More Battleships and No Aircraft Carriers for Germany

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

thanks for your successful attempt to make me look uninformed, was only trying to point out the KM had other building/rebuilding programs (some not ever completed) that could have occurred during any lull in BB construction.

would be interested to read your projected changes to further panzerschiffe and what any successor would be?

thought the diesel option was dropped due to other navies' increased speed of their ships? (and the only option to retain it would be ever increasing hull size to allow MORE diesels?)
 
thanks for your successful attempt to make me look uninformed, was only trying to point out the KM had other building/rebuilding programs (some not ever completed) that could have occurred during any lull in BB construction.

would be interested to read your projected changes to further panzerschiffe and what any successor would be?

thought the diesel option was dropped due to other navies' increased speed of their ships? (and the only option to retain it would be ever increasing hull size to allow MORE diesels?)

Not trying to give offense, sorry.

no problem, not easily offended.

am sincerely interested in your projected build off of panzerschiffe platform.

they certainly had problems after those, so maybe a sensible program to just vary the armament and use same hull, although I question the speed.
 
The Germans dropped diesel because they got lured by the chimera of high pressure steam which in theory offered even better range and speed than diesel. The negative of diesel is that for a given amount of SHP the propulsion plant required more weight. Problem with High Pressure Steam is that it was the result of theory rather than practice, German scientists did a test setup ran it for a bit and then produced theoretical numbers for projected power. Reality was high pressure steam was a PITA and took a lot of work to figure out. The CAs had horrible readiness and unless the engine was perfectly tuned the fuel efficiency fell through the floor. So the Germans never got the performance in terms of range they were looking for. See why they returned to diesel with the H Class and various BC / improved pocket BB designs.

With Cruiser D and E what drove them in part was the pair of French BCs they were clearly intended as pocket BB killers. So Raeder wanted bigger and better but Hitler would only approve an increase to 19,000 - 20,000 tons which went into armor but also had a steam turbine setup. It took the Germans from what I can tell a year to get the designs ready for laying them down even then the designs weren't finished. At same time the Germans were not happy with Cruiser D as they wanted at least 3x3 11" guns but that drove the displacement to 26,000 tons and again final designs were not ready so by the time the ships launched they were closer to 32,000 tons.

Is this what you are looking for?

Michael
 
The Germans dropped diesel because they got lured by the chimera of high pressure steam which in theory offered even better range and speed than diesel. The negative of diesel is that for a given amount of SHP the propulsion plant required more weight. Problem with High Pressure Steam is that it was the result of theory rather than practice, German scientists did a test setup ran it for a bit and then produced theoretical numbers for projected power. So the Germans never got the performance in terms of range they were looking for. See why they returned to diesel with the H Class and various BC / improved pocket BB designs.

Is this what you are looking for?

was asking YOUR projected build if the KM had continued with panzerschiffe design in 1934 as you suggested.

were you scratching the 4 turbine BBs and 5 CAs and jumping to H Class, never abandoning diesel propulsion? (not meaning any projected BBs have to be as large as H Class)

surprising they never tried the hybrid propulsion system on BBs, although projected to return on O Class battlecruisers.
 
Rough build progression

D & E would be Graf Spee standard PBB laid down summer 1933.

Start twins on historic dates but using a combined diesel and steam power plant. Historic they had 165,000 SHP max rated power. I would replace center shaft with a 30,000 SHP diesel plant it should have roughly the same physical fot print the ships would still be good for 140,000 shp that last 25,000 SHP odds is only worth half a knot of top end speed. If I remember I will check the power curve this evening.

Same power plant for Bismarck class.

CAs to be built using Pocket BB hulls or something like that. If new hull figure its a 90,000 SHP all diesel power plant which should be good for 30 knots but with impressive range.

If light weight diesels are available move to Type 1942C standard ASAP (See Z51-Z58s).

Don't build the carriers but lay down two more cruisers.

Net net Germany is still defeated but 1939-42 they will be hugely bigger PITA in terms of surface raiding.

Michael
 

NoMommsen

Donor
surprising they never tried the hybrid propulsion system on BBs, although projected to return on O Class battlecruisers.
Maybe because they weren't very happy with the mixed propulsion on the K-class, Leipzig and Nürnberg cruisers during operations.
(on K-class : to switch from diesel to turbine or back you had to stop all engines, work the couplings, then restart, tne adjustable propeller-blades on Leipzig and Nürnberg were prone to repeated failure, so that they were driven always on the same position, causing a lot of drag and velocity lost)

The reason to come back to this design for the O-class : no other way to get range AND speed, I would assume.
 
Diesel engines of the 30's had been seen as reliable, but lacking a power to weight ratio steamturbines combined with high presure boilers could deleiver. As warships were moslty to be seen as fast enough to stay out of trouble, dielsepropulsion was dropped, once more powerful engines were developped. Diesels were primarily used on the sort of vessels needing endurance, such as submarines and merhcantships. Cruisers were rarely fitted with them, except the Deutschland class, though mostly for political reasons, rather than anything else.

The Deutschland class cruiser was mostly a political compromise, to show the German ingenuity in shipdesign, producing a single purpose type of heavy cruiser, intended solely to hunt merchant shipping at the open ocean, a task simillar to late 19th century French armored cruisers. More normal cruisers were fitted with more powerful engines to allow them to use hunt down raiders, as well as run away from stronger ships, if they needed to do so. The speed also was needed to combat fast destroyers and torpedoboats, as well as scouting for the fleet, all jobs the Deutschland class cruiser was not planned to do, being too slow for normal fleet jobs and possessing too slow rate of fire main guns, to be useful in a typical cruiser role.

Historically the Deutschland class was the end of a line of studies to produce a new warship within the limmitations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles. The first proposals were for slow coastdefense ship types, with little range and slow speed. Later more different dersings were drawn up, mostly of large cruisers, intended to hunt shipping in then open ocean, resulting in the Deutschland class eventually, though some designs were of more ballanced heavy cruiser standard.
BC%20Design%201928.png
 
Scharnhorst power / speed curve, 38,950 tons displacement
160K shp, 31.65 knots
140K shp, 30.25 knots
120K shp, 29 knots
100k shp, 28 knots

Bismarck / Tirpitz
163K shp, 30.8 knots
150K shp, 30.1 knots
138K shp, 29 knots

A couple of things about the above data the 160K shp are trial speed runs with the machinery being forced

So in theory the two ships would be good for 30 and 29 knots with a 140K shp at max. Again service speeds would be a knot lower more likely as you can't run the plants at overload all the time. So real service speeds of 29 knots for Twins and 28 knots for Bismarcks.

NoMommsen what the Germans did was have a mixed propulsion system with steam AND diesel engines both coupled to the same shafts. What I am suggesting is have diesel engines on specific shaft(s) and steam on others. So no coupling system that ended up breaking down. Also the diesels on the CLs didn't provide anything like designed power. Note that pocket BBs had same problem but by Graf Spee they were getting the designed power and another 2K SHP in overload. By 1933 the Germans had come up with a diesel power plant that could deliver 28K SHP per shaft and if the improvements in power kept on happing then next set could in theory be good for 30K SHP, hence why I projected that value for my theoretical diesel and mixed diesel power plants.

Michael
 
D & E would be Graf Spee standard PBB laid down summer 1933.

Start twins on historic dates but using a combined diesel and steam power plant. Historic they had 165,000 SHP max rated power. I would replace center shaft with a 30,000 SHP diesel plant it should have roughly the same physical fot print the ships would still be good for 140,000 shp that last 25,000 SHP odds is only worth half a knot of top end speed.

CAs to be built using Pocket BB hulls or something like that. If new hull figure its a 90,000 SHP all diesel power plant which should be good for 30 knots but with impressive range.

If light weight diesels are available move to Type 1942C standard ASAP (See Z51-Z58s).

Don't build the carriers but lay down two more cruisers.

my only question on your plan would be the politics, AH wanted to enlist GB as basically their navy? so would he so quickly approve more PBs after taking office? (the two you outlined could be laid down in 1933)

what else could they build in 1933? Graf Spee hull with 5.9" guns? 3x3 similar to LCs? could range with PBs and a bit faster? (the 4th and 5th Admiral Hipper-class were projected to have 5.9" guns but later they armed all 5 with 8" guns, although not completed)

they didn't have the class of tankers until later 1930's and I haven't seen a cutaway of PBs, could they have equipped a Graf Spee size ship as tanker/supply ship?
 
Last edited:
Feasibility Check

I'm writing the section on German naval aviation and I'm going to quadruple the number of Fw 200C built. I think an extra 750-900 aircraft are possible without reducing the number of other aircraft that were built.

However, what I really want to do is not cancel the Ju 89 and have the Luftwaffe build it as a VLR GR aircraft instead of the Fw 200. The British and Americans used the B-17 (which was begun at about the same time as the Ju 89) in that role.

I thought that the Ju 89 would have a stronger fuselage and better availability rates than the early Fw200Cs. Furthermore the Ju 89 would be developed into the Ju 289 in the same way that the Ju 90 was developed into the Ju 290. It would be easier for the production lines to change from the Ju 89 to Ju 289 than from the Fw 200 to the Ju 290.

Or did the Ju 89 have a fatal flaw that I don't know about?
 
Fw-200C was a converted civilian aicraft it had all sorts of readiness issues. I dislike the Ju-89 it clearly was intended to be a transport as a fall back. See Ju-90. An up engined Do-19 with a longer design cycle would be best choice but as with all such ideas by the late 30s German resources are becoming tight so what gets canceled instead?

Michael
 
I'm writing the section on German naval aviation and I'm going to quadruple the number of Fw 200C built.

However, what I really want to do is not cancel the Ju 89 and have the Luftwaffe build it as a VLR GR aircraft instead of the Fw 200.

Furthermore the Ju 89 would be developed into the Ju 289 in the same way that the Ju 90 was developed into the Ju 290. It would be easier for the production lines to change from the Ju 89 to Ju 289 than from the Fw 200 to the Ju 290.

believe if you start production of FW-200 Condor with some urgency? if you roll OTL production numbers earlier only one year to 1939? you would have nearly 100 by 1940 and over 200 by 1942 (same NUMBER just EARLIER) at which time it becomes too vulnerable and switch to Junkers 90/290.

roll up the resources devoted to JU-90/290 and JU-252/352 (transports that used same rear loading ramp) have a heavily armed recon/transport?
 
Earler Anglo-German Naval Agreement

Probably lots of reasons to make it ASB but here goes.

I was reading some Cabinet Papers about British rearmament plans in the 1930s and one of them said that Germany was planning to reach the strength permitted under the Anglo-German Naval Agreement by 1942.

If the denunciation of the Treaty of Versailles and AGNA was brought forward to 1933 then presumably he Germans would be working to achieve the strength permitted by 1940. The British could not bring their rearmament plans forward 2 years because they were constrained by the Washington and 1st London Naval Treaties until they expired at the end of 1936.

Some jiggery pokery would be required between 1919 and 1933 regarding gun pits, armour making capacity and slipways, but if everything goes to plan (and as this is turning into a Kriegsmarine wank it does) have The Twins built as Bismarck class battleships, Bismarck completed in the autumn of 1939 and Tirpitz in the first quarter of 1940. There would not be enough tonnage left for Battleship H so she would have to await the announcement of the last 3 KGVs to be laid down in 1938 for completion in late 1941 at the earliest. However, there are still 2 Bismarcks to cover the invasion of Norway, 3 available for Operation Juno and 4 available for the amphibious mammal does not bare thinking about.
 
Problem with the Bismarck class is what do you arm them with? 15" Guns aren't ready at that date. Also to get to the Bismarck class went through the Scharnorst class.

You can only leapfrog around so much.

Regards,
 
Problem with the Bismarck class is what do you arm them with? 15" Guns aren't ready at that date. Also to get to the Bismarck class went through the Scharnorst class.

You can only leapfrog around so much.

Regards,

That's what the jiggery pokery is for.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Problem with the Bismarck class is what do you arm them with? 15" Guns aren't ready at that date. Also to get to the Bismarck class went through the Scharnorst class.

You can only leapfrog around so much.

Regards,
:confused::confused:
The Twins were based on Mackensen-class design.
The Bismarck was based on Bayern-class design.

So, it didn't 'went' through the Scharnhorst-class.

Scharnhorst-class and Bismarck-class had nothing in common on their design-process (perhaps beside some personal at the K-Amt ;)).


And with (for whatever reason) AGN 2 years earlier you would also see the ordering of 15" guns 2 years earlier ...
 
:confused::confused:
The Twins were based on Mackensen-class design.
The Bismarck was based on Bayern-class design.

no...
NO...
NO...
NO!!!

This is well debunked nonsense. Consider this why would the Germans use as a base 20 year old designs and then not follow them? Look at the design details of the four classes you named. Number of compartments / internal sub division, armor, displacement was all very different. Read a useful design history of the two classes. No serious historian believes what you suggest.

As to the 15" guns. Design work on the guns started in 1934... so your suggesting that Brüning or von Papen governments order the guns be built? WHY?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If there's Bismarck-alikes being built that early you see earlier KGVs - possibly to the Lion design.

That's cool, and it's basically Brit battleshipwank actually - the Lions could beat a Bismarck one on one with embarassing ease, the immune zones are comically different.

This is a systemic thing - the Bismarck was not built with post-Jutland information the British had and it was also not a very well weight-controlled design (it's almost as outmatched by Lion as it would outmatch Dreadnought!)
 
If there's Bismarck-alikes being built that early you see earlier KGVs - possibly to the Lion design.

That's cool, and it's basically Brit battleshipwank actually - the Lions could beat a Bismarck one on one with embarassing ease, the immune zones are comically different.

This is a systemic thing - the Bismarck was not built with post-Jutland information the British had and it was also not a very well weight-controlled design (it's almost as outmatched by Lion as it would outmatch Dreadnought!)
King George V and Prince of Wales were laid down the day after the 1930 London Treaty expired. I don't see HM Government allowing that a year or two earlier however much the admirals pleaded.

However, AFAIK there was nothing in international law to stop the British from ordering long lead items such as the armament, fire control and armour in 1934 instead of 1936 so that once laid down they could be completed in as short a time as possible. Though does that mean they get nine 15" instead of ten 14"?

KGV and PoW should have been completed in the summer of 1940, 3 1/2 years after they were laid down. They were actually completed 6 and 9 months later respectively due to late delivery of the 14" gun turrets.

IIRC Vanguard was to have been built in 2 years because the 15" gun turrets already existed. On that basis the planned delivery date for KGV and PoW would have been 31st December 1938 if the turrets had been ordered in 1934 instead of 1936. Duke of York, Anson and Howe would be completed in the middle of 1939 having been laid down in the summer of 1937. Even if they were all completed in 3 years instead of the 2 proposed here that would be a considerable improvement.
 
Top