replies. Sorry about that.

Germany faces both hostile France and Russia so needs to seek naval dominance in both the Baltic and North Sea in order to keep her ports open for trade. The Kiel Canal allows her to transfer ships back and forth rapidly in this instance.

Hmmm. This supposes that Germany still faces the same enemies, but doesn't gain any allies?

In order to maintain one's ports open you will need a battle fleet capable of raising any blockading force, this still being the age of the close blockade.

Is that really the case? OTL the Germans have a very powerful battle fleet, and it was totally useless for keeping their ports open due to it's very short range and being outnumbered. Ask yourself this: is a blockade going to be conducted by the enemies handful of battleships? Or mainly by light forces? In the case of a close blockade, I would think that shore batteries, minefields, and even coastal submarines could make risking one's capitol ships in restricted waters a bad idea. If Germany held back a number of her ships in home waters (don't ask me why they would), then they surely won't be able to fight heavy enemy naval units there any better than they would anywhere else. On the other hand, they could pick off a number of the enemies light units.

Also, these cruisers would be much faster and longer ranged than Germany's OTL BB's, so if anything has a chance to 'run' the blockade, it will be these and not the BB's.

Long distance cruisers are worthless without the ability of a blockade being lifted so that they get out to raid commerce lanes and then, hopefully, return.

Unless, of course, they are already out and about in the first place. This is something that the German BB's were incapable of doing by their very design, but that a large number of lighter and longer ranged ships are going to excel at. If Germany had followed the cruiser path, then it is reasonable to assume that these ships are not going to be massed near home ports, but rather dispersed around the world, in numbers, and this is going to prove quite a bit better for a commerce war than anything the BB's were ever going to be able to do.

A nation not willing to secure sea power for itself and it dependent upon the goodwill of another to protect its maritime commerce is a second class (or worse) power. The Germans were entirely justified in building the navy they did given the geopolitical situation at the time.

Oh, I agree will you about that. It's just that building BB's didn't exactly prove to be worth anything in the end, did it.

Lets assume that the rise of the French and Russian fleets are still going to be taking place, but without the additional (and more serious) threat of a powerful German battle fleet. Could Britain sit idly by and watch Germany conquered and divided up by the French and Russians? Could she watch her two most dangerous enemies eliminate their most dangerous enemy and grow stronger than they ever had been in the past?

I think not.

British response? Likely more resources devoted to Armoured Cruisers rather than Battleships and once the ideas behind Dreadnought come along expect more resources spent on Battle cruisers rather than Battleships (quite rightly here... BCs were brilliant at killing Cruisers -see the end of S&G off the Falklands- just not at facing large numbers of equivalently armed ships).

Hmmm. Does that make sense? If Germany is viewed as a non-threat, and the Russians and French are still building up Battleships...

 

[David S Poepoe]

This is assuming what (or who) as enemies for Germany? And who for allies? Historically, the German navy was (IIRC) incapable of reaching their colonies due to the limited range of their battleships, and therefore the colonies were not heavily defended as their would be no relief forthcoming.

With the German fleet being made up of such inferior vessels, would the relations between the UK and Germany have gone as they did OTL?

Range isn't important for German warships since their major battle will be fought in the North Sea. Basically the entire German naval war will be decided close to home.

One can expect that British-German relations will be the same since they are economic rivals. The destruction of the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War cleared the way for an entente between Britain and Russia. As long as the continent is divided into two military camps, the Triple Alliance and the Dual Entente, the British will join that side which benefits it the most - which is the Franco-Russian Alliance.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Oh, I agree will you about that. It's just that building BB's didn't exactly prove to be worth anything in the end, did it.

Lets assume that the rise of the French and Russian fleets are still going to be taking place, but without the additional (and more serious) threat of a powerful German battle fleet. Could Britain sit idly by and watch Germany conquered and divided up by the French and Russians? Could she watch her two most dangerous enemies eliminate their most dangerous enemy and grow stronger than they ever had been in the past?

I think not.

The French and Russian fleets have been used by the Admiralty to create 'naval scares' throughout the mid to the late 19th century in order to continue and expand their budgets. The German fleet is just a continuation of that. Examining the Naval Laws also firmly gives one a set number of warships that the German may have in the future - the British may increase their naval force at will.

Geopolitics worldwide lead the British to recognize that it would be far easier to patch things up and come to an understanding with the French and Russians than the Germans.

 

[Shadow Master]

Range isn't important for German warships since their major battle will be fought in the North Sea. Basically the entire German naval war will be decided close to home.

One can expect that British-German relations will be the same since they are economic rivals. The destruction of the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War cleared the way for an entente between Britain and Russia. As long as the continent is divided into two military camps, the Triple Alliance and the Dual Entente, the British will join that side which benefits it the most - which is the Franco-Russian Alliance.

Now wait!

Germany and Britain's relations went south because of the German battleship building program, so without the OTL German naval laws, the relations between the UK and Germany are not going to be hostile, right?

France is an economic rival, and a threat. Is Germany, not having chosen to build a battle-fleet, still going to side with the nations hostile to Britain?

Why?

Wasn't it the treaties that Britain made (to contain Germany) that drove Germany into those alliances in the first place?

And Britain made those alliances because of the German battleships, right?

Or am I just tired and making no sense once again, lol?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Is that really the case? OTL the Germans have a very powerful battle fleet, and it was totally useless for keeping their ports open due to it's very short range and being outnumbered. Ask yourself this: is a blockade going to be conducted by the enemies handful of battleships? Or mainly by light forces? In the case of a close blockade, I would think that shore batteries, minefields, and even coastal submarines could make risking one's capitol ships in restricted waters a bad idea. If Germany held back a number of her ships in home waters (don't ask me why they would), then they surely won't be able to fight heavy enemy naval units there any better than they would anywhere else. On the other hand, they could pick off a number of the enemies light units.

Yes, it does make sense. The Germans are set on having their decisive battle in the North Sea and the British are set to give it to them once they start bringing units home from overseas. Until the out break of war in 1914 the Germans had based their entire strategy on the British imposing a close blockade - and when they didn't the German didn't have a fall back plan.

The close blockade would usually be a light forces operating close inland, but undoubtedly out of range of any coastal artillery, that would alert the main battle fleet further out or in a home base. The British adoption of the distant blockade allowed them to completely close any routes that German light forces would take in order to reach the high seas.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Now wait!

Germany and Britain's relations went south because of the German battleship building program, so without the OTL German naval laws, the relations between the UK and Germany are not going to be hostile, right?

France is an economic rival, and a threat. Is Germany, not having chosen to build a battle-fleet, still going to side with the nations hostile to Britain?

Why?

Wasn't it the treaties that Britain made (to contain Germany) that drove Germany into those alliances in the first place?

And Britain made those alliances because of the German battleships, right?

Or am I just tired and making no sense once again, lol?

Anglo-German relations started going south by the 1880s. There was a clear recognition in Britain that the unification of Germany would create a potential economic rival. Don't bother reading Robert Massie's Dreadnought since he just rehashes old history than has been discredited by modern naval historians.

By the 1880s the French are not rivals and certainly no naval threat. Since their defeat in 1871 the overaching goal of French foreign policy is to break French political isolation within Europe as established by Bismarck. Part of that long term policy is reaching a reproachment and understanding with Britain.

Britain made its alliances with France and Russia since they had more to offer them than any alliance with Germany would have.

 

[Anderman]

Added range (fuel bunkering) wouldn't really seem to be an issue here as far as I can tell. What were the tonnages of the destroyers on the time period? I remember reading that a BIG destroyer on WWII was 1,000 tons, so what are we talking about for the 1890's -1915 period?

The latest "torpedo boat" design of the german navy were much larger then 1000 ts.

http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/ships/torpedoboats/gtb1916/tech.html

 

[Shadow Master]

Hmmm.

Yes, it does make sense. The Germans are set on having their decisive battle in the North Sea and the British are set to give it to them once they start bringing units home from overseas. Until the out break of war in 1914 the Germans had based their entire strategy on the British imposing a close blockade - and when they didn't the German didn't have a fall back plan.

Your right if we were discussing OTL here, but in this TL, the Germans have opted NOT to build a battle-fleet. No one who chooses not to build a battle-fleet is going to be "set on having a decisive battle" of any kind.
I think that you and I are talking at cross purposes here. If the OP (Original Post) didn't make it clear, Germany is NOT following the OTL naval laws, but their alternative, the construction of a larger number of smaller vessels. It does not follow from that that the Germans will continue to concentrate their forces in home water to oppose a blockade (something that they are definitely not designed to do), rather, these forces will be used in accordance with their designed for properties. The largest portion of their forces will not be in home waters at any given time, which prevents their being trapped by any such blockade in the first place.

Also, you seem to be saying that from a historical point of view, Britain was going to go to war with Germany no matter what.

By the 1880s the French are not rivals and certainly no naval threat.

 

[Shadow Master]

Thanks for the link and post.

The latest "torpedo boat" design of the German navy were much larger then 1000 ts.

Although somewhat later than I had in mind, that class of ship shows that at least the Germans were capable of getting a light ship up to speeds that no battleship (or battle cruiser) of the day could hope to match. The link doesn't tell me the seaworthiness of those craft but it is useful and interesting nonetheless.

 

[Jeeves]

If the OP (Original Post) didn't make it clear, Germany is NOT following the OTL naval laws, but their alternative, the construction of a larger number of smaller vessels.

That was never seriously discussed as an alternative. The decision was between short-ranged battleships and long-ranged armoured cruisers, which weren't much smaller than contemporary battleships. The machinery of the time simply wasn't up to providing the necessary speed and range in a hull of the size you proposed. Comparing OTL designs, the choice was between a 17-18kn, 4x 12 inch main gun, 9 inch belt battleship and a 21-22kn, 4x8 inch main gun, 4-6 inch belt armoured cruiser. As was pointed out multiple times, your proposed design would be too weakly armed and armoured to fight any likely opponents, too slow to run from them and thus incapable of doing anything but preying on single, unescorted merchant ships.

You can do that on the cheap if you just commission a couple of armed merchant cruisers.

 

[Shadow Master]

That was never seriously discussed as an alternative. The decision was between short-ranged battleships and long-ranged armoured cruisers, which weren't much smaller than contemporary battleships.

Hey! I'm taking liberties here, lol.

The machinery of the time simply wasn't up to providing the necessary speed and range in a hull of the size you proposed.

If that is true, it does indeed throw the proverbial "wrench in the works" for my proposed ATL ships.

What would you build, if you were Germany of the times?

 

[corditeman]

Absolutely fascinated...

...David and Stevep were interested in the results of my idea of Britain holding onto (and heavily arming) 'HMS Heligoland', in terms of effects on German naval buildup. There were thoughts of light units facing a close blockade. I wondered if it would lead to short-range heavily-gunned battleships more akin to monitors (see Courageous class - we had splendid arguments about those and the Baltic Project). Ultimately, it's up to you.

Your argument for a light-weight and numerous fleet makes sense in one context - overseas squadrons with larger numbers of small fleet units. To be honest, long-range U-boats and destroyers would be a greater threat to British, Dutch and French imperial commerce. A much larger fleet under Von Spee and in Micronesia would have been a serious problem. The Kaiser could have had pre-positioned squadrons of U-boats at Tsingtao (China), Luderitz (Namibia), Dar-es-Salaam (Tanganyika/Tanzania), Douala (Kamerun) and Lome (Togoland). A slightly longer-range possibility - to threaten French Pacific possessions - could have been placements at Rabaul (Papua), Makwa/Yaren (Nauru), Truk/Chuuk (Micronesia) and Apia (Samoa), as spoilers in support of the German East Asia Squadron under von Spee. I remain amazed that the Kaiser never did this - even if the defeat of the U-boats could be foreseen, the damage done to British and French commerce would have been worse than that done by the few surface ships assigned.

I look forwards to your thoughts...

 

[Shadow Master]

Ah, hello and welcome to this WI. I also enjoyed your thread, and it was partly responsible for my finally getting around to posting this concept.

Your argument for a light-weight and numerous fleet makes sense in one context - overseas squadrons with larger numbers of small fleet units. I look forwards to your thoughts...

Yep, that was the concept that made me posit the tonnages I proposed.

A couple things I am thinking of as underlining assumptions for this thread.

Merchant ships faced with even a 2,000 ton 5" gunned warship (that is armored against 5" shells), are going to be helpless and doomed. They cannot run, out shoot, or sink their attacker.

The German naval buildup would start with ships around 2,000 tons up to ships around 4,000 tons, and these would be augmented as time went by with bigger and bigger ships, ending up with their best being around 6,000 tons by 1910-1915.

What navies had 1,000 ton destroyers in 1890?

So the German forces would look something like:
1890 -1895 2,000 tons
1895 -1900 3,000 tons
1900 -1905 4,000 tons
1905 -1910 5,000 tons
1910 -1915 6,000 tons

The idea is for Germany to be openly building up her fleet (and gaining thousands a skilled sailors in the process), without triggering a naval arms race and rivalry with the British. If Germany can achieve good relations with them, then they do not need to have any battleships of their own, and German foreign policy would be made to fit this strategy. I have a number of thoughts on the sneaky, cloak and dagger type of diplomacy tricks that could be employed to bring about good relations with Britain, while allowing the Germans to build all the 'little ships' they want.

For example, were not the Kaiser and the Royal family related in some way by marriage? Say the Kaiser invites some of the British royal families and fleet officers over for dinner (euphemism for all the myriad diplomatic functions, parties, and what not), and over dinner discusses his plans for an overseas commercial empire, protected by a host of small warships. When the Kaiser has had enough to drink, he lets slip that he isn't planning to waste his nations industrial capacity on slow, short ranged, expensive battleships. He will admit that he is very impressed by their majestic, and glorious, stature and power, but that such ships just cannot be justified in Germany's situation, as such vessels equate to a waste of resources in the economies of commerce protection.

I think that one way of blowing the chance to avoid a naval clash with the UK would be to build and deploy any ocean going force of submarines, as nobody is going to buy 'commerce protection' as their mission, whereas building a vast number of 'useless' little surface ships can be ascribed to this role. That and showing the flag of the German Empire around the world, of course.

Does anyone have some alternative suggestions for a force composition that is designed to get German long range commerce raiders deployed around the world...ER, did I say commerce raider...Of course, I misspoke myself and naturally I meant commerce protectors.

I guess I need to clarify something.

For me, Germany is going to reach the POD as historically, and then is going to take the road not traveled. This means that faced with the clear choice of confrontation or rapprochement with the British:
A - building up a fleet capable of challenging the RN and pursing a course of "we are going to do what we want and to hell with you".

or

B - Building the ATL fleet something like I proposed and pursuing the British as allies.

So, There will not be any of the provocations, crises, and incidents that the Germans historically chose to partake in after making choice A in OTL, and instead will be choices made following the strategic decision of choosing choice B in this ATL.

In other words, Germany seeks a path towards alliance with the strongest naval power, rather than conflict with the strongest naval power.

I'm still interested in hearing alternative propositions for light warships, that can be deployed worldwide, in numbers, and without causing a naval arms race with Britain.

Any thoughts?