Kreigsmarine

[johnboy]

Alright, there has been a lot of talk lately about the Kreigmarine and their gear and what would be the best fleet build for them.

Before we go any further, I am aware that the best option for them would be to build none of the sexy stuff at all and just concentrate on escorts and U boats, maybe just building one class of maybe two BB's to tie down some RN units and "keep them interested." But how much fun would that be?

Therefore, assuming they do build larger ships, what would be good programs? Now lets bear in mind that virtually no changes are possible to OTL before the 22 March 1933 Enabling Act and that two other things dominate the landscape. It is not possible to have enormous naval budgets in the 1933 or 1934 program as Hindenburg was still alive and Hitler needed to appease the Reichswehr, which wanted as much coin as possible for itself at the expense of the navy. That is not to say a small increase is not possible, just not "I'll lay down 6 battleships in 1934". Neither the guns, the designs or the armour plate were ready then in any case. The other factor is the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty, limiting Germany to 35% of British tonnage. ie until the expiration of the Washington Treaty 184,000 tons Capital ships, 47,000 tons aircraft carriers, 52,500 tons CA's, 67,500 CL, 52,500 tons DD, 20,250 SS. You cannot exceed those figures in terms of ships laid down before end 1936 as at that stage Hitler's Germany was committed to it so they ould rebuild in other areas without too much British suspicion, although you can, of course, lie about tonnage of designs already laid...

Now in terms of availability of weapons systems, assume that the 20.3 cm SK C/34 is not available to fit to ships before second quarter 1938, the 1939, the 28 cm SK C/34 not until last quarter 1937, the the 38 cm SK C/34 not until first quarter 1939 and the 40.6 cm SK C/34 not until second quarter 1940. These in service figures assume accelerated times but are realistic to a fair degree if "rushed on". 5.9 inch guns and the earlier 11cm guns used in the Graf Spee and her sisters are already available.

In terms of "modern" ships, 30,000 tons of "capital ship" tonnage is already used on the three Deutschlands. Also, 44,600 tons are used of light cruiser tonnage with the Emden, Konigsberg Class and Leipzig/Nurnberg.

THis being the case, draw up the best possible 1933(laid 1934), 1934(laid 1935), 1935(laid 1936, 1936(laid 1937) programs. In terms of a 1937(laid 1938) and 1938(laid 1939) order anything you want, although it can be assumed that any large ships laid 1939 would be immediately cancelled September 1939.

Have at it....

 

[Saphroneth]

47,000 tons CV is kind of tricky. You could get a really big one out of that, which is a bit "all eggs in one basket", or a Lex-size one and a tiny little CVE, or two CVL... but the CVLs would be basically the Graff Zep in that case, or in other words a bit of a waste of steel.
I'd say, if they're going to build a carrier, they should go for one big mother using all the allocation and use the displacement to get a useful air group... it might even make sense to slap some casement guns on, at least that way it's not cruiser fodder.
Cover it with 5" guns if possible (DP guns) and load it up with fighters, and it can serve as a kind of task-force air defence platform.
(Oh, yeah, and use the Brit technique of using a less-capable fighter design, the 109 is a series of accidents waiting to happen and you don't need high performance to shoot down scouts.)
This wouldn't work great, of course, but it at least gets them one useful carrier. It might be a pig operationally, but it should be able to fly off small numbers of fighters fairly efficiently.
Let's say they cheat by about 10%, and they make a single carrier of about 52,000 tons displacement - even with disadvantages, it should be about as capable as one of the old post-WW1 battlecruiser conversions.

 

[Gudestein]

Just a few question regarding weapon systems. The 127 mm DP gun built for the Navy or the 128 mm build as AA for land use would have been great options as DP guns but as been pointed out in the Grafs Spee Escape TL, they would probably need a new hoist system to work effectively for sustained fire. Would it be seemed feasible to include these and in that case when? Available for designs started when?

For CV's, a two carrier design seems a good option with some serious cheating. However, the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe politics is an issue. If the Kriegsmarine operates the ships and carriers themselves, then a fighter designs based on He-112 could be an option.
Such fighter and Fieseler-167 would have god air defence, good strike (with OK torpedoes....) and good recon ability. Even without developing a more clever catapult system, the Fi-167 could take off unassisted and reserving the catapult space for the He-112's.

 

[Saphroneth]

Just a few question regarding weapon systems. The 127 mm DP gun built for the Navy or the 128 mm build as AA for land use would have been great options as DP guns but as been pointed out in the Grafs Spee Escape TL, they would probably need a new hoist system to work effectively for sustained fire. Would it be seemed feasible to include these and in that case when? Available for designs started when?

For CV's, a two carrier design seems a good option with some serious cheating. However, the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe politics is an issue. If the Kriegsmarine operates the ships and carriers themselves, then a fighter designs based on He-112 could be an option.
Such fighter and Fieseler-167 would have god air defence, good strike (with OK torpedoes....) and good recon ability. Even without developing a more clever catapult system, the Fi-167 could take off unassisted and reserving the catapult space for the He-112's.

The problem with the two carrier design is that that's close to what the Graf Zepp was (i.e. awful)... the compromises required to squeeze a carrier in under 35,000 tonnes seem to have produced some very dysfunctional results.
A one-carrier system where they accept they're not going to fit in two carriers means that they have an extra 10-15,000 tonnes to play with and as such can make similar magnitude mistakes non-fatally.

 

[MattII]

IMO decked carriers aren't worth it for Germany, not with the tim-limits they had. If they could have started back in the mid 20s maybe, but with just 6 years give-or-take, a carrier will be, at best, underdeveloped. There's also the question of what you'd use it for. A seaplane tender OTOH, that might well work.

 

[Saphroneth]

IMO decked carriers aren't worth it for Germany, not with the tim-limits they had. If they could have started back in the mid 20s maybe, but with just 6 years give-or-take, a carrier will be, at best, underdeveloped. There's also the question of what you'd use it for. A seaplane tender OTOH, that might well work.

Fair enough.

Well, that's them done, now what about DDs?


...it occurs to me that there's an important question here. What's the role of the Kriegsmarine?

To me, there's several possible purposes:
1) Shore defence.
2) Commerce raiding.
3) Invading Norway.
4) Fighting the Soviet navy in the Baltic.
5) Fleet in Being.
6) Sea control of the Channel.

6 is basically impossible under those tonnage limits...

None of these really need DDs that are that long legged.

 

[MattII]

2) is basically the chosen role, 5) is a useful addition, although basically any set of ships would fill that role.

1) Runs afoul of mines, shore batteries and the Luftwaffe.
3) I don't think this was on the books until after war was declared.
4) Possibly, but might not be needed, it depends if they can get land-bases nearby.
6) Not happening.

You could however expand 3) to be 'support amphibious operations'.

Commerce raiding however, doesn't need destroyers, no, it's tilted towards cruisers.

 

[Michele]

Naval is not my cup of tea, but I'd go for surface raiding with at least a semblance of CAP.

That means something like the pocket battleships, but with much higher speed, around 32 knots; and a couple of auxiliary aircraft carriers, also with that very high speed.

The point is interdicting the sea lanes. If a task force made by one of these pocket battleships and one of these small carriers meets with a convoy that is escorted by a couple of cruisers and a handful of destroyers, the aircraft from the carrier can first find the convoy and then start damaging the escorts. The pocket battleship can finish them off, and the convoy.

When the enemy obviously reacts by sending in a battleship group, the carrier's aircraft can scout for that threat and at the same time engage that threat's scouts, thus making location of the German force more difficult; and the higher speed will allow evasion.

(Naturally, the British also have fast battlecruisers, I have no recipe against those).

Most of the time such a task force will be on the run, and not necessarily be sinking a lot of enemy shipping. But as long as it is at bay in the Atlantic, the convoy lifeline is severely disrupted, and a number of British heavies must be out on the hunt, and they require destroyers to escort them, too. In short, even without sinkings, the Germans are getting more bang for their buck here.

A bonus to having such a German task force at sea is that the intel gathered by the aircraft might also be made available to submarine packs. Convoys that can't be engaged by the surface duo, because a battlecruiser is in the vicinity, can still be handed off to the U-Boote. Maybe.

The very high speed and the number of hulls needed means each of these pocket battleships and small carriers are toast, if they come into contact with serious opposition (a sizable air attack, or the guns of a battleship or battlecruiser). But that's true of any German alternative anyway, so why not maximize the effectiveness of the investment in the cases in which that kind of contact is avoided.

Some very fast tankers with capability to resupply at sea would be the icing on the cake, for obvious reasons, though I doubt the tech would be developed in time.

Apart from these tankers, no new technology would be needed for the combat ships above that the Germans can't develop/weren't developing in OTL. No very high performance aircraft is really needed, as mentioned by other posters above.

Naturally, this is not something a Nazi Germany would do. Because
1. great powers have big battleships,
2. the British are close to us racially and we have no beef with them,
3. the real war will be for Lebensraum, and we need ground forces for that,
4. anything flying is Goering's fief, and developing naval aviation would be a good reason to put things airborne out of that fief and under the Kriegsmarine instead.
So, no. It's an academic exercise, not a realistic proposal.

 

[johnboy]

OK, I opened my big mouth so I guess I may as well have a run at it.

Navy as at 1.4.1933
3 Deutschland Class armoured ships(2 building), 12,000 tons but stated to be 10,000 tons
1 Emden CL
3 Konigsberg Class CL
1 Leipzig CL

1933 Program
Purchase Nordeutcher Line liner under construction as Scharnhorst, convert to large escort aircraft carrier of 18,500 tons, commission 1935 to gain aviation experience.
1 CL Nurnberg, 8,100 tons
2 D Class armoured ships, 20,000 tons, stated to be 18,000 tons
6 Elbing Class torpedo boats, 1,700 tons each

1934 Program
2 Scharnhorst Class BB's, 32,100 tons stated to be 28,000 tons
1 modified Hipper Class heavy cruiser, 16,000 tons, stated to be 10,000 tons
9 Elbing Class torpedo boats

1935 Program
1 Bismark Class BB, 42,000 tons, stated to be 35,000 tons
2 modified Hipper Class heavy cruisers, 16,000 tons, stated to be 10,000 tons
1 M Class light cruiser, 8,500 tons
6 Elbing Class torpedo boats

1936 Program
1 Bismark Class BB, 42,000 tons, stated to be 35,000 tons
1 Fleet carrier, 27,000 tons
2 modified Hipper Class heavy cruisers, 16,000 tons, stated to be 10,000 tons
1 M Class light cruiser, 8,500 tons
4 Elbing Class torpedo boats

1937 Program
1 M Class light cruiser, 8,500 tons
12 Elbing Class torpedo boats
6 fast fleet oilers

This program is not that far off cost neutral. It gives naval aviation an early start where the many issues can be ironed out so be the time your carrier commissions it will hopefully be operational.

I have not tried to address the deficiencies in the German designs. That is another matter, although with more naval focus that may be possible. As everyone is aware, their capital ships designs were poor, their cruiser designs mechanically unreliable and short legged, a consequence of not having any development or designs teams in operation during the 1920's.

I have stayed away from their destroyer designs, which were all disasters, over large, over gunned and unseaworthy, in contrast to their torpedo boats, which were useful ships. Ideally, the Germans would be better off building more D Class ships and less in the way of larger BB's, but I figured with Hitler's love for big ships it was a fait accompli.

 

[Drizzt]

IMO what Germany really needed was a decent Naval Air Arm. Proper long-range naval bombers. Carrying armour-piercing bombs rather than ones designed for area damage pressed into service and decent air dropped torpedoes. Together with long-range escorts.
Not to mention pilots trained for naval attacks, rather than ones who's entire training was about air support for ground campaigns.

I am also on the anti-carrier bandwagen, although for a different reason: With bases on the French and Norwegian coastlines they didn't need carriers to strike at Allied shipping lines. It's what those carriers should have been carrying, that they needed.

 

[Saphroneth]

IMO what Germany really needed was a decent Naval Air Arm. Proper long-range naval bombers. Carrying armour-piercing bombs rather than ones designed for area damage pressed into service and decent air dropped torpedoes. Together with long-range escorts.
Not to mention pilots trained for naval attacks, rather than ones who's entire training was about air support for ground campaigns.

I am also on the anti-carrier bandwagen, although for a different reason: With bases on the French and Norwegian coastlines they didn't need carriers to strike at Allied shipping lines. It's what those carriers should have been carrying, that they needed.

It's true they didn't need carriers in late 1940... but they can't exactly plan to have already won the war with France before it starts!

 

[LeCHVCK]

Kriegsmarine not Kreigsmarine

 

[Cryhavoc101]

It's true they didn't need carriers in late 1940... but they can't exactly plan to have already won the war with France before it starts!

I think a number of Flying boat support carriers would be of better use than trying to build up carrier aviation from nothing

Marry them up with a decent long ranged flying boat capable of carrying torps and bombs

Then build 4 capital ships - this will tie down 8 X British/French Ships of equal size capability (Fleet in Being) and can be used for raiding and distracting missions

I would then concentrate on Hipper's and light cruisers lying through my teeth about their true tonnage - make the Hippers long rangred to allow them act as Raiders and the lights well armed but relatively short ranged as they will be used for littoral combat.

Nearer to the expected time of war - make and purchase as many merchant raiders as possible (I.e. The Spanish Mar Negro) - these ships should have very long endurance and be expected to operate in the pacific, Indian and South Atlantic Oceans without support.

Destroyers as has been mentioned is a difficult one - Germany is not expecting to re-fight Jutland so the DDs could still be over armed as they do not need to carry as much fuel again main focus on Littoral combat ops (so capable of laying mine fields for example).

Submarines - build up the infrastructure to support and build them as well as the training establishment - then start to ramp up the Sub fleet nearer expected time of war.

 

[Saphroneth]

Hm... 4 cap ships is about 50,000 tonnes per. That's basically Bismarcks.
When do you lay them down, though? There might be slip capacity issues. Two by two?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Hm... 4 cap ships is about 50,000 tonnes per. That's basically Bismarcks.
When do you lay them down, though? There might be slip capacity issues. Two by two?

Build them pretty much as they did

The Twins then B and T - Hell build 4 of the Scharnhorst class for all I care and have a plan to up gun them to 15" later

They would still require the allies to have 2 fast capital ships for each of them and be capable of handily defeating anything other than a modern fast BB.

 

[Saphroneth]

Build them pretty much as they did

The Twins then B and T - Hell build 4 of the Scharnhorst class for all I care and have a plan to up gun them to 15" later

They would still require the allies to have 2 fast capital ships for each of them and be capable of handily defeating anything other than a modern fast BB.

I think it would take maybe 6 cap ships total... but yeah, let's say eight, including CVs.
OTOH, with CVs in play, the RN can slow ships and thus not need to use their modern fast BBs - they can use *slower* but still well armed BBs, like the R-class.

And part of the reason I asked was when you're fitting the big 15" guns, which are specified in the OP to be not available too early.
When they're still 11" armed, the ships that result are not especially ready to fight in a big way.


But - by all means, it's probably better than most other options, and it does reduce RN freedom of movement until there's enough KGVs and Lions to play. (Lions with their OTL-planned guns can penetrate the B&T at any range and kill the Twins with embarrassing ease, while having a 9 km wide immune zone against the 15" guns - so if KGV or PoW goes against an 11" armed ship the results are going to be both hilarious and short...)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I think it would take maybe 6 cap ships total... but yeah, let's say eight, including CVs.
OTOH, with CVs in play, the RN can slow ships and thus not need to use their modern fast BBs - they can use *slower* but still well armed BBs, like the R-class.

And part of the reason I asked was when you're fitting the big 15" guns, which are specified in the OP to be not available too early.
When they're still 11" armed, the ships that result are not especially ready to fight in a big way.


But - by all means, it's probably better than most other options, and it does reduce RN freedom of movement until there's enough KGVs and Lions to play. (Lions with their OTL-planned guns can penetrate the B&T at any range and kill the Twins with embarrassing ease, while having a 9 km wide immune zone against the 15" guns - so if KGV or PoW goes against an 11" armed ship the results are going to be both hilarious and short...)

As it turns out the 14" Guns on the KGV where good enough regarding the German Ships and like OTL the Lions would not be built in this TL (In fact much less of a chance of them even being laid down) with possibly a 6th KGV

What I mean about needing 8 ships is the Allies had a policy of making sure that they had 2 capable capital ships for each Axis ship where possible.

This was made more difficult as initially the British only had 2 Obsolete and 1 refitted Battle Cruiser capable of catching / keeping up with the Twins and the French had a pair of Dunkurque class Modern BCs - Once the later French and British KGVs are commissioned this issue goes away.

 

[Saphroneth]

As it turns out the 14" Guns on the KGV where good enough regarding the German Ships and like OTL the Lions would not be built in this TL (In fact much less of a chance of them even being laid down) with possibly a 6th KGV

What I mean about needing 8 ships is the Allies had a policy of making sure that they had 2 capable capital ships for each Axis ship where possible.

This was made more difficult as initially the British only had 2 Obsolete and 1 refitted Battle Cruiser capable of catching / keeping up with the Twins and the French had a pair of Dunkurque class Modern BCs - Once the later French and British KGVs are commissioned this issue goes away.

Actually... there's a good question. Can we assume that, TTL, the Germans manage to take Norway with no cap-ship losses?
'cause otherwise they might lose capship one before capship four commissions.
But fair enough, I'm just nit picking.
And do the Allied count for cap ships include carriers? Or were they not counted as capital ships for that purpose?

 

[mescal]

Hello,

Given the set of constraints Germany had to face - basically the treaties, the economic possibilities and the fact that the Kriegsmarine would always be third after the Heer and Luftwaffe - I've long wondered whether the best way wouldn't have been to think 'outside the box'.

What I mean is that, to fight the French, the Navy would be of little use (see 1870, 1914-18). To fight the Soviets, you don't need capital ships. And a naval race with UK cannot be won in any future foreseeable from 1933.
Thus heavy units are shiny but of little use.

On the other hand, building what is now known as "Green-water navy" could perhaps maximize the value of the Kriegsmarine - with some emphasis on merchant raiders/Pocket battleships/subs if UK is to be the focus.
Such a fleet of light units can be used in the Baltic and North Sea.

Even if "green-water navy" is a post-ww2 concept, the ideas of the French "Jeune Ecole" of the 1880-90s could be a reference.

It's not a way to tell that is would necessarily have been a good idea, but getting out of the classical conundrum may be interesting.

I have written some years ago a sketch of a navy and doctrine based on those ideas.
I'm away from my notes right now but I'll try to find them.

Basically, it's a lot of destroyer-sized ships, fast minelayers, MTBs, with something akin to a coastal command (yes, I know, GÖring wouldn't agree) for the North Sea and Baltic.
And pocket battleships, merchant raiders, seaplane tenders for distant ops.
(can't remember my ideas on subs, however)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Actually... there's a good question. Can we assume that, TTL, the Germans manage to take Norway with no cap-ship losses?
'cause otherwise they might lose capship one before capship four commissions.
But fair enough, I'm just nit picking.
And do the Allied count for cap ships include carriers? Or were they not counted as capital ships for that purpose?

The Norway campaign went remarkably well for the Germans in OTL - had more of the coastal Forts shown more aggression and / or the rest of the Norwegian Military mobilised earlier and more effectively then I think that the KM is going to be hard pressed not to suffer more losses.

On German BB numbers it takes 3-5 years to build and commission then work up a Modern Battleship so regardless of whether or not a given ship is subsequently sunk before all are commissioned is moot - they would still all be building on both sides when and if this happened.

Regarding "Capital Ships" I have always read total numbers as being Capital ships = BB and BC and for Carriers to be counted separately.

I suspect that this goes back to the WNT and both LNTs when numbers tonnage and total tonnages for all classes where set.