Operation Rheinübung launches in April 1941

[CalBear]

IDK how you avoid the Hipper and Scharnhorst classes? (and guess you could include the GZ carrier) their Plan Z returned to diesel power, so almost the whole of the WWII fleet can be considered an interim step?

possibly the carrier project could mirror the Italian conversion of an ocean liner? (the SS Columbus was available)

the existing Pz ships had a known rebuild, replace the 150mm & 105mm guns with 128mm ones, with some changes to the hull it was projected to increase their speed. just build more of those ships with 8" guns to utilize their heavy cruiser allowance instead of the Hipper-class? (so the original 3 + 5 more with 8" guns)

at the top of the heap just build another pair of Twins with the 15" guns? certainly they could arrive faster than the Bismarck-class?

Rather my entire point.

What purpose did the KM capital ships fulfill? They were never going to be able to fave off with either the Royal Navy nor the USN. They were at least 10 years , more likely 14-15 from drawing even with either potential opponent even if they simply followed the LNT II replacement schedule. Tirpitz, the second ship and final build in the Bismark class took 50 months (4 years, 2 months) from first steel to commission, or roughly the same time as a KGV. The Alabama, final ship in the South Dakota class took 30 months (2.5 years), Washington took 35 months while Iowa took 30 months American yards could put two superior (markedly superior in the case of the Iowa class) into the water for every hull the Reich completed.

The KM would NEVER had been large enough to go toe-to-toe with the RN or USN battle line much less the combined Anglo-American fleets. Same went for carriers, except much worse. Not only was the KM starting from nothing, meaning the didn't even know how to operate the damned things, the only deck they came even close to completing, the GZ was nowhere near close to even being completed, much less in commission 34 months after first steel (at a guess the ship would have taken around 48 month to be ready for sea trials). The Americans were punching out Essex class carrier in under two years a piece (CV-12 USS Hornet, went from keel to full commission in FIFTEEN MONTHS), and had half a dozen yards that could build them.

Anything the Reich built over 15,000 tons was a VC or a Navy Cross waiting to happen. Utter waste of material, skilled work hours, and eventually brave men.

 

[CalBear]

Its often forgotten the early USN carriers Saratoga & Lexington sported 8" guns for near two decades. The Sara did not have hers removed until after being torpedoed in January 1942.

For bonus points name the carrier & battle of the only known action were a carrier did fire its guns on a enemy warship. Hint: the target was a cruiser.

Of course that went back into the early 20s, long before aircraft ngine tech advanced to the point where the airwing was actually a potent striking force. Carriers were, all the way into WW II considered to be part of the "Scouting Force".

 

[Resurgam]

Anything the Reich built over 15,000 tons was a VC or a Navy Cross waiting to happen. Utter waste of material, skilled work hours, and eventually brave men.

If only there were a timeline showing how the US and Royal Navies would utterly shred even Force Z...

 

[CalBear]

If only there were a timeline showing how the US and Royal Navies would utterly shred even Force Z...

Ya. Probably have be be in Writer's Forum.

Might even defy a storm.

 

[Resurgam]

Ya. Probably have be be in Writer's Forum.

Might even defy a storm.

And then end with all the Nazi bigwigs getting shot because their author has made clear how much he hates them.

 

[CalBear]

And then end with all the Nazi bigwigs getting shot because their author has made clear how much he hates them.

Well, they were, overall, a rather unpleasant group.

 

[Resurgam]

Well, they were, overall, a rather unpleasant group.

You're just so subtle in your opinion...

Anyway, I'll stop derailing. Don't have much to offer since the Titanic is my sinking speciality, but interesting ideas so far.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What purpose did the KM capital ships fulfil?

Part of it was political rather than military. That is to show the world (and the German people) that the Nazis had made Germany great again. That is great powers had capital ships so Germany had to have some capital ships.

I think that I read that in one of Norman Friedman's books. If I've correctly attributed that to him he continued by claiming that the real reason why the UK maintained a strategic nuclear deterrent was to justify its permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I.e. great powers had strategic nuclear weapons so the UK had to have them to prove it was a great power and therefore deserved its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Formidable at Matapan

I can imagine ABC looking back from Warspite just before the Battleship squadron engaging the cruisers that night

"Ah good, everyone is ready, there is Valiant, Formidable, Barham.....wait what....someone remind Formidable that she is not a battleship!"

Mind you lets not forget - Formidable was a very keen ship - she did launch herself after all!

 

[thaddeus]

What purpose did the KM capital ships fulfill?

Part of it was political rather than military. That is to show the world (and the German people) that the Nazis had made Germany great again. That is great powers had capital ships so Germany had to have some capital ships.

I think that I read that in one of Norman Friedman's books. If I've correctly attributed that to him he continued by claiming that the real reason why the UK maintained a strategic nuclear deterrent was to justify keep its permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I.e. great powers had strategic nuclear weapons

without capital ship program it would have left bare their submarine strategy, that they were intending to fight a u-boat warfare? and as a practical matter, the Allies could have concentrated solely on defeating that?

the point was already made on how much the Tirpitz tied down, my initial posting was how much more would have been required with Bismarck and Tirpitz in Norway?

 

[CalBear]

without capital ship program it would have left bare their submarine strategy, that they were intending to fight a u-boat warfare? and as a practical matter, the Allies could have concentrated solely on defeating that?

the point was already made on how much the Tirpitz tied down, my initial posting was how much more would have been required with Bismarck and Tirpitz in Norway?

That is the ultimate irony. The Reich didn't HAVE a U-boat strategy. They had a TOTAL of 54 U-Boats, 32 of which were early Type II coastal boats that lacked the range/endurance to venture beyond the Baltic. Southern North Sea, and Channel. They literally started the war with 22 actual ocean going subs (in part because Hitler tried to bluff one time too many).

The Reich had no useful maritime strategy at all (or any other sort of really high level strategic vision beyond "bluff, bully, and expect our innate Aryan superiority to carry the day". Their early success was 100% because the British Admiralty was apparently overstaffed with "retired, but officially still on duty" knuckleheads.

If both Bismark class ships are holed up in Norway it puts four-five BB/BC and a carrier with the usual assortment of cruisers, destroyers, and support vessels on a station to counter them. That is two additional heavies (likely Hood and Renown). There are also more RAF attacks and additional unconventional attacks (like minisubs).

 

[thaddeus]

without capital ship program it would have left bare their submarine strategy, that they were intending to fight a u-boat warfare? and as a practical matter, the Allies could have concentrated solely on defeating that?

the point was already made on how much the Tirpitz tied down, my initial posting was how much more would have been required with Bismarck and Tirpitz in Norway?

That is the ultimate irony. The Reich didn't HAVE a U-boat strategy. They had a TOTAL of 54 U-Boats, 32 of which were early Type II coastal boats that lacked the range/endurance to venture beyond the Baltic. Southern North Sea, and Channel. They literally started the war with 22 actual ocean going subs (in part because Hitler tried to bluff one time too many).

The Reich had no useful maritime strategy at all (or any other sort of really high level strategic vision beyond "bluff, bully, and expect our innate Aryan superiority to carry the day". Their early success was 100% because the British Admiralty was apparently overstaffed with "retired, but officially still on duty" knuckleheads.

If both Bismark class ships are holed up in Norway it puts four-five BB/BC and a carrier with the usual assortment of cruisers, destroyers, and support vessels on a station to counter them. That is two additional heavies (likely Hood and Renown). There are also more RAF attacks and additional unconventional attacks (like minisubs).

that's a very good point, thanks for (somewhat) correcting me, I was pontificating that a lack of capital ships would be the result of a u-boat-centric naval strategy and that very well might not be the case, as historically they had a large-ish construction progam while lacking a strategy?

what RN forces do you think would be tied down for other building options, say another pair of Twins (with 15" guns) or a closer redux of the Bayern-class?

 

[CalBear]

that's a very good point, thanks for (somewhat) correcting me, I was pontificating that a lack of capital ships would be the result of a u-boat-centric naval strategy and that very well might not be the case, as historically they had a large-ish construction progam while lacking a strategy?

what RN forces do you think would be tied down for other building options, say another pair of Twins (with 15" guns) or a closer redux of the Bayern-class?

15" Twins get pretty much the same attention as the Big Boys (and would likely cost at least as much as the Tirpiz's 181M RM). A Bayern class is going to still draw interest, but it is possible that the RN would assign the NelRods to minding them given they would lack the raw speed of the newer designs.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

That is the ultimate irony. The Reich didn't HAVE a U-boat strategy. They had a TOTAL of 54 U-Boats, 32 of which were early Type II coastal boats that lacked the range/endurance to venture beyond the Baltic. Southern North Sea, and Channel. They literally started the war with 22 actual ocean going subs (in part because Hitler tried to bluff one time too many).

The Reich had no useful maritime strategy at all (or any other sort of really high level strategic vision beyond "bluff, bully, and expect our innate Aryan superiority to carry the day". Their early success was 100% because the British Admiralty was apparently overstaffed with "retired, but officially still on duty" knuckleheads.

If both Bismark class ships are holed up in Norway it puts four-five BB/BC and a carrier with the usual assortment of cruisers, destroyers, and support vessels on a station to counter them. That is two additional heavies (likely Hood and Renown). There are also more RAF attacks and additional unconventional attacks (like minisubs).

The British signing Germany up to to AGNA was what limited Germany to a balanced fleet - rather than a Hitler Bluff per se

He believed that it meant the British were 'on side' but they were quite simply only interested in preventing Germany from rearming in a way that was difficult for them to deal with.

And that would have been a fleet that followed the Jeune École ("Young School") doctrine of producing a fleet specifically designed to 'indirectly' challenge British dominance of the sea and its dominance of the merchant trade.

A fleet that exploited the British weakness

In this the British succeeded - Germany could not really challenge this dominance until late 42 and by May 43 it had been defeated on the high seas - its U-boat crews going to their deaths.

While AGNA gave Germany tacit permission to throw off the shackles of Versailles (which it was going to do anyway) it did allow Britain to sort of control it.

Perfidious Albion eh?

They realised a bit late that Hitler and his pack of madmen were nuts at Munich and it was in early 39 that Hitler realised that the British were not 'on side' and in April 39 ended AGNA and it was at this time that Chamberlain concluded that Hitler was not as he had thought someone with whom one could make a deal.

Que Conscription, Que a loosening of the purse strings and planning for a return to the Continent for the RAF and BEF

All to late for Europe - but the lack of a force that could effectively blockade the UK more or less doomed Germany in the long run (not helped by making the biggest blunder)

But what would have happened if Hitler had not signed AGNA?

An earlier UK conscription act possibly years earlier?

An earlier planning for a return of the RAF and much larger BEF to Europe

And possibly more efforts on stemming Hitler politically after June 1935 - that's a lot of brinkmanship that is more difficult to pull off with a more distrusting Britain that does not view Herr Hilter as some one with whom a deal can be reached.

Maybe this would result in a better TL for the majority.

But in 1935 Britain did what it thought was in its best interests.

 

[Jellico]

Something more like a Hipper - capable of outrunning anything it cannot outfight?

8" guns, 3 aircraft, 12 tubes.

Speed of 32 knots and 6,800 nms at 20 knots

The Panzerschiff were political in giving the KM greater international status - while they were ridiculed among some circles they and potential ships like them did cause concern.

The French in response built the Dunkirk's and the USA built....well I fear even mentioning that class here.....

Is 8" enough? I am trying to remember which ship it referred to, but the Germans always seemed to be looking for a bigger shell to put down merchants faster. Heck they put torpedoes on Tirpitz for that reason, and torps are the expensive option. I have a feeling 11" was chosen as much for quick kills as for political reasons, though I can't remember where I saw it.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Is 8" enough? I am trying to remember which ship it referred to, but the Germans always seemed to be looking for a bigger shell to put down merchants faster. Heck they put torpedoes on Tirpitz for that reason, and torps are the expensive option. I have a feeling 11" was chosen as much for quick kills as for political reasons, though I can't remember where I saw it.

11" was probably the largest guns they could reliably build back then and at the same time not piss of the English (one of the reasons the Twins had 11")

 

[BlackDragon98]

Plan Z was doomed from the start.
The Germans could not afford a "balanced fleet" and any attempt to do so would only end in disaster when push came to shove.

Vice-Admiral Wolfgang Wegener's plan, a guerre de course (raider) fleet was the only feasible plan for Germany, if they could successfully pursue the course till it bore fruit.

Surface raiders like an all diesel O-class, Panzerschiffes, U-boats, S-boats, and diesel powered small warships like frigates and destroyers. Auxiliary cruisers would attack enemy ships in shipping lanes far from Europe, while coastal defenses/flak could be placed on diesel or steam powered craft like Vorpostenboot and Siebel ferries, allowing them to be transferred to different areas as required.

German use of superhigh pressure steam boilers on their smaller warships were an utter disaster that ended in the F-class and the various German destroyer classes they used throughout the war.

Kriegsmarine was essentially a non-threat from the start and bad tactic decisions and shitty tech (torpedoes fuzes) ensured they died a death by a thousand cuts as it was whittled down during the war.

 

[CalBear]

Is 8" enough? I am trying to remember which ship it referred to, but the Germans always seemed to be looking for a bigger shell to put down merchants faster. Heck they put torpedoes on Tirpitz for that reason, and torps are the expensive option. I have a feeling 11" was chosen as much for quick kills as for political reasons, though I can't remember where I saw it.

The 28cm guns*were cruiser killers. On paper a panzerschiff would be able to eat a Treaty Cruiser for breakfast or so the story went. Obviously it didn't quite work out that way even against the relatively small and lightly built Exeter and the light cruisers Ajax and Achilles (if Graf Spee had been facing a New Orleans or Baltimore CA and a couple Brooklyn CL or a Takao class CA and a pair of Agano , or God help them, Mogami class CL her CO wouldn't have had to worry about deciding to scuttle her).

The heavier guns did dispatch merchants effectively, but when you look a the rounds per gun (especially considering that a 20.3cm gunned ship would have had two-three additional guns for the same topside weight) the big advantage to the 28cm was that it could take out a pursuing enemy cruiser.

*NOTE: even thought the were the same diameter 28cm/52 weapons on panzerschiffs were different from the 28cm/54.5 guns that equipped the Twins and fired a different shell

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I was thinking exactly that - probably a hangover from the British class system unfortunately

In common with Ronnie Corbett "I know my place."

And for the benefit of those of you that don't know what I'm referring to...