More Battleships and No Aircraft Carriers for Germany

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.

I don't have it handy but I would trust what Erich Gröner says as final. A number of authors use this work as their back source on such things. I have a spreadsheet of laydown dates and yards for the Germans that I made.

Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 Band 1: Panzerschiffe, Linienschiffe, Schlachschiffe, Flugzeugträger, Kreuzer, Kanonenboote by Erich Gröner

The above is available in English.

Few works give a solid date for Flugzeugträger B, I have seen a number given and the common element is 1938 and the yard. With her being on the same slipway as Prinz Eugen that suggests a laydown date of soonest being October 1938.

By the way I wouldn't have the Germans build any O class, this is one nickname applied the O Class recall they were to be ships O P & Q Ohne Panzer Quatsch "Without Armor Nonsense." They were a BAD design and heavy cruisers presented a gunnery threat to them.

Michael
 
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.

Interesting. I thought it might be an issue in the 1930s because Scheer and Hipper had both died before the ships named after them were launched.

I was going to name one of the 3 extra Deutschland class after Paul on Lettow-Vorbeck, but that was before I discovered that he died in 1964 at the age of 93 and what he allegedly told Hitler to do, though some people think he did not put it so politely!

Any suggestions for Bismarck class Nos. 3 and 4?

At present the projected names for the third and fourth Bismarcks are Hindenburg and Luddendorf. If built (and I haven't decided that they will be) they are laid down in 1938 on the slipways used for Graff Zeppelin and Aircraft Carrier B IOTL. That is 7,500 ton Super Leipzigs are laid down instead of CVs A and B in the final quarter of 1936 and launched a year later. Then the slipways are used for more cruisers or a pair of battleships.
 
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.

That's similar to what actually happened. The Luftwaffe actually had Trägergruppe 186 at the outbreak of WWII with 3 staffeln (2 Bf109 and 1 Ju87 or vice versa). By July 1940 it had effectively been upgraded to a geschwader (but was still called a gruppe) because it had 2 subordinate gruppen each with a stab and 3 staffeln. One had Bf109s and the other Ju87s. However, they were both incorporated into the mainstream of the Luftwaffe on 5th July 1940. I. Gruppe became III/St.G.1 and II. Gruppe became III./J.G.77. This was because Graff Zeppelin was suspended the month previously.
 
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.

I did consider that because 4 Gneiseanu class with their official displacement of 104,000 tons (i.e. 4 x 26,000 tons) compared to 105,000 tons for 3 Bismarcks (i.e. 3 x 35,000 tons).

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement initially allowed Germany 184,000 tons of capital ships (35% of 525,000 tons). The 3 Deutschlands and the Twins absorbed 82,000 tons, leaving 102,000 tons for new construction.

It might also have helped because the Gneiseanu class took an average of 40 months to build, but Bismarck and Tirptz were an average of 51 months. Having 4 extra battle cruisers in 1940 would have been of more use to Germany than 2 battleships in 1941.
 
Any suggestions for Bismarck class Nos. 3 and 4?

While Hitler had strong connections to Luddendorf I don't know about naming a a BB after the man. Hindenburg sounds fine. For another ship in terms of names? I would go with names with strong connections to German Nationalism.

Friedrich der Große
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great

Otto der Große
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement initially allowed Germany 184,000 tons of capital ships (35% of 525,000 tons). The 3 Deutschlands and the Twins absorbed 82,000 tons, leaving 102,000 tons for new construction.

Pocket BBs because of their 11" guns counted against capital ship tonnage. Keep in mind that the AGNA defacto made Germany a party to the Washington Treaty System and its language and definitions were used. Also in 1937 with the laying down of the King George V class more tonnage became available.

Michael
 
I don't have it handy but I would trust what Erich Gröner says as final. A number of authors use this work as their back source on such things. I have a spreadsheet of laydown dates and yards for the Germans that I made.

Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 Band 1: Panzerschiffe, Linienschiffe, Schlachschiffe, Flugzeugträger, Kreuzer, Kanonenboote by Erich Gröner

The above is available in English.

Few works give a solid date for Flugzeugträger B, I have seen a number given and the common element is 1938 and the yard. With her being on the same slipway as Prinz Eugen that suggests a laydown date of soonest being October 1938.

By the way I wouldn't have the Germans build any O class, this is one nickname applied the O Class recall they were to be ships O P & Q Ohne Panzer Quatsch "Without Armor Nonsense." They were a BAD design and heavy cruisers presented a gunnery threat to them.

Michael

That's a pity. If I send you a PM with my email address would you send your spreadsheet to me so that I can compare it against the spreadsheet I'm compiling to see if my shipbuilding plans fit in with the available slipways.

Don't worry about the O Class battlecruiser. It is designed, but does not get as far as the ordering stage because all new cruiser projects and above are put on hold for 6 months in the spring of 1939 so that all available resources can be concentrated on the ships already under construction.

The Cruiser O that I was referring to is a light cruiser of 7,500 tons, that is a Leipzig with a larger, stronger and more seaworthy hull.
 
Despite its problems

M Class would be my suggestion for a light cruiser design.

Michael

In my timeline the Germans keep building their existing designs (or enlarged versions to cure their faults) during the early years of the Nazi era rather than spending time (that hindsight tells us that they were wasting) producing new designs (such as the M Class) that were never built. Therefore they build some enlarged Leipzigs instead of the Hipper class and then instead of the M Class light cruiser the U Class heavy cruiser, which is a further development of the enlarged Leipzig class, but with nine 8" instead of nine 5.9". Similarly for destroyers they order an enlarged version of their 900 ton destroyer instead of the first 22 Z-boats and the first 21 T-Boats.
 
what was tonnage allowed for destroyers and/or torpedo boats?

(under Anglo-German Naval Agreement? not other treaties)
 
what was tonnage allowed for destroyers and/or torpedo boats?

(under Anglo-German Naval Agreement? not other treaties)

Up to the end of 1936 (when the tonnage quotas set by the WNT and 1930 LNT expired) the British Empire was allowed the following, with the 35% Germany was allowed under the A.G.N.A. following:

Aircraft Carriers: 135,000 tons, so Germany was allowed 47,250 tons

Battleships: 525,000, so Germany was allowed 183,750 tons

Cruisers
Heavy: 146,800 tons, so Germany was allowed 51,380 tons
Light: 192,200 tons, so Germany was allowed 67,270 tons
Total: 339,000 tons, so Germany was allowed 118,650 tons

Destroyers 150,000 tons, so Germany was allowed 52,500 tons.

The ratio was different for submarines. Originally it was 45% (IIRC) of the 52,700 tons the British Empire was allowed under the 1930 LNT, but the there was a clause that allowed Germany 100%, which they eventually used.

However, the Royal Navy didn't scrap all the cruisers and destroyers it should have had to comply with the treaty and increased its forces of both types of warship between 1936 and 1939. The British Empire had 65 cruisers at the outbreak of World War II with a combined displacement approaching 470,000 tons, so Germany could have had 164,500 tons of cruisers if Hitler hadn't denounced the Agreement earlier in 1939. Similarly the 193 destroyers (including one on the Disposal List) displaced about 257,500 tons, which would have given Germany an allowance of 90,125 tons had the A.G.N.A. still been in force.
 
Last edited:
In my timeline the Germans keep building their existing designs (or enlarged versions to cure their faults) during the early years of the Nazi era rather than spending time (that hindsight tells us that they were wasting) producing new designs (such as the M Class) that were never built. Therefore they build some enlarged Leipzigs instead of the Hipper class and then instead of the M Class light cruiser the U Class heavy cruiser, which is a further development of the enlarged Leipzig class, but with nine 8" instead of nine 5.9". Similarly for destroyers they order an enlarged version of their 900 ton destroyer instead of the first 22 Z-boats and the first 21 T-Boats.

my scenario would be to rebuild the small fleet of ships they HAD, the defects of which as well the remedies were known by mid '30s. specifically the PBs and LCs.

build a pair of improved panzerschiffe with quad turrets 11" guns (mirroring French design) and couple dozen large destroyers with their mixed propulsion concept http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/zerstorer1938a/index.html

probably still finish a pair (or even three?) of Scharnhorst size ships with 3 quad 11" guns instead of Bismarcks.
 
A quad 11" turret would have the following problems.

1) A wider hull needed to accommodate the larger barrette.
2) Its going to require time to develop and that would be a delay for any ship project any the Germans already had delay issues as is.

The path of least resistance is just start and actually finish two Pocket BBs to the design for Admiral Graf Spee in 1933, say start in June. Rather than go down the design cycle rat hole that Cruiser D into the Twins became. There is enough time to start two ships and launch them and get the historic lay down dates for Scharnhorst Class.

If you want to do any quad weirdness my suggestion would to develop a quad 8" turret same size as the triple 11". Then use the Pocket BB hull as the basis for the CAs. Yes you loose lots of top speed by the historic CAs had terrible machinery problems and this would resolve that. Plus its a proven hull and should be built more rapidly than historic.

Michael
 
my scenario would be to rebuild the small fleet of ships they HAD, the defects of which as well the remedies were known by mid '30s. specifically the PBs and LCs.

build a pair of improved panzerschiffe with quad turrets 11" guns (mirroring French design) and couple dozen large destroyers with their mixed propulsion concept http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/zerstorer1938a/index.html

probably still finish a pair (or even three?) of Scharnhorst size ships with 3 quad 11" guns instead of Bismarcks.

A quad 11" turret would have the following problems.

1) A wider hull needed to accommodate the larger barrette.
2) Its going to require time to develop and that would be a delay for any ship project any the Germans already had delay issues as is.

The path of least resistance is just start and actually finish two Pocket BBs to the design for Admiral Graf Spee in 1933, say start in June. Rather than go down the design cycle rat hole that Cruiser D into the Twins became. There is enough time to start two ships and launch them and get the historic lay down dates for Scharnhorst Class.

If you want to do any quad weirdness my suggestion would to develop a quad 8" turret same size as the triple 11". Then use the Pocket BB hull as the basis for the CAs. Yes you loose lots of top speed by the historic CAs had terrible machinery problems and this would resolve that. Plus its a proven hull and should be built more rapidly than historic.

sure you are correct as to problems however that was design actually pursued at the time (for the D-class.)

(also under my scenario they are rebuilding the 3 PBs as was planned but never executed)

not sure the effects of "spamming" panzerschiffe on Anglo-German relations? would the British start taking the harder line promoted by French earlier? as opposed to (relatively) short range ship clearly targeted towards French?
 
D & E were to be an entirely new design and it took them like a year to get the designs to the point to lay D down and even then it had issues.

Building 2 Pocket BBs was legal and there was the opening for them. CAs based on the same hull, not sure what the British could complain about them.

Michael
 
D & E were to be an entirely new design and it took them like a year to get the designs to the point to lay D down and even then it had issues.

Building 2 Pocket BBs was legal and there was the opening for them. CAs based on the same hull, not sure what the British could complain about them.

simply have difference of opinion on what build was needed. IMO the PBs were innovative hybrid design but had been pushed as far as warranted. rebuild the 3 with approx. 700t added, different bow, some have mentioned a transom stern, rational secondary guns array, etc. (projected to gain 1 kt. on top speed)

then build auxiliary cruisers (or more accurately prepare ships for use) they had guns for 19(?) but at any rate some greater number than the dozen IOTL. more powerful diesel engines, primitive radar set, etc. would yield more than add. PBs.
 
simply have difference of opinion on what build was needed. IMO the PBs were innovative hybrid design but had been pushed as far as warranted. rebuild the 3 with approx. 700t added, different bow, some have mentioned a transom stern, rational secondary guns array, etc. (projected to gain 1 kt. on top speed)

then build auxiliary cruisers (or more accurately prepare ships for use) they had guns for 19(?) but at any rate some greater number than the dozen IOTL. more powerful diesel engines, primitive radar set, etc. would yield more than add. PBs.

In terms of bang for your buck, IMWO the best combination for the Germans in terms of waging guerre de course is some combination of the PBs and auxiliary cruisers. Maybe build the two Bismarcks as well but keep them in Norwegian waters as a deterrent. As somebody else on this forum has pointed out many times, Tirpitz was the best fleet in being in history.
 
simply have difference of opinion on what build was needed. IMO the PBs were innovative hybrid design but had been pushed as far as warranted.

then build auxiliary cruisers (or more accurately prepare ships for use) they had guns for 19(?) but at any rate some greater number than the dozen IOTL.

In terms of bang for your buck, IMWO the best combination for the Germans in terms of waging guerre de course is some combination of the PBs and auxiliary cruisers. Maybe build the two Bismarcks as well but keep them in Norwegian waters as a deterrent. As somebody else on this forum has pointed out many times, Tirpitz was the best fleet in being in history.

my point was the "bang for your buck" derives from auxiliary cruisers and a few plausible modifications even more effective.

not sure about Bismarck-class, for same resources more useful ships could have been constructed? and/or aircraft?
 
simply have difference of opinion on what build was needed. IMO the PBs were innovative hybrid design but had been pushed as far as warranted. rebuild the 3 with approx. 700t added, different bow, some have mentioned a transom stern, rational secondary guns array, etc. (projected to gain 1 kt. on top speed)

then build auxiliary cruisers (or more accurately prepare ships for use) they had guns for 19(?) but at any rate some greater number than the dozen IOTL. more powerful diesel engines, primitive radar set, etc. would yield more than add. PBs.

There is a saying, "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

Going from Graf Spee -> Cruiser D -> Scharnhorst wasted over TWO YEARS and built NOTHING new during that period. All of 1933, 1934 and half of 1935 were in effect lost. Deutsche Werke Kiel and
Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven had two big slipways. Graf Spee occupied one of them till June 30th 1934 and Nürnberg till December of same year. Two building ways are available with nothing on them this whole time period.

If you build cruiser D you either delay Scharnhorst class or don't get them all together. If you build two more pocket BBs in 1933 you can also have Scharnhorst class.

Its not whats the BEST design its whats available to build.

Michael
 
There is a saying, "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

Going from Graf Spee -> Cruiser D -> Scharnhorst wasted over TWO YEARS and built NOTHING new during that period. All of 1933, 1934 and half of 1935 were in effect lost. Deutsche Werke Kiel and
Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven had two big slipways. Graf Spee occupied one of them till June 30th 1934 and Nürnberg till December of same year. Two building ways are available with nothing on them this whole time period.

If you build cruiser D you either delay Scharnhorst class or don't get them all together. If you build two more pocket BBs in 1933 you can also have Scharnhorst class.

Its not whats the BEST design its whats available to build.

every navy in the world had evolutionary design process, would not be unwarranted to consider a newer (hopefully improved) design after building three PBs and would not be out of the norm?

did the same thing with three K-class light cruisers to correct (many) flaws. the pocket battleships were at least planned to be rebuild with 700 tonnes, projected to add 2 kts.

my point was not negative critique of PBs but that their role (long distance raider) could be filled by adding enhanced auxiliary cruisers much more cheaply, not count against treaty limitations, and have element of surprise when war commences.

"Like an amputee’s obsession, the admiralty’s focus was a regenerated battle fleet and recaptured glory, a goal as pointless as it was unattainable. In 1938, the admiral overseeing the fleet department announced he could find no document stating the intended role for the battleships then under construction; the Kriegsmarine was building battleships for the sake of building battleships."

Worth, Richard (2015-09-03). Fleets of World War II (revised edition): Design History and Analysis for Every Ship of Every Navy (Kindle Locations 2102-2105). Nimble Books LLC. Kindle Edition.

at any rate my scenario includes reconstructing the (four) WWI-era BBs as AA/Flak ships so that could be done in (otherwise) vacant slips 1934 (OTL year Hessen was converted to target ship.)
 
Uhmm a building slipway isn't a graving dock, you can't rebuild ships on a slipway. It's all above water level and you only build on them.

Just saying

Michael
 
Top