More Battleships and No Aircraft Carriers for Germany

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?
Galileo! Galileo!

Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

I thought they were based on the Bayern class too. However, my idea was that they designed battleships that nominally displaced 35,000 ton battleships that could be built quickly once the political situation was favourable.

I was also using what you wrote in an earlier post about the restrictions that the Inter Allied Commission of Control imposed. I was going to make the restrictions on gun production less restrictive.
 
New British battleships were built as soon as possible under the treaties of the time. Till escalator clause kicks in UK isn't building over 14" guns or 35K limit.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
No serious historian believes what you suggest.
Well, at least Siegfried Breyer, Lyon Hugh and David Lyon do so.
Mabe no 'serious' historians ... only specialists on naval ship bnuilding history.

Read a useful design history of the two classes.
What do you render as such ? Really interested in your recommendations. ... historian wise.

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?
For the same reasons such plans were developed in the RM since 1932 already ? ... and for the twins already earlier.
For the same reasons there was an "Umbau-Plan" for the RM including an aircraft carrier ?
For the same reasons the same "Umbau-Plan" for the army included a wee bit above 200 fighter airplanes (including reserve machines) ?

If design on the guns started a year before it started OTL, than you still got the 1st Bismarck ready 1939.
 
Last edited:
What's the first publication date on the Breyer work? I wouldn't be shocked if it's from the 70s. I would suggest Garzke or Koop. If Breyer seriously wrote that after the 80s he was delusional. Know nothing of the other people you mention.


Other than Bayern class having 4x2 15" guns, 3 screws and being German along with Bismarck class that's about it the limit of the commonalities. Just look at a compartment drawning of the two ship classes.
 
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,
Then is it more plausible to speed up the process that led to The Twins being built instead of more panzerschiffen so that they are ordered in 1934 instead of 1935 and completed a year earlier? Then we might get the Bismarck a year earlier too. However, if that isn't possible because the 15" turret will not be available then lay down more battle cruisers.
 
Nobody biting?

The idea is that if the Germans are able to build Scharnhorst and Gneisenau a year earlier, that destroys the Treaty of Versailles a year earlier, leading to the Anglo German Naval Agreement a year earlier, which in turn gives Germany the legal right to lay down 35,000 ton battleships a year earlier.

Gneisenau could have been laid down at Deutsche Werke a year earlier than 06/05/1935, because as far as I can tell Nürnberg and Blücher were laid down on a different slipway. This slipway would probably have been used for Cruiser R ordered in May 1938.

IOTL Gneisenau was launched on 08/12/1936 and Graff Zeppelin was laid down 20 days later one 28/12/1936. She was launched on 08/12/1938 and the slipway would probably have been used for Battleship K, which was ordered from Deutsche Werke on 25/05/39.

If Raeder & co had got their act together for once and spent less time on what eventually became Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the latter could have been laid down a year earlier, allowing a battleship to be laid down instead of Graff Zeppelin in December 1935 for completion in the first 3 months of 1940.

Meanwhile Scheer was launched at Wilhelmshaven No. 1 on 01/04/1933 and it seems to have been unoccupied until Scharnhorst was laid down on 15/06/1935. She was launched on 03/10/1936 and Tirpitz was laid down a month later on 02/11/1936. She was launched on 01/04/1939 and I think this slip would have been used for Battleship L. Therefore if the Germans could have laid Scharnhorst down on 15/06/1934 and launched her on 03/10/1935. That would in turn have allowed Tirpitz to have been laid down on 02/11/1935 for completion in February 1940 instead of February 1941.

Graff Spee was laid down on 01/10/1932 and because Scheer still occupied slip No 1, she was laid down on Slip No. 2, which seems to have been unused after Graff Spee was launched on 30/06/1934. However, it might have been used for Cruiser N or Battle Cruiser P.

Bismarck was laid down at Blohm und Voss on 01/07/1936, launched on 14/02/1939 and the slip was probably used for Battleship H laid down on 15/07/1939. I don't know how long the slipway had been vacant for, but given the state of the German economy my guess it had been long enough to allow Bismarck to be laid down on 15/07/1935 for completion in the autumn of 1939.
 
I would think it would use less steel to build more aircraft carriers and no battleships. What if Germany decides that it needs a revolutionary way to beat the Royal Navy's huge superiority in numbers. That would be lots of carriers, submarines, and destroyers/S-Boats. Germany has a revolutionary society that is ready to take on new ideas but the navy is very conservative. Is there anybody who could do it? The Luftwaffe was the stumbling block but it eventually had a "parachute panzer" division- why not a navy - that would be really funny. Could they build as many carriers as Japan? How about Goering or one of his cronies pays a visit to Japan and America and comes back with this idea that we must have as many as possible?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
I would think it would use less steel to build more aircraft carriers and no battleships. What if Germany decides that it needs a revolutionary way to beat the Royal Navy's huge superiority in numbers. That would be lots of carriers, submarines, and destroyers/S-Boats. Germany has a revolutionary society that is ready to take on new ideas but the navy is very conservative. Is there anybody who could do it? The Luftwaffe was the stumbling block but it eventually had a "parachute panzer" division- why not a navy - that would be really funny. Could they build as many carriers as Japan? How about Goering or one of his cronies pays a visit to Japan and America and comes back with this idea that we must have as many as possible?
That would/could be worth a whole OWN thread. ;)

And IMHO Hitler - for what ever reason - becomming fond of carriers would be the only way to go. Göring alone wouldn't be enough to get any resources for this due to Hitlers and Raeders fandom to BIG GUN SHIPS.

However, in the Reichsmarine, I can't see anyone, who might have had interests in carriers. Yes, they thought about and included one in the "Umbau-Programm" of the RM in 1932 already, but without any idea, what they are good for. It was more on the lines of :
"What the others have we wanna have also ! Daddy, BUY me one, NOW !"
 
I would think it would use less steel to build more aircraft carriers and no battleships. What if Germany decides that it needs a revolutionary way to beat the Royal Navy's huge superiority in numbers. That would be lots of carriers, submarines, and destroyers/S-Boats. Germany has a revolutionary society that is ready to take on new ideas but the navy is very conservative. Is there anybody who could do it? The Luftwaffe was the stumbling block but it eventually had a "parachute panzer" division- why not a navy - that would be really funny. Could they build as many carriers as Japan? How about Goering or one of his cronies pays a visit to Japan and America and comes back with this idea that we must have as many as possible?
Because the Graff Zeppelin class would have been failures had they been completed and because the Germans had no operating experience of aircraft carriers it would have taken considerably longer than normal to work them up. Also in this thread I am having the German Navy from 1933-34 working on a short term plan for war in 1939 with a follow-up plan for war in 1944. This is what I wrote in the OP
More Bismarcks and Less Graff Zeppelins

IOTL the Anglo-German Naval Agreement allowed Germany enough tonnage to build three 35,000 ton battleships.

The Germans used some of this to build Bismarck and Tirpitz. The planned completion dates were 1st October 1939 and 1st February 1940 respectively (39 months to build) but they were actually completed on 28th August 1940 and 1st February 1941 (for an average of 51 months to build).

According to M J Whitley, the third ship Battleship H was to have been laid down on 10th October 1937 for completion on 1st January 1941 (39 months to build). In January 1937 the Germans calculated that the British plan to build 5 Lion class battleships allowed to them to build a fourth 35,000 ton battleship and they planned to lay down Battleship I on 1st May 1938 for completion in 3½ years (which would have been 1st November 1941).

However, Battleships H and J weren't laid down until 15th July 1939 and 15th August 1939 respectively and were cancelled after World War II broke out.

Meanwhile Aircraft Carriers A and B were ordered in 1935 for completion on 1st April 1939 and 15th November 1939. According to Whitley Aircraft Carrier B was laid down on 30th September 1936, but hadn't been launched when World War II broke out and was scrapped on the slip. Her sister ship wasn't laid down until 28th December 1936, but was launched as Graff Zeppelin on 28th December 1938. However, work on her was suspended in June 1940 and she was never completed.

ITTL the Germans decide to convert a merchant ship to an experimental aircraft carrier to gain operating and design experience for a class of bespoke aircraft carriers to be built in the first half of the 1940s. This releases resources to build other warships in the second half of the 1930s.

Therefore is it possible to lay down a third Bismarck in September 1936 in place of Aircraft Carrier B and complete her in 51 months, that is December 1940? The dimensions are about the same size, Graff Zeppelin is longer and Bismarck is beamier. However, Bismarck is about 10,000 tons heavier, could the slipway take the extra weight?

Graff Zeppelin had more powerful machinery than Bismarck. Therefore I think the major stumbling blocks would be: the main and secondary armaments; the fire control equipment; and finally the armour.

More Light and No Heavy Cruisers

What if the Germans also built a sextet of 8,000 ton light cruisers with combined steam and diesel machinery (COSAD?) instead of the 5 Hipper class? The sixth ship would use the slipway used by Graff Zeppelin IOTL.

These light cruisers would be an enlargement of the Nurnberg design or the Kreuzer M. They would be better suited to the commerce raiding role and as they consumed fewer scarce industrial resources than the Hipper class it might be possible to complete all 6 of them in the time it took to complete the first 3 Hippers IOTL.

A third Bismarck and 3 extra cruisers would not change the course of history, but they would be a better investment for Germany than the 2 incomplete aircraft carriers and 2 incomplete heavy cruisers of OTL.
Note that when I wrote that I used the date M.J. Whitley used for the laying down of Aircraft Carrier B. Everyone else says late 1938 after Prinz Eugen was launched.
 
Last edited:
Top