Simple question about Bayern-class battleships

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Very true.

Folks see the Swordfish and assume it's a left over from the early 20s. It didn't even reach squadron service until 1936, with the Albacore not reaching operational status until 1940. The Japanese D1A wasn't pulled off the last carrier until 1940. The Germans flew the He-50 (1935 introduction) until 1944. The Hornet had two squadrons of SBC Helldivers (1938) embarked on December 7, 1941, not trading them in for SBD until March of 1942.

us embarked the rather disappointing, but still relatively modern Brewster Buffalos

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

Also you seem not to acknowledge that RN by 1939 was not lacking in capital ships (they had 15 big guns, so a 3 to 2 ratio against my imagined kriegsmarine), but in escort ships. I do not recall any ban on building destroyers, such nonetheless were much needed, maybe more than BBs. The point is that up had to choose priorities, and they chose capital ships over screens for various reasons, one of which was that they had stirred their shipbuilding capacity.

The RN spent most of the 1930s spending its money on destroyers and cruisers, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. While more ASW escorts were needed, this need wasn't recognised until 1938; this recognition immediately triggered a vast building program producing the Flower-class corvettes. Fifty-six had been ordered by the beginning of the war, with another 84 being added by the end of 1940. The same requirement also led to the construction of the Hunt-class destroyer escorts, with twenty ordered before the war.

 

[michael1]

If I may say, you all seem to miss one point: we is about econonomy, and prior to WW1 German economy was growing much faster than British one...had the trend not (momentarily) stopped after WW1 Germany would have beaten United kingdom under this aspect sooner or later...as was in OTL, even after Germany lost two world wars

We agree that economic capacity is important here, and that if the German economy was big enough Germany could outbuild the UK. I think we disagree on how big is big enough, and we definitely disagree about the importance of a couple of WW1 battleships.

The key reason that Germany could not build a large enough navy to threaten the UK before either war was that its priority was, quite correctly, to build a large enough army to fight France and/or Russia. Given its geographic position it would need a population and economy at least as large as the UK and France combined to be able to fight Britain at sea and France on land at the same time, and this is not going to happen unless it wins WW1 convincingly, and possibly not even then. It might be possible that it could beat Britain and France sequentially (e.g. if it wins WW1 or focuses on Britain after 1940), but a couple of Bayern class BBs are not going to be decisive in this scenario because the British are going to have responded to them and it will be the newly built battleships (after France has been dealt with) that will be decisive.

You seem to be under the illusion that Britain had no ability to build more ships (or retain more existing ones) in the 1920s and this is just not true. If Germany had been allowed to retain a stronger navy after world war 1 then Britain would also have retained a stronger navy (as would the US amongst others). Unlike cruisers and destroyers, British desired battleship numbers were always a function of the number of battleships built by others.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

We agree that economic capacity is important here, and that if the German economy was big enough Germany could outbuild the UK. I think we disagree on how big is big enough, and we definitely disagree about the importance of a couple of WW1 battleships.

The key reason that Germany could not build a large enough navy to threaten the UK before either war was that its priority was, quite correctly, to build a large enough army to fight France and/or Russia. Given its geographic position it would need a population and economy at least as large as the UK and France combined to be able to fight Britain at sea and France on land at the same time, and this is not going to happen unless it wins WW1 convincingly, and possibly not even then. It might be possible that it could beat Britain and France sequentially (e.g. if it wins WW1 or focuses on Britain after 1940), but a couple of Bayern class BBs are not going to be decisive in this scenario because the British are going to have responded to them and it will be the newly built battleships (after France has been dealt with) that will be decisive.

You seem to be under the illusion that Britain had no ability to build more ships (or retain more existing ones) in the 1920s and this is just not true. If Germany had been allowed to retain a stronger navy after world war 1 then Britain would also have retained a stronger navy (as would the US amongst others). Unlike cruisers and destroyers, British desired battleship numbers were always a function of the number of battleships built by others.

my question about Bayern class here is just technical and it is clear that the ships would not have been top notch. That said I truly can't see this 20 battleships royal navy coming in before any ww2 is well over

 

[michael1]

my question about Bayern class here is just technical and it is clear that the ships would not have been top notch. That said I truly can't see this 20 battleships royal navy coming in before any ww2 is well over

Then as I have said, yes. Much older battleships were used, e.g. Greek and German predreadnoughts.

 

[jsb]

Come on: R class ships were already oudated when they were introiduced; indeed they were tought as cheap comlements for the Queen Elizabeths; oh and they had shitty deck protection and were not upgradable

Only really with hindsight, if you dont know about WNT/LNT then they work fine for winning any WWI surface battle and will be replaced in 20/30s due to age.....

my question about Bayern class here is just technical and it is clear that the ships would not have been top notch. That said I truly can't see this 20 battleships royal navy coming in before any ww2 is well over

Without the treaties (and they only got signed due to lack of any threats at start) RN would have more than 20 capital ships at the start of the war, just look at what she had at the start of WNT, she had 21 (not including the 20 she agreed to scrap or the 12" already scraped post WWI) ships, without the treaties she would have build more to replace any scraped and would likely have 20+ in service or reserve come 39.

 

[CalBear]

us embarked the rather disappointing, but still relatively modern Brewster Buffalos

It did.

The SBC was a dive bomber.

However, this aircraft, the F3F was in squadron service until 1940, after being introduced in 1936.

Actually the F2A was, when it first reached the fleet (before the addition of self-sealing tanks and additional armor), the best carrier fighter in the world. That lasted about four-five months until it was leapfrogged by the A6M (the F2A-1 was actually very close to the same turning capacity as the Zero, although about ten knots slower). For that matter the much decried TBD was, in 1937, hands down the best torpedo bomber in the world (as well as being the first all metal, enclosed canopy, monoplane carrier capable bomber ever). By the start of the Pacific War is was death trap.

The era between 1938 and 1943 was almost certainly the most revolutionary in aircraft design history, with the only real competition being the duration of the Great War.

Only really with hindsight, if you dont know about WNT/LNT then they work fine for winning any WWI surface battle and will be replaced in 20/30s due to age.....


Without the treaties (and they only got signed due to lack of any threats at start) RN would have more than 20 capital ships at the start of the war, just look at what she had at the start of WNT, she had 21 (not including the 20 she agreed to scrap or the 12" already scraped post WWI) ships, without the treaties she would have build more to replace any scraped and would likely have 20+ in service or reserve come 39.

Not to mention the fact that that total would have included the first true "fast battleship" in the G3 "battlecruiser" (which was about as much a battlecruiser as the Iowa class) and the much slower and less long term useful, but still quite impressive N3 BB class with its 18" main battery, along with the ship class(es) that would have followed the G3/N3

If I may say, you all seem to miss one point: we is about econonomy, and prior to WW1 German economy was growing much faster than British one...had the trend not (momentarily) stopped after WW1 Germany would have beaten United kingdom under this aspect sooner or later...as was in OTL, even after Germany lost two world wars

Again, this is the sort of claim that requires something beyond the words.

Germany, assuming it does not win WW I outright, to the point of the British Empire actually surrendering (which was not really in the cards at any point in the war), is severely hampered by availability of raw materials since the British and French continue to have global empires that control those raw materials.

It is not really useful to compare the 2017 economies of Germany to the UK in any intra-war period. The British still had a massive empire to draw from with all that implied. Germany was not going to be able to exceed that, not to a degree that would allow it to suddenly eclipse the BRITISH EMPIRE and Sterling Zone in global economic influence. Economies are more than manufacturing.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

It did.

The SBC was a dive bomber.

However, this aircraft, the F3F was in squadron service until 1940, after being introduced in 1936.

Actually the F2A was, when it first reached the fleet (before the addition of self-sealing tanks and additional armor), the best carrier fighter in the world. That lasted about four-five months until it was leapfrogged by the A6M (the F2A-1 was actually very close to the same turning capacity as the Zero, although about ten knots slower). For that matter the much decried TBD was, in 1937, hands down the best torpedo bomber in the world (as well as being the first all metal, enclosed canopy, monoplane carrier capable bomber ever). By the start of the Pacific War is was death trap.

The era between 1938 and 1943 was almost certainly the most revolutionary in aircraft design history, with the only real competition being the duration of the Great War.


Not to mention the fact that that total would have included the first true "fast balleship" in the G3 "battlecruiser" (which was about as much a battlecruiser as the Iowa class) and the much slower and less long term useful, but still quite impressive N3 BB class with its 18" main battery, along with the ship class(es) that would have followed the G3/N3


Again, this is the sort of claim that requires something beyond the words.

Germany, assuming it does not win WW I outright, to the point of the British Empire actually surrendering (which was not really in the cards at any point in the war), is severely hampered by availability of raw materials since the British and French continue to have global empires that control those raw materials.

It is not really useful to compare the 2017 economies of Germany to the UK in any intra-war period. The British still had a massive empire to draw from with all that implied. Germany was not going to be able to exceed that, not to a degree that would allow it to suddenly eclipse the BRITISH EMPIRE and Sterling Zone in global economic influence. Economies are more than manufacturing.

but Manufacturing is what is needed ti build things. Also the British empire was starting to become the unproductive burden it would have shown to be not much later.
Most of all during peacetime Germany had no insurmountable problem in acquiring raw materials.
Now take a figure: during the period between 1880 and 1890 steel production in the UK doubled. In Germany it raised by 8 times

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

As a sidenote...even with tension in Europe rising and a sure need to build ships and build them fast UK only managed to work on 5 KGV battleships at the same time, and only 2 were available before 1942. The
rest of their capacity went to escort ships and they were not capable of truly working on Lion class ships, such were never built. It is safe to assume that was how many ships UK could build at the same time, even in time of great need

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

but Manufacturing is what is needed ti build things. Also the British empire was starting to become the unproductive burden it would have shown to be not much later.

Some, but not all of the British Empire was unproductive. Canada and Australia had quite significant manufacturing sectors (during WW2, Canadian yards turned out 70 frigates, 122 corvettes, 122 minesweepers, 172 patrol boats and 60 auxiliaries), while areas like Malaysia or India provided significant quantities of rarer raw materials like manganese or rubber. Even the agricultural parts of the Empire helped reduce Britain's expenditures on importing food from outside the Empire.

Now take a figure: during the period between 1880 and 1890 steel production in the UK doubled. In Germany it raised by 8 times

As a check on this, doubled from what to what, and octupled from what to what? It's easy to multiply your output by a large number when you're starting from a low number.

 

[marathag]

Also had these flying in 1935

Northrop BT-1, that could carry a 1000 pound bomb

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

but Manufacturing is what is needed ti build things. Also the British empire was starting to become the unproductive burden it would have shown to be not much later.
Most of all during peacetime Germany had no insurmountable problem in acquiring raw materials.
Now take a figure: during the period between 1880 and 1890 steel production in the UK doubled. In Germany it raised by 8 times

another most important thing: I never spoke of Germany outproducing UK.I just spoke about Germany getting a ratio of 15 to 10 big guns,so 3 to 2, wich was more or less the same as prior to WW1, and much better than 15 to 2 as per OTL

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

It did.

The SBC was a dive bomber.

However, this aircraft, the F3F was in squadron service until 1940, after being introduced in 1936.

Actually the F2A was, when it first reached the fleet (before the addition of self-sealing tanks and additional armor), the best carrier fighter in the world. That lasted about four-five months until it was leapfrogged by the A6M (the F2A-1 was actually very close to the same turning capacity as the Zero, although about ten knots slower). For that matter the much decried TBD was, in 1937, hands down the best torpedo bomber in the world (as well as being the first all metal, enclosed canopy, monoplane carrier capable bomber ever). By the start of the Pacific War is was death trap.

The era between 1938 and 1943 was almost certainly the most revolutionary in aircraft design history, with the only real competition being the duration of the Great War.


Not to mention the fact that that total would have included the first true "fast battleship" in the G3 "battlecruiser" (which was about as much a battlecruiser as the Iowa class) and the much slower and less long term useful, but still quite impressive N3 BB class with its 18" main battery, along with the ship class(es) that would have followed the G3/N3


Again, this is the sort of claim that requires something beyond the words.

Germany, assuming it does not win WW I outright, to the point of the British Empire actually surrendering (which was not really in the cards at any point in the war), is severely hampered by availability of raw materials since the British and French continue to have global empires that control those raw materials.

It is not really useful to compare the 2017 economies of Germany to the UK in any intra-war period. The British still had a massive empire to draw from with all that implied. Germany was not going to be able to exceed that, not to a degree that would allow it to suddenly eclipse the BRITISH EMPIRE and Sterling Zone in global economic influence. Economies are more than manufacturing.

another most important thing: I never spoke of Germany outproducing UK.I just spoke about Germany getting a ratio of 15 to 10 big guns,so 3 to 2, wich was more or less the same as prior to WW1, and much better than 15 to 2 as per OTL

 

[CalBear]

but Manufacturing is what is needed ti build things. Also the British empire was starting to become the unproductive burden it would have shown to be not much later.
Most of all during peacetime Germany had no insurmountable problem in acquiring raw materials.
Now take a figure: during the period between 1880 and 1890 steel production in the UK doubled. In Germany it raised by 8 times

The empire, specifically the Raj, was immensely productive and valuable, mainly because it controlled the raw material markets in most of the world. The only real competitor was the country that eventually came to dominate the global economy, the United States. The Empire became increasingly less economically viable due to social changes, not material availability. The willingness to conduct large scale warfare against colonial populations began to lose its luster, and was more or less unsustainable after the U.S. became the global hyperpower in 1945.

There is also a serious issue when you look at production of materials as a percentage increase, since you are comparing a country that is already dominant to one that is more or less coming from a standing start (the UK's production of steel in 1870 (6.7M tons) was ~4.25 times that of Germany's (1.6M tons). To use an extreme example: If you make a million widgets and your competitor makes two and ten years later you are making 2 million and they are making 200, they have increased production 100-fold. They still made 1,999,800 fewer widgets than you, although percentage-wise their improvement is impressive as all hell.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Some, but not all of the British Empire was unproductive. Canada and Australia had quite significant manufacturing sectors (during WW2, Canadian yards turned out 70 frigates, 122 corvettes, 122 minesweepers, 172 patrol boats and 60 auxiliaries), while areas like Malaysia or India provided significant quantities of rarer raw materials like manganese or rubber. Even the agricultural parts of the Empire helped reduce Britain's expenditures on importing food from outside the Empire.



As a check on this, doubled from what to what, and octupled from what to what? It's easy to multiply your output by a large number when you're starting from a low number.

Ok said "starting"
Ps in my scenario there would be no significant commerce raiding war, therefore frigates and corvettes would be pretty non significant to the overall picture

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

The empire, specifically the Raj, was immensely productive and valuable, mainly because it controlled the raw material markets in most of the world. The only real competitor was the country that eventually came to dominate the global economy, the United States. The Empire became increasingly less economically viable due to social changes, not material availability. The willingness to conduct large scale warfare against colonial populations began to lose its luster, and was more or less unsustainable after the U.S. became the global hyperpower in 1945.

There is also a serious issue when you look at production of materials as a percentage increase, since you are comparing a country that is already dominant to one that is more or less coming from a standing start (the UK's production of steel in 1870 (6.7M tons) was ~4.25 times that of Germany's (1.6M tons). To use an extreme example: If you make a million widgets and your competitor makes two and ten years later you are making 2 million and they are making 200, they have increased production 100-fold. They still made 1,999,800 fewer widgets than you, although percentage-wise their improvement is impressive as all hell.

a) I never said anythinga about material availability...India remains resource rich even today. Of course it depended on social changes...which are still occurring ITTL.
B) 6,7M tons x2 = 13.4M tons; 1.6M tons x8 = 12.8M tons...as you see they are nearly even

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

Ok said "starting"
Ps in my scenario there would be no significant commerce raiding war, therefore frigates and corvettes would be pretty non significant to the overall picture

Yeah, but in 1939-45, it was still a significant source of raw materials and manufacturing for Britain, even if there was some unrest. Maybe if peace had continued into the 1950s, things would have been difficult, but who knows.

The ability to produce 314 escort vessels implies the ability to churn out a significant number of larger or more effective vessels. Canada probably wouldn't be producing carriers, battleships or cruisers, but building destroyers certainly wasn't beyond their grasp - they built four Tribal-class destroyers IOTL.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Yeah, but in 1939-45, it was still a significant source of raw materials and manufacturing for Britain, even if there was some unrest. Maybe if peace had continued into the 1950s, things would have been difficult, but who knows.

The ability to produce 314 escort vessels implies the ability to churn out a significant number of larger or more effective vessels. Canada probably wouldn't be producing carriers, battleships or cruisers, but building destroyers certainly wasn't beyond their grasp - they built four Tribal-class destroyers IOTL.

not exactly...to build larger ships you need appropriate plants; you can't just build one battleships where you would build 8 destroyers. That said ITTL naval war would end in 1 decisive encounter during 1940, during which RN would lose a bunch of battleships due to a tricky tactic used by the germans, so no use for those 4 Tribal class; but I understand this is my arbitrary development and not to the point of the thread

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

not exactly...to build larger ships you need appropriate plants; you can't just build one battleships where you would build 8 destroyers. That said ITTL naval war would end in 1 decisive encounter during 1940, during which RN would lose a bunch of battleships due to a tricky tactic used by the germans, so no use for those 4 Tribal class; but I understand this is my arbitrary development and not to the point of the thread

I'm aware of that; what I'm saying is that, given the lack of need for ASW escorts and a need for destroyers, the RCN and RN are going to fund more destroyer construction in Canada. Given that IOTL, Canada did build destroyers, it seems clear to me that they could build more in such conditions.

Also, I'm sceptical that any tricky tactics are going to be such a significant battle-winner, but I don't know what you have in mind.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

I'm aware of that; what I'm saying is that, given the lack of need for ASW escorts and a need for destroyers, the RCN and RN are going to fund more destroyer construction in Canada. Given that IOTL, Canada did build destroyers, it seems clear to me that they could build more in such conditions.

Also, I'm sceptical that any tricky tactics are going to be such a significant battle-winner, but I don't know what you have in mind.

if you want to know it, I have RN trying to blockade Norway during 1940 in a badly planned Churchill-style operation, only to find that the Germans had a secret agreement with the country to host german naval bombers on it's airfields.
These planes will inflict some losses; otherwill come when the British fleet rushes towards southern norwegian sea believing to have spotted the whole HSF coming to meet them, while actually the germans are just sending their carriers and some escort ships, wich will attack from the distance.
The 2 battleship Squadrons of the HSF will instead have moved north-west on complete radio silence and under the guidance of scout planes, cutting British line of retreat during the night.
A sort of an nlarged Matapan-style battle, where the Brits will lose about 5 among battleships and battlecruisers and 2 to 3 carriers in various phases of combat. Being that the action at Scapa Flow still happens, as well as the sinking of HMS Courageous they have already lost 6 big guns and 3 to 4 carriers, bringing them to the peace table