In an honest Germany scenario I totally agree, bit I would think it mist likely that they Lie regarding the tonnage and then these might still be in place and the KGVs remain a compromised design.
KGV or Lions in response to ATL German BB
- Thread starter Naval Aviation Fan
- Start date
Ok, I want to point something out, and that is my reason for making this thread, was so I could practice with my table for naval construction, to get a feel for you both historical naval buildups and A-historical buildups could look. Honestly I could use help with this, if any interest could be raised. I don't know how to share files, other than to just post screenshots, so here is the basic template I am currently working from:
I wanted something that would allow for ships complete construction times to be displayed, and while the above isn't perfect, it is the best I currently have to work with. The is only so much that I can do with images only, however, so I'll try to point out the flaws with the above for doing what I eventually want to accomplish.
First, there is only so much information that can be shown, so a SS of a part of this table will be a better thing to share in this thread, here is what I was trying to shoehorn into the table right now...
And now that I see it blown up properly, I see I made a typo, lol. I hate having to relearn how to type. Anyway, using something like these tables, I would eventually like to be able to show all the major powers BB/BC construction from say 1900-1950, so get experience with trying to set up a visual aid for ATL naval buildups.
In this second image, I'm attempting to show a notional construction of the OP Alternate first pair of German BB, starting with them being laid down on their historical dates, and then taking them to completion (not commissioning) given on Wiki. The longest was 4 years + 3 months, so Q2 1935 till Q3 1939. This would have the alternate twins starting to work up in Aug and Sep, 1939, so their first combat sorties will not be until the Norway campaign, so HMS Glorious still can have here fateful day and keep things as close as possible to historical, but with the changes in the OP.
My problem right now is, when looking at wiki, the times the two pair spent in various construction states, don't line up, unless the historical first pair were launched when much less complete than the second pair, so they could lay down the second pair as fast as possible. Can anyone head over to wiki, take a look at the dates, and then come up with a guess as to what I should use for the launch dates for the alt Scharnhorst class ships in the table above?
Referring back to the blank table, for this thread I intend to make a single table, starting with 1935, and going to 1944, which to my thinking is more than enough to cover everything, and all in one convenient table.
As a bit of other info, was it true that both Scharnhorst and Tirpitz were built on the same slipway, or is that just another incorrect impression I have developed over the years?
Any way, this post tired me out some, but I wanted to show what I am working on behind the scenes so to speak, and I hope to be able to post a complete alternate AGNA build up for both the British and German navies, using the tables I'm working on.
I wanted something that would allow for ships complete construction times to be displayed, and while the above isn't perfect, it is the best I currently have to work with. The is only so much that I can do with images only, however, so I'll try to point out the flaws with the above for doing what I eventually want to accomplish.
First, there is only so much information that can be shown, so a SS of a part of this table will be a better thing to share in this thread, here is what I was trying to shoehorn into the table right now...
And now that I see it blown up properly, I see I made a typo, lol. I hate having to relearn how to type. Anyway, using something like these tables, I would eventually like to be able to show all the major powers BB/BC construction from say 1900-1950, so get experience with trying to set up a visual aid for ATL naval buildups.
In this second image, I'm attempting to show a notional construction of the OP Alternate first pair of German BB, starting with them being laid down on their historical dates, and then taking them to completion (not commissioning) given on Wiki. The longest was 4 years + 3 months, so Q2 1935 till Q3 1939. This would have the alternate twins starting to work up in Aug and Sep, 1939, so their first combat sorties will not be until the Norway campaign, so HMS Glorious still can have here fateful day and keep things as close as possible to historical, but with the changes in the OP.
My problem right now is, when looking at wiki, the times the two pair spent in various construction states, don't line up, unless the historical first pair were launched when much less complete than the second pair, so they could lay down the second pair as fast as possible. Can anyone head over to wiki, take a look at the dates, and then come up with a guess as to what I should use for the launch dates for the alt Scharnhorst class ships in the table above?
Referring back to the blank table, for this thread I intend to make a single table, starting with 1935, and going to 1944, which to my thinking is more than enough to cover everything, and all in one convenient table.
As a bit of other info, was it true that both Scharnhorst and Tirpitz were built on the same slipway, or is that just another incorrect impression I have developed over the years?
Any way, this post tired me out some, but I wanted to show what I am working on behind the scenes so to speak, and I hope to be able to post a complete alternate AGNA build up for both the British and German navies, using the tables I'm working on.
Here is a little try at what I am working on:
So, here are some of the OTL ships, and this is what I'm looking at getting done by the end of the thread.
So, here are some of the OTL ships, and this is what I'm looking at getting done by the end of the thread.
Along these lines, how long can the Germans maintain the fiction? I don't want to even talk about 11" gunned ships, but if the Germans can claim their 15" gunned ships are really 35,000 tons, while just going ahead with the historical 42,000 ton ships, that is an interesting thing for me, but can the fiction be maintained as far as launch?
Iotl she was claimed to be 35000 tons as this was the limit when they started building her. At launch it was noted that she was sitting 2 meters deeper than she was supposed to, so it was noticed. However, this info never reached any politicians so there was no diplomatic consequence.
New thread starter content
My badd folks, I done went and did things wrong...
Again!
Let's just have the thread's OP and poll re-written to "The Scharnhorst class is announced to be 35,000 tons, with 8 X 15" guns", just like the historical Bismarck class was.
This way, we can have the discussion that I was really after.
I don't think that a change from the historical timeline of 2 pairs of German Battleships, one timeline in which the first pair were an abortion with 9 x 11" guns and only the second pair were 42,000 ton, 8 x 15" gunned ships would be completely different from a timeline where both pairs were built to the latter standard. To that end, let's look at what the UK did historically, and then adjust from there.
As @Gudestein pointed out previously, the historical Bismarck sat 2 meters deeper than she should have, but that only happened when she was completed, so in an ATL, where the Scharnhorst class ships are projected to be completed in Aug/Sep 1939, right at the very outset of the war (or near enough), the ships will be complete, but the crews will not have had a chance to start their shakedown cruises yet. We still see them off Norway, HMS Glorious and her two DD still have to meet their fate in June, 1940, but in this timeline, the Germans will have two operational BB in the war from the beginning, and not some disgraceful undergunned 11" gunned pretend BB.
So my questions would be:
1) When would the second pair be laid down, if the first pair are deliberately 'launched' ASAP, while the second pair take the exact time they did historically?
2) When would the butterflies start with the UK's building program, if the first two ships were thought to be 35,000 tons, but just with 8 X 15" guns?
3) If the Germans are thought to be abiding by TTL AGNA, at least until the first pair are completed (or possibly when launched), and someone looks at the hull dimensions and does the math, what are the likely RN Battleships likely to be in TTL?
So, first off, when should I put the first pair as being launched? I'm thinking that they should take a bit longer than the historical pair, as the ships are bigger/heavier, but at the same time, the Germans know that they could be found out at any time, and need to get the second pair started asap, and before they are discovered, so a less complete ship getting launched earlier, while less heavy means less weight, and more likely to go unnoticed, right?
Also, for this particular ATL, the Germans already have working 15" guns and the turrets to put them in, and not just a first early prototype, of either, but the how and why of which need to wait till my health improves.
I'm too tired to finish this post right now, need food amd a nap.
Ok, the internet ate my edit.
Arrrgh!
Edit two: Attempting for a second time to finish this post.
So, when would the notional 1935 ships get launched, and would anyone be the wiser, especially if they were launched when the ships would be so far from completion that they could be thought to be within the 35,000 ton range?
Secondly, when might the UK tumble to the fact that the German ships are not within the propourted tonnage limits? Will the UK build something different just because (ITTL) they fail to bully the Germans into building a pair useless Battleships with 11" guns, or would they alternately just build a pair of 8 x 15" gunned ships themselves? This is my favorite way to introduce ATL British BB construction plans, as without proof that the first pair of German BB are over 35,000 tons displacement, we cannot justify bigger British ships, but with 8 x 15" guns on the German ships, can we get a pair of (HMS Vanguard-like) ships ordered alongside the 5 KGV class ships?
After all, if the RN did this, in 1937-1938, then from their own construction program, they surely would be more likely to look at what they are building, and compare their own new pair of ships to HMS Hood, and compare these with what the Germans are building, and then...
Thirdly, whenever we can all agree on a likely time of discovery, follow on construction will take place (at least to the tune of laying down some Lion class ships), but looking at the wiki, it said that the pair of Lion's actually laid down in 1938 were not going to be ready until 1943, which is far too long to wait for a counter to German BB's.
Anyway, let us hope the internet doesn't eat this second attempt to edit/finish this post.
Again!
Let's just have the thread's OP and poll re-written to "The Scharnhorst class is announced to be 35,000 tons, with 8 X 15" guns", just like the historical Bismarck class was.
This way, we can have the discussion that I was really after.
I don't think that a change from the historical timeline of 2 pairs of German Battleships, one timeline in which the first pair were an abortion with 9 x 11" guns and only the second pair were 42,000 ton, 8 x 15" gunned ships would be completely different from a timeline where both pairs were built to the latter standard. To that end, let's look at what the UK did historically, and then adjust from there.
As @Gudestein pointed out previously, the historical Bismarck sat 2 meters deeper than she should have, but that only happened when she was completed, so in an ATL, where the Scharnhorst class ships are projected to be completed in Aug/Sep 1939, right at the very outset of the war (or near enough), the ships will be complete, but the crews will not have had a chance to start their shakedown cruises yet. We still see them off Norway, HMS Glorious and her two DD still have to meet their fate in June, 1940, but in this timeline, the Germans will have two operational BB in the war from the beginning, and not some disgraceful undergunned 11" gunned pretend BB.
So my questions would be:
1) When would the second pair be laid down, if the first pair are deliberately 'launched' ASAP, while the second pair take the exact time they did historically?
2) When would the butterflies start with the UK's building program, if the first two ships were thought to be 35,000 tons, but just with 8 X 15" guns?
3) If the Germans are thought to be abiding by TTL AGNA, at least until the first pair are completed (or possibly when launched), and someone looks at the hull dimensions and does the math, what are the likely RN Battleships likely to be in TTL?
So, first off, when should I put the first pair as being launched? I'm thinking that they should take a bit longer than the historical pair, as the ships are bigger/heavier, but at the same time, the Germans know that they could be found out at any time, and need to get the second pair started asap, and before they are discovered, so a less complete ship getting launched earlier, while less heavy means less weight, and more likely to go unnoticed, right?
Also, for this particular ATL, the Germans already have working 15" guns and the turrets to put them in, and not just a first early prototype, of either, but the how and why of which need to wait till my health improves.
I'm too tired to finish this post right now, need food amd a nap.
Ok, the internet ate my edit.
Arrrgh!
Edit two: Attempting for a second time to finish this post.
So, when would the notional 1935 ships get launched, and would anyone be the wiser, especially if they were launched when the ships would be so far from completion that they could be thought to be within the 35,000 ton range?
Secondly, when might the UK tumble to the fact that the German ships are not within the propourted tonnage limits? Will the UK build something different just because (ITTL) they fail to bully the Germans into building a pair useless Battleships with 11" guns, or would they alternately just build a pair of 8 x 15" gunned ships themselves? This is my favorite way to introduce ATL British BB construction plans, as without proof that the first pair of German BB are over 35,000 tons displacement, we cannot justify bigger British ships, but with 8 x 15" guns on the German ships, can we get a pair of (HMS Vanguard-like) ships ordered alongside the 5 KGV class ships?
After all, if the RN did this, in 1937-1938, then from their own construction program, they surely would be more likely to look at what they are building, and compare their own new pair of ships to HMS Hood, and compare these with what the Germans are building, and then...
Thirdly, whenever we can all agree on a likely time of discovery, follow on construction will take place (at least to the tune of laying down some Lion class ships), but looking at the wiki, it said that the pair of Lion's actually laid down in 1938 were not going to be ready until 1943, which is far too long to wait for a counter to German BB's.
Anyway, let us hope the internet doesn't eat this second attempt to edit/finish this post.
Last edited:
So, when should the first pair leave the slipways?
When should the second pair be laid down?
When should the ships be completed in this ATL, where Germany already has modern 15" guns/turrets to put them in, before jan, 1935?
I don't know how much of the historical building time of the B/T was due to developing their guns/turrets, so help me figure this out. Historically their construction time was ~51 months (for the longest one), but this was when they both had to get their 15"guns and turrets up and running, and while these two ships were first time builds, rather than repeats of the previous class.
Either way, will either the UK or Germany still keep building BB, that are started but still years away from entering service?
Historically, the British built 5 KGV class ships, started two Lion class ships in 1938, and abandoned their construction later on, and also (at some point) laid down, suspended, modified, then started building what later became HMS Vanguard, while the Germans built two pairs of heavy ships, two 11" gunned uselessness' and two real BB. This meant that, during the actual war, the UK had 15 old, pre-WWII BB +5 brand new BB, to just 4 brand new German BB.
For me, the poll choice was, something different, because the Lions will take to long to complete, and a pair of something like the Vanguard would be a quicker option.
What does everyone else think?
When should the second pair be laid down?
When should the ships be completed in this ATL, where Germany already has modern 15" guns/turrets to put them in, before jan, 1935?
I don't know how much of the historical building time of the B/T was due to developing their guns/turrets, so help me figure this out. Historically their construction time was ~51 months (for the longest one), but this was when they both had to get their 15"guns and turrets up and running, and while these two ships were first time builds, rather than repeats of the previous class.
Either way, will either the UK or Germany still keep building BB, that are started but still years away from entering service?
Historically, the British built 5 KGV class ships, started two Lion class ships in 1938, and abandoned their construction later on, and also (at some point) laid down, suspended, modified, then started building what later became HMS Vanguard, while the Germans built two pairs of heavy ships, two 11" gunned uselessness' and two real BB. This meant that, during the actual war, the UK had 15 old, pre-WWII BB +5 brand new BB, to just 4 brand new German BB.
For me, the poll choice was, something different, because the Lions will take to long to complete, and a pair of something like the Vanguard would be a quicker option.
What does everyone else think?
Ok, so ju
Now, if the alternate design could be used to start the KGV class ships as historically, then that would be a better option, for sure, but only if they will not be delayed because of this switch. Upthread, I was told that the UK had enough 15" guns and twin turrets (on hand) to build two alt-vanguard's, each with 8 x 15" guns, and if they could build these alongside the KGV class, could we see KGV + POW + 2 Vanguards in service at war's start?
It all comes down to, when they enter service.
Did the UK have such an alternate design ready to go, with the guns already in the pipeline? My thinking was that the UK had started the construction of the first two KGV class in 1937 when the designs were finalized, and the larger Lion class, themselves based upon an enlarged KGV class were laid down in 1938, and, as it turns out, historically were far too late to the party and didn't lay down their own, new 8 x 15" gunned ship until 1941. (Yikes)
Now, if the alternate design could be used to start the KGV class ships as historically, then that would be a better option, for sure, but only if they will not be delayed because of this switch. Upthread, I was told that the UK had enough 15" guns and twin turrets (on hand) to build two alt-vanguard's, each with 8 x 15" guns, and if they could build these alongside the KGV class, could we see KGV + POW + 2 Vanguards in service at war's start?
It all comes down to, when they enter service.
Design 15c for the KGVs with 9 15 inch guns was semi complete in 1935.
If the Germans were building S&G as Bismarcks the British would have known in 1935 and build their KGVs based on that. In fact its likely to finish faster than the OTL KGVs as the OTL KGV were delayed by the change of B turret from a quad to a double.
Building more than 1 Vanguard at a time doesn't make sense as there was constraints in armour production and other factors that would have reduced the benefit.
I'll agree that 11" guns are too light for a WW2 battleship or battlecruiser, but the Glorious shows that they were not useless.
Hmmm...
Wiki has the design process as starting again, in 1935, with construction to start in 1937, as per the 1st LNT. No new British BB laid down until then, right?
I need to know if by this you mean their 8 x 15" guns, or the 42,000 ton displacement, as well. If the just the guns, because the Germans tell them, sure, but if the extra 7,000 tons, on that I have to demur.
So your idea is that, instead of the historical 10 x 14" guns, these atl KGV's would be laid down in 1937, with 9 x 15" guns on 35,000 tons?
Hmmm again...
Did the RN ever have a triple 15" gun turret? I don't recall any such class of ships off the top of my head? I know they had twin 15" gun turrets on hand, and using these would allow for faster construction times, but wouldn't having to wait for triple 15" gun turrets be just as bad as the 14" quad/twins?
Hmmm a third time...
My notional alt-Vanguard wouldn't be the ~45,000 ton, postwar BB laid down in 1941, but a notional pair of 35,000 ton ships, laid down in 1937, alongside the 14" (or 3 triple 15" turreted) KGV, and making use of the spare twin 15" gun turrets laying about, and this would speed these notional ships construction times over the KGV class, either with 14" or 15" main armaments.
6 May and 15 June, 1935, the G/S are laid down.
18 June, 1935 the AGNA is signed. Germany gets 35% of the RN tonnage. Note that, at that time, the RN has 15 BB, none of which have less than 8 x 15" guns, two of which have 16" guns, and the last one is 42,000 tons. According to that, the Germans would be allowed 5 ships, on 35,000 tons each, and potentially armed with not just 4 ships with 15" guns, but one additional ship with 16" guns, if my understanding is in fact correct.
Then right after...
The UK, looking at maintaining their 15 current BB and building even more, wanted to cut costs, and so choose the 14" guns in the new class in October, 1935, and the second LNT was signed March, 1936, with an escalator clause if the Italians or Japanese didn't sign it by April 1st, 1937, allowing 45,000 tons and a return to 16" guns.
So, the financial pressures are still a thing, and the only change is that the first post ToV German BB is going to be equal (in theory) to the existing BB of the RN, rather than hopelessly outgunned, and this change alone would make the 2nd LNT be changed to the 15" gunned standard? If so, then either 15" gunned shipbuilding plan could be done.
I take your meaning, and if killing merchantmen was their goal, then S/G would actually be overgunned for such a task, but if they have to end up fighting any of the RN's 20 BB, then they are at a severe disadvantage 1:1, and would likely be far outnumbered to boot.
Yeah design work restarted in 1935 when the second London Naval Treaty was agreed. The British went into the Naval Treaty negotiations with design studies done around different parameters that might be agreed.
There was design work done on a dozen different battleship designs with different armament and speed combinations. 15C was the admiralty favorite and the most advanced but pressure from the treasury meant that the negotiating goal for second london treaty was 14 inch guns.
If the Germans are building 15 inch gunned battleships no one is agreeing 2nd LNT with a 14 inch limit.
The design work of design 15c was further along in 1935 than design 14f. The biggest problem with the KGV turret was that the original design called for 12 14 inch guns and that was reduced to 10 due to weight issues so there was an extra delay on b turret as it was redesigned to be twin late in the process.
Glorious would have been doomed even if The Twins had been 8" gunned cruisers. A carrier cannot survive a gunfight with a large warship if they get in range.
Ok, I'm officially stupid.
The Italian's were building a pair of BB 6 months before TTL S/G get laid down, and they had 9 x 15" guns, and yet the 2nd LNT still got signed with 14" guns.
Scrap any thoughts of the KGV with 15" guns. If Italy is building 2 ships with 9 x 15" guns, and then ~6 months later the Germans lay down 2 ships with 8 x 15" guns, this cannot change the 2nd LNT to a 15" standard, so only the escalator clause can allow for bigger/badder RN BB. The KGV must be built to the 10 x 14" standard.
This is bad. If we need the UK to invoke the escalator clause (which the Lions would have required), their 16" gunned ships are going to be delayed till 1943.
I cannot see my idea working either, as it makes no sense to build a pair of 35,000 ton ships with just 8 x 15" gunned ships, and even with the potential of making them 45,000 tons with the same ai armament seems weak.
Is there a way the UK could (quickly) come up with a KGV upgrade, with 4 quad 14" turrets on 45,000 tons?
I'm not a fan of developing 14" guns when there were very good 15" guns available (spares and ammunition supply alone argue for sticking with 15" in place of a new smaller calibre), but 4x quadruple 14" starts to look very appealing.Ok, I'm officially stupid.
The Italian's were building a pair of BB 6 months before TTL S/G get laid down, and they had 9 x 15" guns, and yet the 2nd LNT still got signed with 14" guns.
Scrap any thoughts of the KGV with 15" guns. If Italy is building 2 ships with 9 x 15" guns, and then ~6 months later the Germans lay down 2 ships with 8 x 15" guns, this cannot change the 2nd LNT to a 15" standard, so only the escalator clause can allow for bigger/badder RN BB. The KGV must be built to the 10 x 14" standard.
This is bad. If we need the UK to invoke the escalator clause (which the Lions would have required), their 16" gunned ships are going to be delayed till 1943.
I cannot see my idea working either, as it makes no sense to build a pair of 35,000 ton ships with just 8 x 15" gunned ships, and even with the potential of making them 45,000 tons with the same ai armament seems weak.
Is there a way the UK could (quickly) come up with a KGV upgrade, with 4 quad 14" turrets on 45,000 tons?
Yes and No. Glorious was a converted light BC. And she was fast. The hit that destroyed her flight deck at 04:38 caused shrapnel to pierce a boiler casing, causing Glorious to slow temporarily due to loss of steam pressure. After this the destroyer smokescreen effectively shielded her until 5:20, at which time she was hit in the engine compartment and steering was damaged.
Until she was slowed indications are that Glorious was showing S + G a clean pair of heels. Without the ability to do damage at the long ranges of the 11” gun, it is very possible that Glorious would have escaped.
This is the big one, what outside BB building will GB do in response? ie will they simply decide they need to support France on land and prevent the German threat growing any more?
The issue is that German and Japan were not allied for much of the time and would not have shared such detailed technical weapons & information in mid 30s, did Japan swing with who it wanted to make deals with until very late and was very secretive any way to everybody (selling IJN BB guns would have opened up its own secrets to the world and weights of its own BBs that are maybe over weight after rebuilds..)?
The British had an excellent twin 15 inch gun that worked better for longer than ever expected. The British had the triple 16 inch gun on the Nelsons and it was severely compromised by the weight saving measures but once the kinks got worked out was fairly good. If instead of 16 inch guns you mount a new Mk 2 50 cal 15 inch gun your going to have it ready before the twin and quad 14 inch turrets.
16 inch is great but the 15 inch was just fine unless your going up against Yamato. I could not see the KGV class being built to 35,000 tons if the Germans have built two 43,000 ton ships.
16 inch is great but the 15 inch was just fine unless your going up against Yamato. I could not see the KGV class being built to 35,000 tons if the Germans have built two 43,000 ton ships.