Magnum's naval PoD's. Ep. 2 - Different Kriegsmarine philosophy

What we're forgetting in this thread is the Black Sea and it's potential in use against USSR as a logistics route and also a route for amphibious envelopments. With creation of a canal network connecting Elbe, Rein and Donau German patrol craft, landing / multipurpose craft, smaller subs and maybe even larger combatants up to Torpedoboote size can be shifted from theater to theater according to where they are needed. I think the opportunities in the Black Sea would outnumber possibilities in the Baltic.

the issue with the Baltic is that no canals are needed, its proximity to Germany itself, and if Leningrad seized then Arctic Convoys route essentially ends.

not that Black Sea is unimportant.
 

Ian_W

Banned
What we're forgetting in this thread is the Black Sea and it's potential in use against USSR as a logistics route and also a route for amphibious envelopments. With creation of a canal network connecting Elbe, Rein and Donau German patrol craft, landing / multipurpose craft, smaller subs and maybe even larger combatants up to Torpedoboote size can be shifted from theater to theater according to where they are needed. I think the opportunities in the Black Sea would outnumber possibilities in the Baltic.

Historically the Kriegmarine effort in the Black Sea was rather haphazard, consisting of just 6 Type II subs, 16 S-boats, 23 R-boats and some 100 MFP's. Imagine if a major effort could be directed there right at the start of Barbarossa.

EDIT:

Imagine effect of naval logistics to Rostov and thus forward on by using Don, direct from Germany...

The other plus of this plan is that it doesn't aggravate the RN anywhere no so much.

You can easily justify the improvements in the canals between the Elbe, Rhine and Danube as being for industry - and they'd also be useful for industry.

If all the Germans got out of this was improving the infrastructure that moves oil from the Rumanian fields, then it'd still be less of a waste than building the Tirpitz and Bismark.
 
the issue with the Baltic is that no canals are needed, its proximity to Germany itself, and if Leningrad seized then Arctic Convoys route essentially ends.

not that Black Sea is unimportant.

The Baltic is also the area with the most powerful Soviet fleet and also the area most suspectible for mining etc. With canal network Germans would have had flexibility of operating in inner lines and thus able to change the point of gravity according to their needs.

Actually, a canal network connecting Elbe, Rhein and Donau already existed and only would have been need of some modernization. Some of the project work was carried out in OTL during Weimar and Nazi adminstrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine–Main–Danube_Canal (1992)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelland_Canal (1938)


In Weimar and Nazi periods of OTL the following three canals could be used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dortmund–Ems_Canal (1899) North Sea - Dortmund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine–Herne_Canal (1914)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Canal (1846)
 
Last edited:
the issue with the Baltic is that no canals are needed, its proximity to Germany itself, and if Leningrad seized then Arctic Convoys route essentially ends.

not that Black Sea is unimportant.

The Baltic is also the area with the most powerful Soviet fleet and also the area most suspectible for mining etc. With canal network Germans would have had flexibility of operating in inner lines and thus able to change the point of gravity according to their needs.

Actually, a canal network connecting Elbe, Rhein and Donau already existed and only would have been need of some modernization. Some of the project work was carried out in OTL during Weimar and Nazi adminstrations.

yes, understood there were operating canals, meant the inherent constraints of operating thru a canal, the size of ships, relative speeds, risks if detected during wartime, etc. (also mentioned my view it was still a good idea to have moved naval forces to the Black Sea)

my point was the Baltic was a more important target (IMO), had they cleared the Soviet fleet during opening stages it would have prevented them from reinforcing Leningrad with naval personnel and weapons.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think a Carrier of any size based on any kind of hull is a red flag to the RN bull. Build it and they will charge.


Personally, I like the idea of a KM made up of Hipper class cruisers, Destroyers and S-Boots with nothing larger than the Hipper class. Get your build quality right and nothing the Soviets have will stop you, whilst you empty their harbours by torpedo runs.

Then, this "Coastal KM" should allow a behind-the-line, raid on a grand scale against the Baltics and Leningrad...
 
always highlight the immediate post-war version of S-boats, Jaguar-class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar-class_fast_attack_craft

can be viewed as sort of "mash up" of S-boat and R-boat, with the speed of the former and the flak gun(s) of the latter.

my view is always that Admiral Hipper-class (sized) ships with 11" guns would have been best as flagship. they could have easily constructed 5 or more of them, leaving room for 2 carrier versions (if desired) or fast heavy cruisers versions (better idea?)

Personally, I like the idea of a KM made up of Hipper class cruisers, Destroyers and S-Boots with nothing larger than the Hipper class. Get your build quality right and nothing the Soviets have will stop you, whilst you empty their harbours by torpedo runs.

Then, this "Coastal KM" should allow a behind-the-line, raid on a grand scale against the Baltics and Leningrad...

the historical S-boats were forced into role of minelayers but could only carry 6 mines, my speculation they could have arrived at close approx. of post-war boat that carried 20 mines?

my speculative fleet was for Hipper (sized) ships, light cruisers with the hybrid diesel-steam engines, and Dithmarschen-class tanker/supply ships (with the last equipped to handle aircraft, IMO seaplanes but guess they could launch conventional aircraft?)
 
I think a Carrier of any size based on any kind of hull is a red flag to the RN bull. Build it and they will charge.
Disagree. Before the War, RN didn't see carriers as war winners, but scouts with some limited offensive and defensive capabilities. They were there to assist the Battle Line, not destroy the enemy fleet for them.

This was because how limited the FAA equipment and doctrine was.

A small, unarmored 'Wasp' carrier would raise no suspicion to the RN. U Boats have only one possible use in a War. A small carrier, that not so focused on the UK
 

Deleted member 94680

Disagree. Before the War, RN didn't see carriers as war winners, but scouts with some limited offensive and defensive capabilities. They were there to assist the Battle Line, not destroy the enemy fleet for them.

This was because how limited the FAA equipment and doctrine was.

A small, unarmored 'Wasp' carrier would raise no suspicion to the RN. U Boats have only one possible use in a War. A small carrier, that not so focused on the UK

They didn’t see them as war winners on their own, but definitely saw them as offensive weapons. For a nation as Germany, with no overseas possessions, there is no need for Carriers other than to extend the range of their offensive operations. Who other to target these extended range operations at, other than Britain or British trade? Against Russia, France, Belgium or even the Scandinavian nations, land-based aviation would be more than enough. A carrier is, a I said, a red rag to the bull. A warning sign of future intentions.
 
They didn’t see them as war winners on their own, but definitely saw them as offensive weapons. For a nation as Germany, with no overseas possessions, there is no need for Carriers other than to extend the range of their offensive operations. Who other to target these extended range operations at, other than Britain or British trade? Against Russia, France, Belgium or even the Scandinavian nations, land-based aviation would be more than enough.

Königsburg to Leningrad is 500 miles. Gotland is 200. Me-109 can't do that trip from East Prussia, when the 130 miles from Abbeville to London had a few minutes of combat time.
 
Disagree. Before the War, RN didn't see carriers as war winners, but scouts with some limited offensive and defensive capabilities. They were there to assist the Battle Line, not destroy the enemy fleet for them.

This was because how limited the FAA equipment and doctrine was.

A small, unarmored 'Wasp' carrier would raise no suspicion to the RN. U Boats have only one possible use in a War. A small carrier, that not so focused on the UK
Not just that but RN know that getting it to work means that you don't need to worry for the first class & decade.....
 

Deleted member 94680

Königsburg to Leningrad is 500 miles. Gotland is 200. Me-109 can't do that trip from East Prussia, when the 130 miles from Abbeville to London had a few minutes of combat time.

I wasn’t suggesting they’d be going to Leningrad straight away, it would be after the frontline has moved quite a bit in that direction.
 
Say you're in the early 30s in Germany, and you want to build a fleet capable of helping you once the fighting starts, what is your train of thought?

Likely enemies include France, Britain, Poland & Czechoslovakia, Italy and the USSR.

Option 3. Stalemate with Britain and war with the USSR
Here, if you focus on strangling Britain whilst defending in the east, the Russians will eventually steamroll all over you. However, if you knock out your eastern opponent, then whatever Britain does suddenly becomes inconsequential. Therefor, the Navy should be focusing on helping you knock out the USSR.

So what kind of navy do you need, that can help you knock out France and the USSR? Well, certainly not one primarily based on commerce raiding against Britain.

So, let's assume the Germans come to this same conclusion, that the chief goal of the navy should be support in knocking out land-based opponents first and foremost. Off the top of my head, some possible operations include:

1. Surprise naval landings in the Netherlands in support of attack west
2. Naval landing in Scandinavia to secure the northern flank, and possibly cut off link between Britain and the USSR
3. Naval landings on the Baltic coast in support of any attack east

Take #3 for instance. A landing at Riga or Narva would have helped trap hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers. A coup de main at Leningrad would have been crippling to the Soviets.

So, what would a Kriegsmarine focused on naval ops in the Baltic and North Sea look like? And what, if anything, could they achieve?

I really like your premise here as it made me think of KM in a different light...

If the function of the Navy becomes support of the Army and Air Force it does drastically change the requirements of the ships and their capabilities. Here are my thoughts;
  • You still need to develop the pocket battleships as they were the impetus for the UK to give you the naval deal.
  • I think you want the twins and the Bismarck's the same as OTL
  • Need to develop carriers. 1 immediately (converted freighter or liner) to gain operational knowledge and two Wasp type production models.
  • Fast multi purpose small cruiser size ships that can be used for mine-laying, landing operations or blockade running.
  • Large cargo Subs designed for blockade running and outpost re-supply
  • Fast medium range destroyers, heavy on ASW and Anti-air.
The operational needs of this Navy is to be able to quickly strike and put ashore land forces in conjunction with an overall army plan. Invasion of the Netherlands, Norway, and the SU is obviously the target here with the ability to extend further if the situation calls for it. Doctrines would also need to be developed on how to use these pieces in order to achieve the desired effect.
  • Carriers would be used to provide defensive air power for forced landings outside of an existing Luftwaffe base. Imagine a 50-60 plane carrier at Narvik and what the possible repercussions that would create for the RN. Same in a potential forced landing close to Leningrad to create an end-run against the SU in June of 41.
  • Having fast blockade running capacity to supply the Norwegian coast or run the RN blockade. Whether surface or sub is irrelevant, as long as there's a reasonable chance of succeeding.
  • Ability to quickly establish a working air base in forced landing area. Having a pre-set group of planes to operate at these outposts that would defend against the most probable threats.
The fast cruiser size ships need to be a smaller, much faster version of the LST that the US developed.

The majority of these ships need to be completed and operational by 39, very early 40. after that the needs of the Navy drop significantly and steel production can be refocused on replacement tank and land forces.
Anyways my thoughts for now.
 
Top