More Battleships and No Aircraft Carriers for Germany

More S-Boats

At the bottom end of the scale, was it feasible to increase the output of S-boats before the outbreak of World War II without cutting back on something else?

I haven't got my copy of Whitley with me, but IIRC the target was originally for 150, but was then cut back 75. IOTL 37 had been ordered by September 1939, of which about 24 had been completed and the 6 oldest had been sold to Spain.

ITTL my ideal is for the target to be maintained at 150 S-boats with a completion date of 1940. I want the state of play to be:

-6 boats (S-1 to S-6) ordered to the end of 1932, completed 1930-33 and sold to Spain in 1936 as IOTL;
-124 boats (S-7 to S-130) ordered 1934-38. 72 of which would have been completed by September of 1939 and the balance by the end of 1940.
-96 boats would be ordered in September 1939 and another 32 in November bringing the total to 152.
-Orders would continue to be at quadruple the rate of the real world until the middle of 1943 with 118 ordered in 1940, 160 ordered in 1941, 64 in 1942 and 240 in the first half of 1943. "Only" 280 would be ordered in December 1943, the same as OTL, but due to the production capacity that had been built up more of them would be completed.

I was hoping that by ordering more S-boats the builders would be able to employ larger scale production techniques to get more productivity out of the available labour.

IOTL the most important brake on expanding the S-boat force during the war was (IIRC) the supply of crank cases for the diesel engines. Daimler Benz blamed that on the Kriegsmarine for not ordering enough engines before the war in general and no bulk orders in particular. ITTL I want a quintupling of engine orders before the war to provide a reserve of engines for wastage and accelerate expansion.

The source I am using says that 230 S-boats were completed 1934-45 so I'm expecting to be told that increasing this to 920 won't be possible or if it is there will have to be big cuts to other production programmes plus there will be the problem of finding the sailors to man them.

If the above is not possible I'd settle for a doubling of S-boat production and a 2.5 fold increase in engine production. Plus the more boats available in 1939 and completed by the end of 1942 the better.
 
Gun pits?

Heck, the B and T between them were as much tonnage as Germany was allowed. They cheated, the Brits knew, but didn't complain...too much.

We've been around this before. Nobody has provided any quotes to document that the British had detailed levels of the German production. They knew they build a lot of stuff (certainly more than allowed pre-AGN), but not what, how heavy etc.
 
The biggest issue with building a larger navy is that it takes away resources that could be better spent elsewhere. With a POD after WWI Germany isn't going to be able to build a navy that is large enough to challenge Britain. It's that simple. Reality isn't a game of Hearts of Iron, where as long as you have the industrial capacity you can build as many ships as you want. Germany's lack of resources (especially things such as gun pits, slips, and fitting-out crews) means that there will be serious bottlenecks.

The logic that would lead Hitler to build a larger navy also relies on hindsight. Against France a large navy is only marginally more useful then handing schoolchildren toy guns and having them march through Belgium yelling "bang bang." With hindsight we know that Hitler was able to defeat France, but it was an incredibly close run thing which the butterflies from Hitler making this decision could change. More importantly, until France fell everyone thought it would be a bloody fight like WWI (Hitler himself estimated that Germany would take a million casualties fighting through France). So from Hitler's perspective what would be needed at the time was a large army. Germany can't do both, so there's no reason for Hitler to prioritize naval buildup when the enemy he needs to defeat is France (and later the Soviet Union).
 
We've been around this before. Nobody has provided any quotes to document that the British had detailed levels of the German production. They knew they build a lot of stuff (certainly more than allowed pre-AGN), but not what, how heavy etc.

yes, but they can make an educated guess

if the RN can build a KGV on 35 or 36k tons that is 745feet long (which took a bit of thinking about weight loss wise) and see the germans building something that is 50 foot longer they can surely make an educated guess

ie, KGV assuming 36k tons @ 745 feet is 48.32 tons per foot

Bis at 796 feet * 48.32 = 38462 * 10% (cos they were'nt trying to save weight) = 42300 tons which is'nt that far off Bismarck's (wiki) standard displacement of 41700
 
The biggest issue with building a larger navy is that it takes away resources that could be better spent elsewhere. With a POD after WWI Germany isn't going to be able to build a navy that is large enough to challenge Britain. It's that simple. Reality isn't a game of Hearts of Iron, where as long as you have the industrial capacity you can build as many ships as you want. Germany's lack of resources (especially things such as gun pits, slips, and fitting-out crews) means that there will be serious bottlenecks.

The logic that would lead Hitler to build a larger navy also relies on hindsight. Against France a large navy is only marginally more useful then handing schoolchildren toy guns and having them march through Belgium yelling "bang bang." With hindsight we know that Hitler was able to defeat France, but it was an incredibly close run thing which the butterflies from Hitler making this decision could change. More importantly, until France fell everyone thought it would be a bloody fight like WWI (Hitler himself estimated that Germany would take a million casualties fighting through France). So from Hitler's perspective what would be needed at the time was a large army. Germany can't do both, so there's no reason for Hitler to prioritize naval buildup when the enemy he needs to defeat is France (and later the Soviet Union).

I don't disagree with any of that and in the opening post of the thread said that it won't change the course of history. All that will happen is that the Kriegsmarine will sink more allied ships and kill more allied sailors, but not enough to prevent the defeat of Germany.

Though the idea was not to take resources away from the Army and Luftwaffe, but get more ships completed with the same resources.
 
yes, but they can make an educated guess

if the RN can build a KGV on 35 or 36k tons that is 745feet long (which took a bit of thinking about weight loss wise) and see the germans building something that is 50 foot longer they can surely make an educated guess

ie, KGV assuming 36k tons @ 745 feet is 48.32 tons per foot

Bis at 796 feet * 48.32 = 38462 * 10% (cos they were'nt trying to save weight) = 42300 tons which is'nt that far off Bismarck's (wiki) standard displacement of 41700

NO the external size of a ship does not reveal a good guess how much it displaces (at last not during the building process). Depending on the armor scheme and thickness ships of the same size can have quite different displacement.

The Bismarck was 10% longer, 16% wider and had almost similar draught as the contemporary KGV, so you would assume the Bismarck had around 25% MORE displacement - actually it was only 5% more. thats around 10.000 ts.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
NO the external size of a ship does not reveal a good guess how much it displaces (at last not during the building process). Depending on the armor scheme and thickness ships of the same size can have quite different displacement.

The Bismarck was 10% longer, 16% wider and had almost similar draught as the contemporary KGV, so you would assume the Bismarck had around 25% MORE displacement - actually it was only 5% more. thats around 10.000 ts.

But a bigger ship needs more armour for the same protection. To have a bigger ship on the same displacement means thinner armour, or something else being compromised.
 
NO the external size of a ship does not reveal a good guess how much it displaces (at last not during the building process). Depending on the armor scheme and thickness ships of the same size can have quite different displacement.

The Bismarck was 10% longer, 16% wider and had almost similar draught as the contemporary KGV, so you would assume the Bismarck had around 25% MORE displacement - actually it was only 5% more. thats around 10.000 ts.

which is why i said educated guess.

all the RN has to do is think 'our 745 foot BB displaces 35k' & 'what do our 800ft BB designs displace' and then they can think 'do we think the Germans are being honest about how much Bismarck displaces' (cos they have to tell the RN something as they are bound to 35% under AGNA)

then it becomes a matter of what do the RN want to do about it
 
which is why i said educated guess.

all the RN has to do is think 'our 745 foot BB displaces 35k' & 'what do our 800ft BB designs displace' and then they can think 'do we think the Germans are being honest about how much Bismarck displaces' (cos they have to tell the RN something as they are bound to 35% under AGNA)

then it becomes a matter of what do the RN want to do about it

I've quoted this a few times before...

Anthony Preston in his book The World's Worst Warships says that the Admiralty's Director of Naval Intelligence asked the Director of Naval Construction how the Japanese were able to build faster, more heavily armed and better armoured ships than the British on the same displacement. The DNC replied that the Japanese were lying about the displacements or they were building their ships from cardboard.

I don't know, but suspect that the Admiralty thought the same thing about The Twins, Bismarck, Tirpitz and the Hipper class IOTL.

There is also the case of the Italian heavy cruiser that had to use the dry dock in Gibraltar for emergency repairs. When the repairs were completed the dock was filled with 10,000 tons of water and it didn't float.

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 gave the Germans enough tonnage for three 35,000 ton battleships. However, when the British announced the Lion class (6 ships of 40,000 tons each, total 200,000) the Germans theoretically had another 70,000 tons to play with. That's enough for five 35,000 ton battleships or four Bismarcks at their real standard displacement of about 41,000 tons.
 
I've quoted this a few times before...

Anthony Preston in his book The World's Worst Warships says that the Admiralty's Director of Naval Intelligence asked the Director of Naval Construction how the Japanese were able to build faster, more heavily armed and better armoured ships than the British on the same displacement. The DNC replied that the Japanese were lying about the displacements or they were building their ships from cardboard.

I don't know, but suspect that the Admiralty thought the same thing about The Twins, Bismarck, Tirpitz and the Hipper class IOTL.

There is also the case of the Italian heavy cruiser that had to use the dry dock in Gibraltar for emergency repairs. When the repairs were completed the dock was filled with 10,000 tons of water and it didn't float.

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 gave the Germans enough tonnage for three 35,000 ton battleships. However, when the British announced the Lion class (6 ships of 40,000 tons each, total 200,000) the Germans theoretically had another 70,000 tons to play with. That's enough for five 35,000 ton battleships or four Bismarcks at their real standard displacement of about 41,000 tons.

but instead of 3 35k ton battleships we got 2 at 32k and 2 at 42k which means that surely everyone knew they were cheating straight away

it just boils down to how much cheating are the RN willing to take to keep AGNA intact?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
but instead of 3 35k ton battleships we got 2 at 32k and 2 at 42k which means that surely everyone knew they were cheating straight away

it just boils down to how much cheating are the RN willing to take to keep AGNA intact?


5 QEs (27500*5) = 137500
5 R (28000*5) = 140000
2 NelRod (40000 * 2) = 80000
R+R (32200*2) = 65000
Hood (46680) = 46680

=470 000

470 000 x 0.35 =

165,000

So the Germans were allowed 3 extra 35,000 tonners on top of their two known 30,000 tonners. (105,000 + 60,000)

"3 35,000 ton ships" was what they were allowed to build as well as S&G.


...though putting it this way does raise an interesting question. Would you rather have 14 R&R, 10 Hoods, 12 NelRods or 17 QEs?
 
but instead of 3 35k ton battleships we got 2 at 32k and 2 at 42k which means that surely everyone knew they were cheating straight away

it just boils down to how much cheating are the RN willing to take to keep AGNA intact?

German Capital Ship of World War Two by M. J. Whitley
When Adolf Hitler unilaterally abrogated the Treaty of Versailles on 16 March 1935 it resulted in a flurry of diplomatic activity, culminating in the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement three months later on 13 June. By this agreement Germany undertook to restrict her fleet to 35 per cent f that of Great Britain which meant, as far as capital ships were concerned, that she was allowed 184,000 tons in this category. The three Panzerschiffe and the two Scharnhorsts accounted for some 83,000 tons, leaving about 101,000 tons available for new construction. However, the Washington Treaty of 1922 and the First London Naval Conference agreements still remained in force, which restricted capital ship displacements to 35,000 tons maximum. Germany could therefore legitimately construct three new ships of this displacement on the remaining tonnage.
Though I was wrong about the Lion class giving the Germans the legal entitlement to build a fourth 35,000 ton battleship. It was actually the last three King George V class.

German Capital Ship of World War Two by M. J. Whitley
In January 1937 Admiral Raeder notified his staff that because Britain had announced three further 35,000 ton ships (the last three King George V's), it was expected that another ship could be built by Germany. Accordingly, he ordered that all efforts should be made to lay down J on 1 May 1938, for completion in 3½ years.
 
5 QEs (27500*5) = 137500
5 R (28000*5) = 140000
2 NelRod (40000 * 2) = 80000
R+R (32200*2) = 65000
Hood (46680) = 46680

=470 000

470 000 x 0.35 =

165,000

So the Germans were allowed 3 extra 35,000 tonners on top of their two known 30,000 tonners. (105,000 + 60,000)

"3 35,000 ton ships" was what they were allowed to build as well as S&G.


...though putting it this way does raise an interesting question. Would you rather have 14 R&R, 10 Hoods, 12 NelRods or 17 QEs?

gotcha and understood

me, i'd have a time machine handy, scrap the r's (they were'nt that much of a cheap option) and go for a stretched ABQXY 5 turret QE in their place

;-)

but to answer your question

could i have 8 or 9 QE's and 5 Hoods please
 
gotcha and understood

me, i'd have a time machine handy, scrap the r's (they were'nt that much of a cheap option) and go for a stretched ABQXY 5 turret QE in their place

;-)

but to answer your question

could i have 8 or 9 QE's and 5 Hoods please

Any chance they can all be "Warspite" Modernised please ;)

- So you revenges would be like the New York Class in layout?
 
Any chance they can all be "Warspite" Modernised please ;)

- So you revenges would be like the New York Class in layout?

in layout, yes but they;d probably be at least 100ft longer

and hopefully with a better l:b than a normal QE they'd make their design speed of 25 knots

and thats without thinking about what a 1930's mod would look like

remove the Q turret, extra aircraft handling, uprated boilers, 28knots??????

the possibilities are endless - anyone with springsharp?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
in layout, yes but they;d probably be at least 100ft longer

and hopefully with a better l:b than a normal QE they'd make their design speed of 25 knots

and thats without thinking about what a 1930's mod would look like

remove the Q turret, extra aircraft handling, uprated boilers, 28knots??????

the possibilities are endless - anyone with springsharp?
I'm SpringSharping out the QE - modifying from 1934.
Changes made so far - remove a turret, stick on a Transom Stern, add half an inch of deck and an inch of belt and you can get her to 28 knots.
 
5 QEs (27500*5) = 137500
5 R (28000*5) = 140000
2 NelRod (40000 * 2) = 80000
R+R (32200*2) = 65000
Hood (46680) = 46680
=470 000
Are N&R not 35 standard ? (well really 34) and Hood 41 ?

...though putting it this way does raise an interesting question. Would you rather have 14 R&R, 10 Hoods, 12 NelRods or 17 QEs?
9 G3s would be far more useful for WW2 IMO.....
 
M-boats and MZ-boats

IOTL the Germans ordered 36 Minensuchbooten (M-Boat) Type 1935 between 1935 and 1938 and another 33 were ordered in September 1939. Construction was stopped in 1940 in favour of the Type 1940 which was easier to build and the capacity released by the change was used to build more U-boats. 138 Type 1940 M-boats were ordered 1940-41 from German (78) and Ducth (60) shipyards.

However, criticisms of the Type 1940s weak gun armament (one 4.1" LA instead of the two 4.1" DP of the Type 1935) led to the Type 1943, which was an enlarged Type 1940 with the Type 1935 armament. In June 1943 Schicahuwerft-Königsberg proposed that it be built using prefabrication methods. Current construction of Type 1940 boats at Königsberg was taking about 30½ weeks and the yard estimated that a prefabricated M-boat could be built in 8 weeks, a reduction in construction time of 74%.

The result was that the 44 Type 1943 boats on order (from 8 yards), 25 KUJ-boats and 24 TF-boats were cancelled and replaced by orders for 141 prefabricated Type 1943 M-boats to be built by 3 yards. However, due to the increasing intensity of the enemy strategic bombing campaign only 17 were completed.

ITTL the Germans build 36 Type 1943 M-boats using conventional shipbuilding techniques before the war. They then use prefabrication techniques to build 237 Type 1943 during the war in place of the 33 M-Boat Type 1935, 138 M-Boat Type 1940, 17 M-boat Type 1943, Kregs U-Jager KUJ-1 to 25 and Torpedofangboote TF-1 to 24 built during the war in the real world.

That is the same number of hulls, but with more efficient production methods. The capacity released by simplifying the design and using more efficient building methods was used to build more surface warships. Before the war the Germans had no choice because they had already built the maximum number of U-boats allowed by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.

M. J. Whitley who I got all of the above says that they tried to, "Rationalise the wide variety of naval vessels employed on coastal defence and escort duties," with the MZ-boat. In common with the Type 1943 M-boat it was to be of prefabricated construction and like the Type 1943 the MZ-programme programme was begun too late and only the prototype MZ-1 was completed. ITTL the OKM issues the requirement for a multi-purpose escort designed for series construction in March 1941 instead of March 1943. In common with the M-boat the same number of hulls were built 1941-43, but the more efficient production methods released capacity for other work.
 
always look at the TBs and DDs as black hole of KM construction (and you could include F1 - F10 escorts)

my scenario would have them build a Bremse-class of escorts in early 1930's (instead of F1 - F-10)

2 -4 dozen of the Geleitboot design instead of OTL TBs (view them as enlarged M-boats with twice armament)

2 dozen of an improved Zerstorer with the high pressure steam engines (scratch the 5.9" guns, more raked profile, etc)
 
always look at the TBs and DDs as black hole of KM construction (and you could include F1 - F10 escorts)

my scenario would have them build a Bremse-class of escorts in early 1930's (instead of F1 - F-10)

2 -4 dozen of the Geleitboot design instead of OTL TBs (view them as enlarged M-boats with twice armament)

2 dozen of an improved Zerstorer with the high pressure steam engines (scratch the 5.9" guns, more raked profile, etc)

F, T and Z-boats is going to be the next part.

I'm probably going to have a dozen Type 24 torpedo boats instead of the 10 F-boats. Seaworthy, reliable machinery and should be quick to build.

For the later torpedo boats I usually build 21 T-1 to 21 to the Type 1939 (T-22 to 36) design.

For the destroyers I usually stick to our timeline until the Type 1936A and build Type 1936B instead.
 
Top