Optimize the Axis Navies for WW2
thaddeus
Donor
there is another great O'Hara book Struggle for the Middle Sea (Med), loaded with a ton of great detail, but what I find most interesting was the German KM pulling together something of a "scratch fleet" from captured commercial ships, MFPs, S-boats, and U-boats. the Italians too had some effective commando type operations, most famously the raid on Alexandria.
I would just set aside any debate over capital ships and say the KM first should build out their smaller ships, especially the M-boats and the trawler type vessels (for instance they used huge diesel commercial ships as Sperrbrecher but found too late that 1,700 ton trawlers worked just as well, also they developed a KriegsTransporter with crane that could have solved issues in the Med and Black Seas)
I would just set aside any debate over capital ships and say the KM first should build out their smaller ships, especially the M-boats and the trawler type vessels (for instance they used huge diesel commercial ships as Sperrbrecher but found too late that 1,700 ton trawlers worked just as well, also they developed a KriegsTransporter with crane that could have solved issues in the Med and Black Seas)
In the 1927 to 1930 time frame, what kind of twin turrets, intended (or suitable for later development into) dual purpose guns, could be constructed by the three Axis nations, with it being understood all german efforts that are a violation of some treaty or other, are instead carried out in Japan, following the Japanese invitation to do so extended in this time line in 1923.
What size guns might we see in such twin turrets? I'm thinking mainly between 75mm and 155mm guns.
What size guns might we see in such twin turrets? I'm thinking mainly between 75mm and 155mm guns.
Last edited:
Iotl the Germans made the 12.8 cm flakzwilling and the 150 cm flak gerat 50. Their lines of 12.7 and 12.8 seems obvious and excellent weapons which would have rivalled the American 5 inch dp guns. If we are aiming higher there is the 150 mm series.https://masterbombercraig.wordpress.com/bombing-operations/flak/
Would like have been quite amazing in surface role as well.
Perhaps instead of starting the light cruisers and torpedo boats in the 1920's, the Reichsmarine announces that it will only replace the 6 battleships (+2) with Washington Treaty compliant Heavy Cruisers. The back door reasoning is that the Reichsmarine expect to have limitations overturned within 10 years. The 6000tons for CL is too small, same with 800 ton torpedo boats, better to wait until the limitations are lifted and 10,000 tons is an adequate size for a CA that is equal to foreign ships. The CA can fill the showing the flag and training roles that the CL did in the 20s and 30s. You could perhaps have 5-6 complete by 1930 for the same cost as the TB and CL built in the 20's.
The major considerations for the Reichsmarine designers and their supporting center-right politicians in the second half of the 1920s was how much they dared to provoke the British. With firm Italian backing, the French out of the Ruhr and with land and aviation industries slowly and secretly gearing up for expansion, the Germans concluded they no longer needed British support, they just couldn't have them turned against Germany just yet. Conversely, had the British known about the German, Italian and Japanese understanding that the Anglo-French colonial empires were to be pulled apart at the right moment, they surely would have turned against Germany. Several factors conspired to make he British overlook the emerging thread, none more important than the failure to realize a grand strategy was at play on both sides of Eurasia. The conspirators moved with the aim of hitting their respective treaty limits using cutting edge designs optimally suited to their intended roles. Germany, the disruption of commerce in the Atlantic, Italy the seizing of Malta, Corsica, Cyprus, and then the Suez and Algeria and the Japanese the colonial empires ultimately allowing Japan an asian co-prosperity sphere, Mussolini his Mare Nostrum and Germany to right the wrongs of the ToV and subdue the Anglo-French.
For Germany, this would result in the upgrading of the torpedoboats in 1925-26, the laying down of 3 light cruisers in 1927 and 3 in 1928 and 2 Panzerschiffe per year from 1929-32. All of these ships would cheat on the treaty limits of 6000 and 10000 tons respectively with the first group of light cruisers coming in at 8000 tons, the second at 9000 tons and the Panzerschiffe starting at 12000 tons, increasing to 13000, 14000 and 16000 tons standard displacement (e g. staring off more or less Graf Spee like).
The light cruisers would carry 4x8 12.8 cm DP guns but with barbettes adapted for 15 cm designs in development (the 2x12.8 cm guns would later be used on destroyers). The light cruisers further carried 2 quad torpedo launchers, a depth charge rack and a single float plane. The Panzerschiffe would start out carrying 2x3 28.6 cm guns and 3x2 12.8 cm DP guns in the centerline, and as installed 8 88 mm mounts on the sides (to be later replaced by 8x twin 75 mm guns) with two director per side. The Panzershiffe also carried 2 quad torpedo launchers, a depth charge rack and a single float plane. The Reichsmarine further started a marine corps initially dedicated as a riverine corps based on marinefahrpramen like designs. The ships were all based on combined diesel and steam and had a speed of 33 knots (light cruisers) and 31 knots (Panzerschiffe) the later tonnage increases allowed for further armor, subdivision and machinery placements and would leave the later classes of ships with strong advantages against contemporary ship classes. Importantly, as designed they all had manageable internal belt armor but would be retrofitted with 1.5-2 and 3 inches of decapping outer armor at a later time. This led contemporaries to conclude they would be manageable by pairs of contemporary cruisers. whereas the fuel consumption of the engines and thus their range would be overstated and understated respectively.
The Italians on the other hand had unlimited possibilities to build heavy cruisers and proceeded to build 6 heavy cruiser based on 8x2 206 mm guns in the second half of the 1920's following the German example of adding decapping armor at a later stage. The main buildings were 2 officially stated 35000 tons battleships (actually 45000 tons) with 3x3 40.6 cm guns, 3x2 15 cm DP guns in the centerline and 3x2 15 cm DP guns on the sides supplemented by 8 twin 75 m guns per side (these later generation weapons were used on the Italian ships as they were fitted out in the 1930's). The Italian would further build intermediate and long-range submarines and build and train their sea landing capacity. Perhaps equally important, new air fields were established in Sicily and a railroad would be established following inwards of the coast line of the Italian North African colonies from Benghazi to Derna and onwards to Tobruk with an expansion of the ports in the three cities.
thaddeus
Donor
what if they (somewhat) rebuilt the 6+2 pre-dreadnoughts,with improved machinery and removed the main 11" guns, they would still have 12 - 14 of the 17cm guns, which could have a reconfigured arrangement?
for new construction they could build the intended minelayer class (of 8), that they never got around to building, they would have doubled as training ships http://www.avalanchepress.com/ZMinelayer.php
You want to be able to replace ships that have reached their age limit, reworking 20 year old ships would be a waste of funds. New 8"/50s will far outrange the 6.7" secondaries in casements. By building new you can showcase German shipbuilding and marine tech and show the flag overseas thus helping the 'we're better now' winning hearts and minds to have the VT annulled.
Instead of minelayers you could subsidise a series of rail ferries for operations between East Prussia and the rest of Germany: 5,000tons, 28 knots RO/RO capability.
Thanks! Would the IJN and/or RM be interested in these? Or would they have their own, and if so, would these be of interest to the KM?
I am also learning that there were more restrictions on Germany than the ToV & gun size, including the French wanting the Germans to not be allowed twin gun turrets on their ships, and as such, why build anything under such restrictions?
The Occupation of the Ruhr, and the shifting of public opinion away from France, and to Germany that this engendered historically was the beginning of the ending of all those restrictions, and this happened.
With the French and Belgian forces having been withdrawn in Aug, 1925 and the OTL Dawes plan reducing Germany's reparations, perhaps TTL Japan might choose to stir things up a bit more, and make the restrictions seem to be something best replaced with German entry into the WNT instead, so that there is more public opinion against all the "Screw You Germany" treaties, sooner than in OTL?
thaddeus
Donor
we can agree the historical CLs were a total waste, AFAIK they did not sink a single enemy ship? and were for the most part not used? we can agree to disagree on their replacement, my speculation would be for improved Emden-class with 3x2 17cm guns, ships within their ability to build during the 1920's. (they used that caliber gun widely, for field artillery also, my view some advantages there)
as far as rebuilding the ancien ships, they still operated them into the 1930's they were just not very effective. my speculation is not for a total rebuild, as the Italians did with some of their BBs, but simply to make 4 of them useful as (for lack of a better term) "gunboats."
mentioned the minelayer class because they have the dual use as training ships, not an option with ferries in commercial use, but that is a good idea also, anything better than historical.
I disagree that the CL were a total waste. They were quite innovative, they maximised their armament on minimal displacement. They introduced tripple turrets to the Germany Navy, something that had been anathema previously. They innovated with combined Diesel and Steam plants, they kept the navy's warship design and build experience when it was in danger of being snuffed out. They introduced welding on a large scale. I'm only advocating to use this on much larger hulls, building something that is actually competitive with equivalent foreign designs and avoid the severely tonnage proscribed TB and CL designs. They would need to have 8" to rank as equivalent, 6.7" wont do for political reasons. The British would probably object to German CA after what happened to Scarborough and other coastal towns but the Germans can demonstrate that they are replacing battleships with cruisers in an arms limitation effort - how about others do it too.
As for the old battleships - they were soaking up much of the budget in operating costs. They really do have to go.
As for the old battleships - they were soaking up much of the budget in operating costs. They really do have to go.
Last edited:
thaddeus
Donor
they obviously needed to build something to prevent total atrophy of their design and building, what is the question. are you saying they would have political trouble attempting to designate 6.7" cruisers as CLs? my speculation wasn't really to attempt that, I was speculating on an alt.Emden class of cruisers (using their 17cm gun) without really considering whether they would be CLs or CAs.
the simplest improvement for the historical 1920's cruisers would be dual, not triple turrets as the ships just were overloaded, resulting in the "crank" stress on the hulls.
as regarding the older ships, they are going to be replaced but we are discussing a decade(s) long process, my thinking how to make them usable in the interim (they could even be the test bed for a dual 17cm turret)
Last edited:
I am late for this topic, but I was reading about WW1 german warships recently and had some ideas.
First is a 1910 pod, for the Bayern and Derfflinger classes. Yes, the pod is after 1918, but there were interesting things happening at that time. Their propulsion was initially proposed to use diesel engines, but that idea was abandoned, in this TL they don't use diesel, but use oil fired turbines instead of coal, like the Queen Elizabeth. The Bayern was proposed to use 40 cm guns (15.7 in), because many navies were using more powerful guns, but they settled for a 15 in OTL, but imagine them with a powerful gun. The Derfflingers increased their main guns from 11 to 12 in, but the british ones had much more firepower, with 13.5 and 15 in, and in tgat TL they are proposed a 40 cm gun. What if these ships were designed with oil fired propulsion and improved firepower?
In Jutland, everything happens like OTL, except that the SMS Lützow barely survives, returns port and is repaired, with Germany retaining another Derfflinger BC. But WW1 ends with Entente victory.
Now for post 1918, for some reason, the germans are allowed to have modern battleships, the US proposed this, to have a balance of power in Europe, and is this TL they retain two Bayern class BBs and three Derfflinger class BCs. Is this a good start?
First is a 1910 pod, for the Bayern and Derfflinger classes. Yes, the pod is after 1918, but there were interesting things happening at that time. Their propulsion was initially proposed to use diesel engines, but that idea was abandoned, in this TL they don't use diesel, but use oil fired turbines instead of coal, like the Queen Elizabeth. The Bayern was proposed to use 40 cm guns (15.7 in), because many navies were using more powerful guns, but they settled for a 15 in OTL, but imagine them with a powerful gun. The Derfflingers increased their main guns from 11 to 12 in, but the british ones had much more firepower, with 13.5 and 15 in, and in tgat TL they are proposed a 40 cm gun. What if these ships were designed with oil fired propulsion and improved firepower?
In Jutland, everything happens like OTL, except that the SMS Lützow barely survives, returns port and is repaired, with Germany retaining another Derfflinger BC. But WW1 ends with Entente victory.
Now for post 1918, for some reason, the germans are allowed to have modern battleships, the US proposed this, to have a balance of power in Europe, and is this TL they retain two Bayern class BBs and three Derfflinger class BCs. Is this a good start?
1928-1929
Been very bad and not updating this for far to long...
1929
So I'm thinking that in this timeline, with all the cooperation between Germany and Japan, the Germans go with an alternative to OTL and replace the Deutschland class ships with something more useful, so let us explore the Germans building 2 new armored ships of <10,000 tons, and guns no larger than 11", each year for the 1929-1932 timeframe, so something like:
1929
1) First ship laid down Jan 1st
2) Second ship laid down Mar 1st
The difference between these ships and OTL's ships, is that these ships will be kept under 10,000 tons legit, but instead of some over gunned heavy cruisers, these ships will be experimental aviation ships, as opposed to aircraft carriers, so the French have nothing to scream about (Muhahahaha), as carriers are only carriers if they weigh in at 10,000 tons or more.
Would Germany keep all 4 years building programs ships' identical, or allow for the designs to 'grow' like the OTL Graf Spee did, and become a 15,000 ton ship?
I ask this because one big justification for these ships is going to be that Germany was excluded from the WNT, and so initially (If they are unanimously voted into the treaty system by all signatories) then, and only then will the Germans be kept to that treaty standards, and any and all ship they are forced to lay down while outside such a treaty system will not be in compliance with the treaty systems and will be exempt from any and all such restrictions, so the longer it takes for Germany to be accepted, then the more and more ships they will have that will end up being built.
The Germans can truthfully point out that their follow on ships don't even have to be under 10,000 tons, unless everyone agrees to German inclusion within the WNT/LNT, and it is only a courtesy that the initial ship are going to adhere to the limit, even though Germany was not allowed into the treaty system for the last 7 years. If the 5 powers all vote to allow Germany into the treaty system, all future ships laid down afterwards will be within the limits.
As the French are never going to vote to allow the Germans a fleet equal to their own, the Germans will be free to build whatever they want, until something like the AGNA comes into existence.
So what are these initial pair of German aircraft carriers (padrone me, experimental aviation ships), going to look like, and what would the next pair look like if Germany isn't voted in by Jan 1st, 1930?
1929
So I'm thinking that in this timeline, with all the cooperation between Germany and Japan, the Germans go with an alternative to OTL and replace the Deutschland class ships with something more useful, so let us explore the Germans building 2 new armored ships of <10,000 tons, and guns no larger than 11", each year for the 1929-1932 timeframe, so something like:
1929
1) First ship laid down Jan 1st
2) Second ship laid down Mar 1st
The difference between these ships and OTL's ships, is that these ships will be kept under 10,000 tons legit, but instead of some over gunned heavy cruisers, these ships will be experimental aviation ships, as opposed to aircraft carriers, so the French have nothing to scream about (Muhahahaha), as carriers are only carriers if they weigh in at 10,000 tons or more.
Would Germany keep all 4 years building programs ships' identical, or allow for the designs to 'grow' like the OTL Graf Spee did, and become a 15,000 ton ship?
I ask this because one big justification for these ships is going to be that Germany was excluded from the WNT, and so initially (If they are unanimously voted into the treaty system by all signatories) then, and only then will the Germans be kept to that treaty standards, and any and all ship they are forced to lay down while outside such a treaty system will not be in compliance with the treaty systems and will be exempt from any and all such restrictions, so the longer it takes for Germany to be accepted, then the more and more ships they will have that will end up being built.
The Germans can truthfully point out that their follow on ships don't even have to be under 10,000 tons, unless everyone agrees to German inclusion within the WNT/LNT, and it is only a courtesy that the initial ship are going to adhere to the limit, even though Germany was not allowed into the treaty system for the last 7 years. If the 5 powers all vote to allow Germany into the treaty system, all future ships laid down afterwards will be within the limits.
As the French are never going to vote to allow the Germans a fleet equal to their own, the Germans will be free to build whatever they want, until something like the AGNA comes into existence.
So what are these initial pair of German aircraft carriers (padrone me, experimental aviation ships), going to look like, and what would the next pair look like if Germany isn't voted in by Jan 1st, 1930?
Last edited:
Yes indeed.
The getaround for all the historical restrictions is a notional change on the part of Japan, looking at post war and post WNT, and deciding that they are going to help the Germans circumvent said restrictions, on just about everything, by letting private German contractors invest in building facilities in Japan to keep current. as a Germany better armed is a benefit to Japan by distracting European powers from the far east, some of the main points of this would be to include:
1) German firms allowed to construct aircraft factories in Japan, so the Germans can conduct R&D on all types of aircraft in the interwar period.
2) German firms allowed to build slipways in Japan, for the construction of mainly merchant shipping, some of which might just have capitol ship engines.
3) German firms allowed to build gunworks, so Germany has ongoing R&D with 15" (or even larger) guns, without such a large time as in OTL without.
In addition to merchantmen (some of which will have warship engines), the Germans would be building, is strict secrecy, submarines in Japan, not like a fleet of submarines, mind you, just prototypes, at a rate of 1-2 a year, after the Japanese get disillusioned by their treatment, so say Jan 1st, 1923 the Japanese government make the Germans an offer that they cannot refuse. How long it takes for the German "Private Enterprises" to complete facilities in Japan, that they cannot have at home, is something I am interested in hearing.
In addition to the above, the Japanese offer a deal with Germans getting time share use of IJN carriers in exchange for tankers built in Germany, for use by the Japanese. In TTL then, the Germans will have had some time to build and operate carrier aircraft types, before laying down their first carriers in 1929, and by the time these first pair are commissioned, they will have had the better part of 10 years to train up their own Naval Aviation forces to man them.
The getaround for all the historical restrictions is a notional change on the part of Japan, looking at post war and post WNT, and deciding that they are going to help the Germans circumvent said restrictions, on just about everything, by letting private German contractors invest in building facilities in Japan to keep current. as a Germany better armed is a benefit to Japan by distracting European powers from the far east, some of the main points of this would be to include:
1) German firms allowed to construct aircraft factories in Japan, so the Germans can conduct R&D on all types of aircraft in the interwar period.
2) German firms allowed to build slipways in Japan, for the construction of mainly merchant shipping, some of which might just have capitol ship engines.
3) German firms allowed to build gunworks, so Germany has ongoing R&D with 15" (or even larger) guns, without such a large time as in OTL without.
In addition to merchantmen (some of which will have warship engines), the Germans would be building, is strict secrecy, submarines in Japan, not like a fleet of submarines, mind you, just prototypes, at a rate of 1-2 a year, after the Japanese get disillusioned by their treatment, so say Jan 1st, 1923 the Japanese government make the Germans an offer that they cannot refuse. How long it takes for the German "Private Enterprises" to complete facilities in Japan, that they cannot have at home, is something I am interested in hearing.
In addition to the above, the Japanese offer a deal with Germans getting time share use of IJN carriers in exchange for tankers built in Germany, for use by the Japanese. In TTL then, the Germans will have had some time to build and operate carrier aircraft types, before laying down their first carriers in 1929, and by the time these first pair are commissioned, they will have had the better part of 10 years to train up their own Naval Aviation forces to man them.
Last edited:
My point is that the allies would take issue with ships with military aircraft being built.
The French will Object to everything, for sure, but will the UK and USA object, when both of them have bigger and more carriers? The German government will not be officially in violation of the aircraft portions of the post WWI restrictions, as far as I know, as it was the German government/German nation which couldn't have stuff, private contractors, working over in Japan, are not covered by these restrictions, right?
Once all the restrictions are bypassed, using the above measures, and are shown to be unenforceable from 1923-1926 on, how hard will it be to get Germany into the treaty system?
Each year, Germany will be building something.
Each year, these ships will be built without (or at least, less and less regard for) the naval treaties limitations.
The sooner that the rest of the WNT powers vote to allow Germany equal status and rights (as a third 1.75 power), the less likely the Germans build things that break the treaty.
Anything the Germans build, before they are voted in, will not be scrapped, nor count in any treaty tonnage allocation, as punishment for keeping Germany out.
If the Germans lay down the 8 carriers (by Mar 1st, 1932), and still are not part of the official treaty system, because France is the only hold out, then I would see them build some real ships, all of which should be larger and more powerful than the treaty ships can be. First things first, though, what would the 8 "Deutschland class" ships look like?
The first pair, to me, must be <10,000 tons, so the Germans can legitimately claim they don't count as carriers, but if the German position is to plan things depending on whether or not they are voted into the WNT by all five powers or no. So, if they are in, by Dec 31st, 1929 then the follow on pairs all have to also conform to the treaty in some form, so a Germany in the WNT will have the two 1929 program ships, that don't count as carriers (the Germans will not budge on treaty changes made after the ships are laid down, especially on a treaty they were forbidden into in the first place), so any further ships like these will count towards their 60,000 tons of carriers. If the Germans are NOT voted in, then the next pair would look like what, 12,000 ton ships?
What happens with the third pair, when the decision date of Dec 31st, 1930 comes around? If they are in the Treaty by then, the third pair will count against their treaty allocation no matter what, so would they stop building really undersized carriers, and if so, would they be 15,000 tons ships, or would they be 20,000 ton ships? If Germany still finds itself outside the treaty system, would this change anything from above, other than these ships will not be counted at all?
Once the Dec 31st, 1931 deadline is reached, what are the 1932 program ships looking at?
Last edited:
The fleet makeup that worried the RN was the 'freak fleet' concept. This was basically some very fast cruisers (who can run away from anything they cant fight) and u-boats. There are considerable arguments that the AGNT was a tar pit for Germany, encouraging them to build a 'balanced' fleet that would worry the RN nearly as much. And it wouldnt have cost Germany more, always an issue with the 30's economy.
It looks better politically to say 'look, we have promised not to build any battleships' and claim the u-boats are for coastal defence, whil getting ready for a big builing program on war.
It looks better politically to say 'look, we have promised not to build any battleships' and claim the u-boats are for coastal defence, whil getting ready for a big builing program on war.