Outline of German carrier development

[Astrodragon]

I don't have an objection to the idea that the British would see through the mask somewhat early; they did with aircraft and tanks without an armed response; and the other german ships were violations of one sort or another; the likely worst outcome for the germans in being found out (maybe in mid 34 or so) is that the British start counter building; which is to be expected anyway

Thats fair enough, it would only be unreasonable if they just ignored it

However, even with the cheating over displacement the Germans were doing, as soon as that 3rd BB is laid down they are in breach of the Anglo-German naval treaty over a year earlier than OTL

 

[David S Poepoe]

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both named for cruisers sunk in World War I; by that standard, Von der Tann, a battlecruiser lost at Jutland, would be fitting for a name.

Von der Tann was not lost at Jutland.

 

[Flayer]

Von der Tann was not lost at Jutland.

Can you console yourself with the knowledge of how hard I just facepalmed myself? I'd been rewriting the post multiple times and that was a huge mixup.

 

[BlondieBC]

Since you have selected an Admiral to lead your Navy, and he has selected his fleet. What does he intend to use the fleet for? The end use of the fleet will impact the ship design if nothing else, and looking at these ships, it is not clear to me the end goal beside having a mid-size Navy.

 

[Flayer]

I see three fast task groups for commerce raiding in the Atlantic. There's a light carrier which carries enough planes to spot targets and to provide sufficient advance warning of approaching enemy battlegroups. The carrier is really the eyes of the force, not the strike element.

I don't think each of the groups would need two capital ships though. Having a second heavy cruiser rather than a second battlewagon will more than suffice for convoy sinking and save drastically on costs. With the carrier planes for reconnaissance, the group can avoid attacking convoys with protection that a BB + 2 CAs couldn't handle.

Alternatively, the 'extra' BB/BCs (I'm really assuming you combine the class) can be stationed in home waters/Norway to tie down more British capital ships at home, leaving less available for protecting the convoys and hunting down the raiders.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

All that metal being used for carriers and a massive support fleet are going to drain metal away from things such as uhm.. tanks.. bullets.. guns.. U boats.. belt buckles.. cigarette lighters .. helmets..

Good reason why Germany never built a massive surface fleet.. it didn't need one.

Germany never wanted war with the english, I doubt that Germany would have invaded the UK even if they did. Germany wanted to humiliate France (which they did as always) and go east. Aircraft carriers are not going to help you in the CCCP. Hell even in otl.. Bismark and Tirpitz were a giant waste of resources.

Germany needed a lot more stuff then a surface fleet.

I have to agree its a cool idea.. just impractical from a nation that is out to fight a land war to put all the expenditure into a navy that is going to get sunk. Build an airforce, build the Heer.. but Uboats where about it for the navy that made much sence.

I like the Azores idea btw!

However, keep in mind that Germany sought to be a force to be reckoned with, and not only on land or in the air. Surface fleets are an excellent tool of power projection, and that's what Nazi Germany wanted-to project its power. The ships could be used as an intimidation device rather than a weapon of war. Also, consider that battleships and carriers make good convoy raiders. A group of destroyers can just deal with a submarine by dropping a couple depth charges or sending out torpedoes. Now imagine those same destroyers facing squadrons of dive bombers and large, 15-inch shells screaming down towards them. Those convoys wouldn't last so long.

 

[Flayer]

Now imagine those same destroyers facing squadrons of dive bombers and large, 15-inch shells screaming down towards them. Those convoys wouldn't last so long.

The Allies would not use the same convoy strategy if they were facing commerce raiding by big gun/carrier battlegroups rather than U-boat wolfpacks.

Also, for a more successful use of the triangular strategy, there must be greater improvement in coordination with the U-boats. Each fleet that is out at sea should be coordinating with a wolf pack that can hunt down individual ships if the convoy is scattered by surface attack.

 

[miketr]

Yes, but those were large ships, not ships so small that they would be very marginal even as a dedicated carrier

Hence a CVL.

Independence class from Cleveland Class Light Cruisers; roughly same size as a Pocket Battleship.

The IJN Shadow Carrier program comes to mind also, Chitose, Chiyoda and Ryuho. Ditto also.

You could get a useful airgroup out of such small hulls. Is it a CV? Of course not but its not useless either.

Michael

 

[Flayer]

A CVL gives a commerce raiding group the capability to spot targets and reconniter escort strength more accurately (many times IRL a fleet might mistake battleships for cruisers and sail into a fight it can't win, or mistake cruisers for BBs or armed auxiliaries for real warships and shy away from what would have been an easy victory). It can also plink enemy scout planes before they get a precise fix on the fleet and prevent the raiders from being shadowed by lone aircraft (which doomed the Bismarck and other ships IRL).

The obvious countermeasure is a fast fleet carrier strike group, which can overwhelm the smaller CVL airgroup and then pick the fleet apart at range. The Germans will get a break early on when Britain does not have enough CVs to service every area they're needed in (and relatively small airwings), but by late wartime, 1943-1944, the commerce raiding groups will not be survivable at sea, and whatever hasn't been sunk by then will have to have been pulled back to safe waters (Norway or the Baltic).

 

[miketr]

Thats fair enough, it would only be unreasonable if they just ignored it

However, even with the cheating over displacement the Germans were doing, as soon as that 3rd BB is laid down they are in breach of the Anglo-German naval treaty over a year earlier than OTL

Is it actually? Germany agreed to build up to 35% of the British Tonnage. The first 5 ships take Germany to 35% of RN capital ship tonnage under Washington / 1st London Naval treaties. After 2nd London there is no tonnage cap for the RN; ships in terms of individual ship size. In 1937 RN lays down 5, 35,000 ton BB's. Germany lays down one. Yes Germany is lying in that the ships are 45,000 ton ships rather than 35,000 tons they claim but otherwise the 6th heavy doesn't breach the AGNA.

There might be something else that I am missing but I don't think the 6th heavy does it. Now if Germany does anything else.

Also I have my reservations about Germany being able to handle 6 heavies in the 1930's. The big issue is this, why does the Germany Navy not lay down the Pocket BB's 1929-1932 as scheduled? IE before Hitler comes to power? They are being laid down 4 years late here.

Michael

 

[Shogo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutfahne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Bauriedl

For the one who had trouble tracking that down via google.

-----------------

Anywho . . . This thought exercise of yours sounds reasonable to me.

Is this in preperation for an entirely new thing or something you'll be working into the Manstein timeline, BW?

 

[Flayer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutfahne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Bauriedl

For the one who had trouble tracking that down via google.

Thanks for the links, it was misspelled in the OP.

 

[BlondieBC]

The Allies would not use the same convoy strategy if they were facing commerce raiding by big gun/carrier battlegroups rather than U-boat wolfpacks.

Also, for a more successful use of the triangular strategy, there must be greater improvement in coordination with the U-boats. Each fleet that is out at sea should be coordinating with a wolf pack that can hunt down individual ships if the convoy is scattered by surface attack.

So text book 1920's battle fleet tactics but focusing on merchant shipping. This makes sense, but you will want all the ships to be very fast 30+ knots so they can outrun the RN. The Bismark may be a bit slow, it would be nice if the squadron can move at 33 knots if needed. This makes sense. Now the U-boats may have trouble keeping up, but if they are just cooperating, it might work.

You know the end result is the RN finds these ships and sinks them? It might take quite few months, but it will happen.

 

[Flayer]

So text book 1920's battle fleet tactics but focusing on merchant shipping. This makes sense, but you will want all the ships to be very fast 30+ knots so they can outrun the RN. The Bismark may be a bit slow, it would be nice if the squadron can move at 33 knots if needed. This makes sense. Now the U-boats may have trouble keeping up, but if they are just cooperating, it might work.

You know the end result is the RN finds these ships and sinks them? It might take quite few months, but it will happen.

The U-boats don't need to be accompanying the fleet, they just need to be on call to get there in the next day or two when 40 merchant ships scatter.

Knowing the psychology of Hitler and the Kriegsmarine, the high seas Alantic adventures probably come to a stop when the first of these raiding groups gets itself mangled.

What would be IMO the biggest chance for this strategy to be as successful as possible would be if the Germans had access to Ultra-levels of intelligence advantage on the British - if they knew which area each of Britain's carriers would be operating in at any given moment. Of course, this is impossible in any timeline resembling our own. In fact, Ultra intel on where the movements of the commerce raiding groups will probably be their downfall.

I'm not going to defend this as a war-winning or decisive strategy, but it does in theory sound better than the OTL one. It is a strategy that will tie down a lot more of the RN's capital ships and carriers, which will weaken the RN's position in the Mediterranean. That's probably where the most important impact of this naval plan will take place.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Asside from the fact that the British and to a lesser extent the French would outbuild any German carrier program however it was diguised to start with, one ship you do not want to base a design on is the Ryujo. The Japanese tried to cram too much onto her very limited tonnage 48 aircraft in double hangers on just over 10,000 tons, she was dangerously overloaded, unstable and too lightly built none, of which are good news for ships that will have to operate in the North Atlantic, North Sea and the Baltic. Better to ask the Japanese draw up a new design based on your requirements. If you ask them to base them on a fast tanker design you get two for one, and it will be easier to delay discovery of the ships true nature thus giving Britain and France less time to respond. Realisticly if Germany's going to build carriers it's not regular fleet or light fleet carriers that she should build but less expensive and more expendable ships like CVEs or even Macs. These ships would not be used for a fleet engagemnet which any sensible German admiral would avoid but commerce raiding.

 

[hairysamarian]

(not that the RN knowing will stop Germany, unless someone happens to mention the Versaiiles treaty...)

But it will, as you mentioned, get the RN's attention. Germany is building carriers? Well, there's only one place they're going to send those carriers, and at the moment it's a British pond. So the RN will build a few extra carriers to keep up, and to make sure a German sortie in the event of war gets curbstomped.

 

[BlondieBC]

But it will, as you mentioned, get the RN's attention. Germany is building carriers? Well, there's only one place they're going to send those carriers, and at the moment it's a British pond. So the RN will build a few extra carriers to keep up, and to make sure a German sortie in the event of war gets curbstomped.

I am not so sure, doesn't the RN still have a 3-1 advantage in plane capacity on aircraft carriers?

 

[Rubicon]

Nice to see this BW

Just a thing, why both a battlecruiser and a battleship in each squadron? In my opinion much better for Germany to bet on a single fast battleship for protection and interdiction. Thinking something along the lines of an lengthend and strengthened Scharnhorst class.

Toyed around in Springsharp (I'm not really good at it, merely a novice) and I think I got a decent fast battleship for you

KMS Scharnhorst, Germany Scharnhorst class laid down 1935

Displacement:
39 182 t light; 41 496 t standard; 45 699 t normal; 49 062 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
897,60 ft / 869,42 ft x 108,27 ft (Bulges 114,83 ft) x 37,17 ft (normal load)
273,59 m / 265,00 m x 33,00 m (Bulges 35,00 m) x 11,33 m

Armament:
9 - 15,00" / 381 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1 687,50lbs / 765,44kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 5,04" / 128 mm guns (10x2 guns), 63,99lbs / 29,02kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
32 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm guns (16x2 guns), 1,55lbs / 0,70kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 16 517 lbs / 7 492 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,8" / 350 mm 481,96 ft / 146,90 m 11,91 ft / 3,63 m
Ends: 1,97" / 50 mm 259,48 ft / 79,09 m 11,91 ft / 3,63 m
127,99 ft / 39,01 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 1,97" / 50 mm 481,96 ft / 146,90 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3,94" / 100 mm 481,96 ft / 146,90 m 29,17 ft / 8,89 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17,7" / 450 mm 7,87" / 200 mm 7,87" / 200 mm
2nd: 2,36" / 60 mm 1,57" / 40 mm 2,36" / 60 mm

- Armour deck: 3,94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 15,75" / 400 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 210 788 shp / 157 248 Kw = 33,00 kts
Range 8 100nm at 19,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7 565 tons

Complement:
1 562 - 2 031

Cost:
£20,078 million / $80,314 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2 065 tons, 4,5 %
Armour: 13 157 tons, 28,8 %
- Belts: 4 005 tons, 8,8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2 048 tons, 4,5 %
- Armament: 2 362 tons, 5,2 %
- Armour Deck: 4 308 tons, 9,4 %
- Conning Tower: 434 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 5 988 tons, 13,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17 872 tons, 39,1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6 517 tons, 14,3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0,2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
55 470 lbs / 25 161 Kg = 32,9 x 15,0 " / 381 mm shells or 9,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,24
Metacentric height 8,4 ft / 2,6 m
Roll period: 16,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,32
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0,431
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29,49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 35,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29,00 ft / 8,84 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19,55 ft / 5,96 m (19,00 ft / 5,79 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 19,00 ft / 5,79 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 19,00 ft / 5,79 m
- Stern: 19,00 ft / 5,79 m
- Average freeboard: 19,86 ft / 6,05 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95,9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 137,0 %
Waterplane Area: 59 154 Square feet or 5 496 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 209 lbs/sq ft or 1 020 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,16
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Not to shabby right? I hope..... Three of these is more then enough to protect any carriers from sneaksy, tricksy Royal Navy surface ships.

 

[hairysamarian]

I am not so sure, doesn't the RN still have a 3-1 advantage in plane capacity on aircraft carriers?

Quality is better than quantity, that's true. But when you can have both, why not have both?

 

[hairysamarian]

Not to shabby right? I hope..... Three of these is more then enough to protect any carriers from sneaksy, tricksy Royal Navy surface ships.

Pretty toys, to be sure. I've always been a sucker for the beauty of the German capital ships in WW2. Sentiment aside, however, the biggest threat to a carrier is another carrier, not yet another obsolete gunboat.