More Battleships and No Aircraft Carriers for Germany

That's not an option before 1933 when the 3 extra Panzerschiffen were ordered because Germany wasn't allowed an air force. However, as well as laying down 2 extra Bismarck class battleships in place of Graff Zeppelin and Aircraft Carrier B, the Germans also double the maritime element of the Luftwaffe between 1933 and 1939, plus they develop and effective air launched torpedo or buy them from Italy or Japan.

True -- sort of. Nothing's stopping them from doing design work, and even some quiet testing, though. They needed better anti-shipping aircraft for the North Sea, Straits and Med more than they needed big prestige-ships, regardless.
 
There is a major difference from the previous one version because the Germans build 6 pocket battleships instead of 3. All of the 8 pre-dreadnoughts retained in 1919 were over 20 years of age by 1930 so they were not breaking the Treaty of Versailles. The problem is the extra cost, but I thought the Weimar Government could justify it as an unemployment relief measure.

just have them build the D-class cruisers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-class_cruiser_(Germany) that was already in the works then cancelled in favor of Scharnhorst-class.

(you could get 2 of those for one Scharnhorst, build them similar to French Dunkerque with 2 quad turrets forward)

rebuild the 3 PBs adding approx. 700t as was planned.
 
Last edited:
Those look like a good idea instead of the Twins...

I am not a fan of cruiser D its neither fish nor fowl. It for example deals with the protection issues of the Pocket BBs BUT its not as well protected as the Twins or as fast or as much firepower. Its really just a super cruiser. The TWINS I would give an excellent vs. the French BCs for example but not Cruiser D. Plus Cruiser D would be even more of threat to the UK an unsinkable raider well short of the RN BCs.

Michael
 
There is a major difference from the previous one version because the Germans build 6 pocket battleships instead of 3. All of the 8 pre-dreadnoughts retained in 1919 were over 20 years of age by 1930 so they were not breaking the Treaty of Versailles.
just have them build the D-class cruisers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-class_cruiser_(Germany) that was already in the works then cancelled in favor of Scharnhorst-class.

(you could get 2 of those for one Scharnhorst, build them similar to French Dunkerque with 2 quad turrets forward)

rebuild the 3 PBs adding approx. 700t as was planned.
I am not a fan of cruiser D its neither fish nor fowl. It for example deals with the protection issues of the Pocket BBs BUT its not as well protected as the Twins or as fast or as much firepower. Its really just a super cruiser. The TWINS I would give an excellent vs. the French BCs for example but not Cruiser D. Plus Cruiser D would be even more of threat to the UK an unsinkable raider well short of the RN BCs.

Michael

Some clarification

The present draft of the essay has Germany building 6 Deutschland class battleships between 1928 and 1936 followed by The Twins as built (although I'm still hoping to have them built with six 15" instead of nine 11"). The 6 Deutschland class were built as follows:

-Armoured Ships A and B are ordered in 1928, laid down during 1929, launched in 1931 and completed during the course of 1933;

-Armoured Ships C and D are ordered in 1931, laid down the same year, launched in 1933 and competed in 1934;
-Armoured Ships E and F are ordered in 1932, laid down the same year, launched in 1934 and completed in the first quarter of 1936.

Ship A is the Deutschland of OTL. Ship B is the first of the 3 extra ships and is at present named Admiral Diederichs. Ship C is the Admiral Scheer of OTL. Ship D the second additional ship and at present is named Admiral Caprivi because he was the head of the Kaisermarine before Tirpitz. Ship E is the Admiral Graff Spee of OTL. Ship F is Kapitän Müller to honour the captain of the World War One cruiser Emden.

I was going to name one of the 3 extra ships Admiral Souchon until I discovered that he didn't die until 1946. As an aside, Scheer and Hipper both had von in their name so why weren't the ships named after them the Admiral Graff Hipper and Admiral Graff Scheer?

The Treaty of Versailles set the replacement age of a battleship at 20 years and all 8 of the pre-dreadnoughts retained after 1919 were "over 20" by 1928. There should be enough vacant slipways of the required size between 1928 and 1933 because of the Depression and I thought the Weimar Government could justify the cost as an unemployment relief measure.

Germany still had a legal right to another pair of new ships to replace the 2 remaining pre-dreadnoughts which by 1933 were over 25 years old. At first they planned to build Battleships G and H to the Armoured Ship D design of OTL, but they were built to the battle cruiser design that we know and love. However, German naval armaments industry might have had to increase its capacity to build heavy guns, gun turrets, fire control equipment and armour to build 6 panzerschiffen over the same period of time as 3 ships that were built IOTL. If that was the case the main armament for The Twins could have been built faster which might allow them to be completed earlier. Completing the main armament for the Twins earlier would in turn allow the armament for the Bismarck class to be begun and completed earlier, which in turn might mean Bismarck and Tirpitz were operational sooner.
 
IMHO, it is almost impossible to give The German Navy better sea going radar by the start of the war because the only way to get this is to change the entire modus operandi of the Nazi regime! Many things hampered radar development in Nazi Germany:- these include fragmentation of effort (each service going at it separately and refusing to share developments) Reluctance to spend time and money on what was perceived as a purely defensive technology and the suppression of scientists who were not desirably Arian. there are far more reasons than these few examples. The development of Radar in Britain between new year 1935 and the end of 1940 was incredible more for the sheer scale of what was achieved than the technology used. The watch word of the scientists working on radar was "good enough tomorrow" in other words they were not trying to stretch the technological boundaries to provide and "uber solution" they concentrated on getting a good enough solution in service as quickly as possible. From the earliest days of British Radar research there was close co-operation between the scientific and service communities except the RN who kept up their own separate research at the Portsmouth Wireless School until the summer of 1937. This research was focused on gunnery ranging radar (as was the German research at that time) and this delay in integrating with the rest of the research at Bewedsley Manor has been seen as a principle impediment to the earlier deployment of air search, surface search and other ship born systems. I digress slightly but the point is that weapons development is about more than the technology, it is about the political, social, scientific and financial environment in which it is undertaken.

I highlight this quote. Its entirely true, but the related point is that not everything has to change to make a difference.

IOTL German radar Development was reseacrh at Telefunken and internal research at the navy trying to replace sound based detection Technologies.
In 1934 the scientists had met and pitched the idea for Telefunken management, but were refused which resulted in the formation of the updtart Company Gema.
All you need is to have Telefunken know that there is state funding for bad weather gunnery aiming technology and you'll have German radar technology take place in an established Electronics developer with much greater resources.
If this is known in 1933 within the Navy, the process may be started already in 1933.
Again, if this is seen as state Investment in secret military technology, Telefunken may not publish all the patents from 1933 that subsequent Allied radar technology was based on*.

*this included medium and short wave-technologies, but not the long-wave chain home systems that seems genuinely "made in Britain".
 
I highlight this quote. Its entirely true, but the related point is that not everything has to change to make a difference.
IOTL German radar Development was reseacrh at Telefunken and internal research at the navy trying to replace sound based detection Technologies.
In 1934 the scientists had met and pitched the idea for Telefunken management, but were refused which resulted in the formation of the updtart Company Gema.
All you need is to have Telefunken know that there is state funding for bad weather gunnery aiming technology and you'll have German radar technology take place in an established Electronics developer with much greater resources.
If this is known in 1933 within the Navy, the process may be started already in 1933.
Again, if this is seen as state Investment in secret military technology, Telefunken may not publish all the patents from 1933 that subsequent Allied radar technology was based on*.

*this included medium and short wave-technologies, but not the long-wave chain home systems that seems genuinely "made in Britain".

That's helpful because I'm increasing the naval personnel ceiling allowed by the Treaty of Versailles from 15,000 to 20,000. The purpose of that was to give the Kriegsmaine a wider mobilisation base by giving them more instructors to train the new recruits. However, it would also mean more money was available for R&D projects. Therefore ITTL the Reichsmarine could issue an invitation to treat for a research contract to develop a radar system during the early 1930s.
 
It is interesting that I had the very same discussion with Astodragon in the Zweites buch TL in 2015.
With some other quotes from the same sources.

your problem tho is that if you told us grass was green we'd go to the park just to make sure.

now, altho i'm not an expert like some on this thread i think the British were very much aware of the B&T cheating, and that they had a fair idea of how much

firstly, Jane's 1938 has a section about the escalator clause - the US decided to go to 45k, the Brits set themselves a limit of 40k and asked the Germans if they would abide by the UK limit of 40k (this was Dec 38 - the Germans refused)

to me, this screams our ships are already at least 40k]

secondly, HMS Lion and HMS Vanguard.

B - 823, 118, 30
L - 793, 108, 34 - ~43250 standard
V - 814, 108, 34 - ~45200 standard

so the Germans have a ship that is longer and wider than the 2 closest RN equivalents, yet the RN think the Germans are'nt wildly cheating the 35k limit

sorry, not sure it passes the smell test
 
The Twins being built with 6x15" might well butterfly the KGV class - resulting in Lions instead.

An interesting and unwelcome unintended consequence.

Changing the KGV from nine 15" for the KGV, to twelve 14" and then ten 14" was the major reason why the took longer than the planned 3.5 years each to build. If they had stuck with the 15" turret or built them as Lions (fitted with triple 16" turrets of the type designed for Nelson and Rodney to save the time needed to design new guns and turrets) they might have been completed between the middle of 1940 and the middle of 1941. That would cancel out the effect of the Germans completing Bismarck and Tirpitz up to a year earlier ITTL. Plus the 2 extra Bismarcks I'm thinking of having laid down in 1938 for completion in 1941.

The expected consequence of the Germans building 6 Panzerschiffen in place of 3 was that the French would built a third Dunquerke class battlecruiser. IOTL they were able build Dunquerke and Strassbourg using a clause in the Washington Treaty that allowed them to build 70,000 tons of capital ships before the Treaty expired, which was carried over into the 1930 London Treaty. However, as the two ships built displaced 26,500 tons so they would have to be cut down to 23,000 tons to avoid breaking the treaty.
 
I am not a fan of cruiser D its neither fish nor fowl. It for example deals with the protection issues of the Pocket BBs BUT its not as well protected as the Twins or as fast or as much firepower. Its really just a super cruiser. The TWINS I would give an excellent vs. the French BCs for example but not Cruiser D. Plus Cruiser D would be even more of threat to the UK an unsinkable raider well short of the RN BCs.

Michael

My thinking is that they are good enough and if they can have four of these instead of the Twins that is a good thing because 4 > 2 even if the ships are less capable because they will further spread out RN assets.
 
An interesting and unwelcome unintended consequence.

Changing the KGV from nine 15" for the KGV, to twelve 14" and then ten 14" was the major reason why the took longer than the planned 3.5 years each to build. If they had stuck with the 15" turret or built them as Lions (fitted with triple 16" turrets of the type designed for Nelson and Rodney to save the time needed to design new guns and turrets) they might have been completed between the middle of 1940 and the middle of 1941. That would cancel out the effect of the Germans completing Bismarck and Tirpitz up to a year earlier ITTL. Plus the 2 extra Bismarcks I'm thinking of having laid down in 1938 for completion in 1941.

The expected consequence of the Germans building 6 Panzerschiffen in place of 3 was that the French would built a third Dunquerke class battlecruiser. IOTL they were able build Dunquerke and Strassbourg using a clause in the Washington Treaty that allowed them to build 70,000 tons of capital ships before the Treaty expired, which was carried over into the 1930 London Treaty. However, as the two ships built displaced 26,500 tons so they would have to be cut down to 23,000 tons to avoid breaking the treaty.

Why were the Twins built with 11 inch guns? Was it due to lack of larger guns or for political reasons (make them less fearsome)?
 
Why were the Twins built with 11 inch guns? Was it due to lack of larger guns or for political reasons (make them less fearsome)?

6 triple 11" were already on order for Armoured Ships D, E and F, waiting for 15" turrets to be designed and built would have delayed their delivery.

I'm not going to do if in this essay, but I have toyed with the idea of altering the Treaty of Versailles so that the Deutschland class were built with four 15" in two twin turrets to allow the Twins to be built an additional pair of Bismarcks.
 
just have them build the D-class cruisers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-class_cruiser_(Germany) that was already in the works then cancelled in favor of Scharnhorst-class.

(you could get 2 of those for one Scharnhorst, build them similar to French Dunkerque with 2 quad turrets forward)

Those look like a good idea instead of the Twins...

I am not a fan of cruiser D its neither fish nor fowl. It for example deals with the protection issues of the Pocket BBs BUT its not as well protected as the Twins or as fast or as much firepower. Its really just a super cruiser. The TWINS I would give an excellent vs. the French BCs for example but not Cruiser D. Plus Cruiser D would be even more of threat to the UK an unsinkable raider well short of the RN BCs.

was suggesting a somewhat modified version of D-class to mirror the French Dunkerque-class with two quad turrets forward which would give greater firepower and save weight.

my scenario is for German version of Force de Raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_Raid with two improved panzerschiffe and ?? dozen high speed zerstorers.

on the face of it it would seem KM had abandoned long range pocket battleship concept to instead counter French? but they could equip ?? (understand they had guns for 19 raiders) a large force of auxiliary cruisers and finish their projected fleet of 9 tankers.
 
The Twins being built with 6x15" might well butterfly the KGV class - resulting in Lions instead.


Unless the Germans are going to accept major delays in completion not possible to build with 15" guns. The entire design history of Cruiser D, Twins and Bismarck's was a twisted mess where they bounced around on displacement and armaments. Both D and Scharnhorst were laid down without plans being complete. The 12 15" guns just can't be ready in the time period. On the British side they felt obligated to follow first London and they had already used up their two ships larger than 14" guns on the Nelsons. RN couldn't build more till escalator clause of Second London kicks in and by then it was too late for King George V class. The 15" gun designs were just design studies and we're going to be built.

I was going to name one of the 3 extra ships Admiral Souchon until I discovered that he didn't die until 1946. As an aside, Scheer and Hipper both had von in their name so why weren't the ships named after them the Admiral Graff Hipper and Admiral Graff Scheer?


Graf is German for Count. Spee was a titled noble while the rest were just members of nobles families. Being alive wouldn't be an issue see WW1 ships Hindenburg and Mackensen.

The Treaty of Versailles set the replacement age of a battleship at 20 years and all 8 of the pre-dreadnoughts retained after 1919 were "over 20" by 1928. There should be enough vacant slipways of the required size between 1928 and 1933 because of the Depression and I thought the Weimar Government could justify the cost as an unemployment relief measure.


I doubt this, it was a nasty political fight to get the first ship authorized. SDP overtly ran against Deutschland being built and there was still the echoes of the Zenker scandal. In any event your story. If you are going down this path go hog wild and build 8 PPBs six in service and two in reserve was the German view and UK agreed, France of course didn't.

My thinking is that they are good enough and if they can have four of these instead of the Twins that is a good thing because 4 > 2 even if the ships are less capable because they will further spread out RN assets.


Issue isn't cost is yard capacity, we have no idea what building slips were available in the private yards and the two government yards were taxed. If you want two more units ignore going down the D design path and just build what's actually ready, the design plans for Graf Spee. Neither Cruise D nor Scharnhorst had complete building plans when started. Cruise D like Scharnhorst would have had building delays. Building another two Pocket BBs would have had the building experience to draw upon, look at the building times for those three ships.

6 triple 11" were already on order for Armoured Ships D, E and F, waiting for 15" turrets to be designed and built would have delayed their delivery.


F was never ordered only D and E.

I'm not going to do if in this essay, but I have toyed with the idea of altering the Treaty of Versailles so that the Deutschland class were built with four 15" in two twin turrets to allow the Twins to be built an additional pair of Bismarcks.


Germans considered 15" guns for Pocket BBs the design would have been a Baltic Monitor of 18 to 22 knots. Restrictions on gun size wasn't the treaty itself it was the Inter Allied Commission of Control they restricted Germans to 11.1" guns anything larger at 1 per year. Emden for example was to be built with 4x2 150mm but that design was nixed by the Commission and the result was the historic ship. For reasons of fire control the Germans wanted at least 6 guns and anything larger in terms of main armament and same speed would have been four.

For an odd ball design look up the Zenker BC from 1928. 17,500 tons, 4x2 12", 34 knots and 100mm main belt. This from Admiral Zenker hoping Germany could join Washington Treaty system. Overt cruiser killer and raider.
 
I've been reading a bit about german BBs and BC, so if no GZ and carrier B, how about building instead of those and instead of the Bismarcks four repeat 32kt Gneisenaus but armed with six 38cm guns from the start. At least 3 will be ready in 1940, the fourth one built instead of carrier B being questionable, as if it is laid down in 1938 at Germaniawerft it's construction might be stopped after WW2 start, but then it might be one of the few ships selected to be finished asap, probably in 1941. What was on the Germaniwerft slip before carrier B was laid down, could you bump laying abother BC earlier?

You can then have them plan for the H battleships and carriers as part of Plan Z, but as the war starts none will be built anyway.

One interesting effect would be that as the carriers will be later in the program the resources spent OTL on carrier catapult testing and carrier aircraft design could be used for regular aircraft for Luftwaffe (more Bf-109E instead of T etc.) and other things. Probably the whole carrier aircraft testing and designing program would just be starting in 1939 instead of 1937 and will likely be cancelled.
 
Mack8 before Flugzeugträger B was laid down on Germaniawerft Kiel slipway #2 it was occupied by Prinz Eugen.
 
Mack8 before Flugzeugträger B was laid down on Germaniawerft Kiel slipway #2 it was occupied by Prinz Eugen.

Is that true? I'm taking most of my building dates from M.J. Whitley's books. According to him in German Capital Ships of World War Two:

-her hull was ordered on 11th February 1935;
-her machinery was ordered on 16th November 1935, and:
-she was laid down on 30th September 1936, 4 months before Graff Zeppelin. At that time her projected completion date was November 1939.

According to Whitley her yard number was 555 and Prinz Eugen's was 564.

Conway's doesn't have a laying down date for Aircraft Carrier B, only a question mark.

If that is true then it mucks my plans up somewhat, because I was going to have a 7,500 ton light cruiser (an enlarged Leipzig) laid down in place of Aircraft Carrier B. When Cruiser O was launched in September 1937 the berth was going to be occupied by another light cruiser or a Bismarck class battleship.
 
Top