Surface fleet vs uboats germany

Musica

Banned
Did Germany made a mistake by continuing building a surface fleet after Munich instead of build uboats ,or did the Germans wanted to attempt the same as imperial Germany to have a navy that the same as the british in ships even if they realize that they never equal the numbers of british navy and uboats had more effect like ww1 proved that surface ships?
 
Id say they did have succes early on with the Deutschland class and operation Berlin, but rheinubung showed that radar really changed the odds.
Its obviously true that those ships never completed was a waste and starting planZ was a waste, but Tirpitz could be argued as being quite cost effective as a fleet in being?
It ended being a component in shutting down the arctic convoys for a while.
It would make sense to take look at the pipeline in 1938 and say, well, lets put everything not 2/3 complete on hold and transfer the rest to u-boats, minesweepers, etc.
 
I don't think Germany made a mistake. Resources are not directly transferable between surface ships and U-Boats, steel is but then you have fittings and instruments and other equipment only U-Boats have, those were the bottleneck

The surface fleet did prove useful, the destroyers and below got lots of service and Germany never had enough of those. You could argue about the cruisers and above, but they were needed for Norway and formed a Fleet in being afterwards, the WAllies committed something like 3-4 battleships and a carrier just to watch Tirpitz. Sure with hindsight there are some ships that should have never been laid down. Mind you there are some ships that should have never been started, the two H class, the second GZ and all work on CV's afterwards, the M and Spahkruezers, for thiose resources you could finish Seydlitz and GZ, and force even more WAllied resources to be tied down, and ease things up on the Italians and Japanese, in turn easing things up on you
 
Did Germany made a mistake by continuing building a surface fleet after Munich instead of build uboats ,or did the Germans wanted to attempt the same as imperial Germany to have a navy that the same as the british in ships even if they realize that they never equal the numbers of british navy and uboats had more effect like ww1 proved that surface ships?

It is difficult without hindsight to say that it was a mistake after all the shipbuilding plan was looking at bearing fruit between 1944 and 1948 - not 1939 and 1941!

However Germany is unlikely to be able to match the United Kingdom - I mean lets consider that Germany had war not occurred would have built 1 possibly 2 CV by 1944 and would have completed the 4 BBs (S+G and B+T) while the UK would have built 9 BB (5 KGV and 4 Lions) with possibly 2 more Lions on the slips and have built 6 Armoured Fleet carriers - not to mention what they already had - France would have built 4 Modern BBs and 2 fleet carriers

Of course Italy and Japan might even up the odds slightly (if we ignore the USA!) but when this plan needs to be instigated which is likely mid/late 30s that is all an unknown.

I think that the only way that Germany could win WW2 (aside from defeating Russia ASAP) - is to successfully blockade Britain as efficiently and as early as possible in an effort to bring her to terms.

As she has no way of taking on the British fleet directly to achieve this - the blockade must be via 'Asymmetrical Naval warfare'

  • For this they need effective LRMP A/C in sufficient numbers (without knowing that they are going to hold France and Norway in advance) - this A/C capable of VLR and also capable of taking the opportunity to attack undefended merchants
  • A larger than OTL number of raiders - both converted merchant ships (build a larger number of fast 'refrigerated' Long Range Merchants in the mid to late 30s with existing hard points for guns etc suitable for fast conversion to raiders with mine laying capability) and fast long range Crusiers (the latter capable of out running a British Cruiser therefore it does not need larger guns - the max should be the 5.9") and both types capable of carrying a spotter plane. I would build these instead of the Hippers and Bismarck/Tirpitz and dont even start GZ.
  • Destroyers - don't over engineer - make them fast but more littoral in nature - again give mine laying capability
  • A much greater mine laying ability at the beginning of the war - ie ready to quickly convert suitable vessels as mine layers at the beginning of the war
  • And more submarines with the understanding that no more than 1/3 on average of the submarines will be on station at any given time (the rest in refit, training or in transit to or from station)

Now obviously there are issues with this plan

  • Firstly the Luftwaffe would be providing the LRMP A/C and we all know the politics involved that would probably prevent this from happening - certainly in enough numbers - not sure how to circumvent this!
  • The Raiders both Merchant and Cruiser are likely to have been swept from the seas by 1941 - so they and the subs need to get in their 'licks' as effectively as possible - and if the war is not over by then - well German is likely in trouble anyway!
  • I don't think that anyone really appreciated how quickly airpower would improve during this period and how emerging technologies would all align to defeat the U Boat threat by mid war as well as becoming a serious and credible threat to warships. So this cannot be planned for. But improving airpower and associated technologies would scupper a number of the 'war winning' ideas I postulated above.
  • Mine warfare is not a war winning tactic or strategy - not on its own by a long shot - the British generally were able to keep ahead of this particular technological curve and had the vessels and expertise to combat it. That being said mines did contribute to a large number of sinkings and are a relatively cost effective way of contributing to the grand strategy of blockading the UK. Of the above I think this is the easiest to improve.
  • Not building Battleships....This was seen as a national and political statement at the time 'look at us we have gert great Battleships' just like the big players - 'you need to take us seriously!' - think of them as the ICBMs of the day - so not building all of the 4 BBs is a difficult decision at the time especially as Britain and France and the USA have so many and are certain to build more from 1937. Certainly they did prove useful in keeping the Royal Navy focused and if they were not built - what do the British do - slow down the construction of the KGVs, layup the Rs and use the crews for other ships and use the extra resources to build more DDs and escorts?
  • This of course impacts the ability to build lots of lighter LR Cruisers and more DDs. Although the construction of a class of long range fast freighter than can be rapidly modified to become a raider would also be relatively easy to implement - although finding crews would be hard to implement*.
  • Building more U-boats. Its an obvious one - but the obviousness of it go both ways as U-boats have but one main reason for existence - the Blockading of the UK - a UK that is acutely aware of the impact U-boats had in the previous war and if they realise which they likely would that Germany is constructing lots of them - it as much as anything is going to change the UK's attitude to other events at the time. Also while USW is the most effective use of the U Boat it brought the USA into the previous war.

All in all I think that this alternative tactic will not work - the ability of the allies to build lots of aircraft which depending on the threat can be adapted rapidly - ie VLR Liberators used instead for purely ASW and maritime patrol purposes in 1941 rather than just a handful of them!
The Geography of the Battle of the Atlantic even with Norway and France in Axis hands - still massively favored the Allies
And lastly regardless of the formation, strategy and tactics used by the German forces involved in what is ultimately the Battle of the Atlantic it is going up against the world's then largest navy and then increasingly against the other worlds largest navy

*Regarding crews for the merchant raiders - it must have been apparent that once war with Britain and France began Germany's Merchant fleet would rapidly be swept from the seas in matter of weeks - so perhaps subtly many ships are recalled to Germany or friendly ports and this provides a larger pool of potential volunteers for those ships?
 
they needed both

with hindsight (of WWI) the largest four battleships seem a waste ... they could have built, for instance, the five admiral Hipper-class ships with 11" guns and achieved about as much?

of mixed opinion about carriers but certainly seems better to have built off of Admiral Hipper-class? if they are to be built

the flaw with u-boats in my view was abandoning coastal (sized) vessels, they could have been constructed in addition to Atlantic boats. might have been easier to introduce the Elektoboot technology on smaller craft? for certain it was mistake to not have submarines that could be quickly moved overland.
 
they needed both

with hindsight (of WWI) the largest four battleships seem a waste ... they could have built, for instance, the five admiral Hipper-class ships with 11" guns and achieved about as much?

of mixed opinion about carriers but certainly seems better to have built off of Admiral Hipper-class? if they are to be built

the flaw with u-boats in my view was abandoning coastal (sized) vessels, they could have been constructed in addition to Atlantic boats. might have been easier to introduce the Elektoboot technology on smaller craft? for certain it was mistake to not have submarines that could be quickly moved overland.
No they could not have, without violating the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and thus probably starting Anglo-French rearmament earlier. Britain hated those types of ships with a bloody passion

The German large units did pretty well, S&G killed a carrier, which arguably lead force Z to lack aircover. Tirpitz tied down several times her number of allied ships, and Bismarck for all she failed at tying down anything for very long did take Hood off the board

Elektroboot was first used in the XXIII, which was operational before the XXI and was a rail mobile coastal U-Boat
 
The German large units did pretty well, S&G killed a carrier, which arguably lead force Z to lack aircover.

I've always felt that if there was another carrier alive (ie Courageous or Glorious survived) it would have been at Taranto. If there was an extra carrier at Taranto the Italian losses would have been more significant and a lot of the Mediteranean fleet would have been freed up. If there's no reason for battleships with the med fleet perhaps the raid on Alexandria is butterflied. Not to mention that a more crippled Italian fleet won't be as able to run convoys over to North Africa.

An extra carrier at Crete may be able to provide better air cover and perhaps Formiddable won't be damaged. Or perhaps a better land campaign (due to worse Italian convoys) frees up the army and Crete is won on land and the Royal Navy doesn't take the losses it did historically.

Small changes make big changes later on for the Royal Navy. They were so spread out that there was a lot of half measures that were enough to do the job but not enough to do the job safely. One carrier can really snowball (see: Happy and Glorious devolved).

One carrier early could (but may not) mean a Force Z that is has a fast and slow battlesquadron and 2-3 carriers.
 
Last edited:
they needed both

with hindsight (of WWI) the largest four battleships seem a waste ... they could have built, for instance, the five admiral Hipper-class ships with 11" guns and achieved about as much?

of mixed opinion about carriers but certainly seems better to have built off of Admiral Hipper-class? if they are to be built

No they could not have, without violating the Anglo-German Naval agreement, and thus probably starting Anglo-French rearmament earlier. Britain hated those types of ships with a bloody passion

The German large units did pretty well, S&G killed a carrier, which arguably lead force Z to lack aircover. Tirpitz tied down several times her number of allied ships, and Bismarck for all she failed at tying down anything for very long did take Hood off the board

how would they have been in violation of AGNA? they would have abandoned the long range diesel engines of the Panzerschiffe and were actually below the 20,000 tonne displacement claimed for D-class and S & G?
 
how would they have been in violation of AGNA? they would have abandoned the long range diesel engines of the Panzerschiffe and were actually below the 20,000 tonne displacement claimed for D-class and S & G?
Replacing 4 battleships and 3 cruisers with 5 overgunned cruisers that would be capable of a fraction of the capability would be allowed under treaty but would have a smaller naval effect.

While the freak Flet of cruisers scared the British I'm sure they would like to see b&t s&g replaced by 5 cruisers.
 
with hindsight (of WWI) the largest four battleships seem a waste ... they could have built, for instance, the five admiral Hipper-class ships with 11" guns and achieved about as much?

of mixed opinion about carriers but certainly seems better to have built off of Admiral Hipper-class? if they are to be built

Replacing 4 battleships and 3 cruisers with 5 overgunned cruisers that would be capable of a fraction of the capability would be allowed under treaty but would have a smaller naval effect.

While the freak Flet of cruisers scared the British I'm sure they would like to see b&t s&g replaced by 5 cruisers.

they would have (likely) been finished by wartime, could have been finished as heavy or light cruisers, or even carriers should that decision have been made and were within German capability to build.

there is also huge savings in the scarce metals used in the four largest ships as well as bottlenecks fabricating the larger 15" guns.

in 1930's military buildup my suggestion was for what they might have built immediately, to be followed by H-class battleships returning to diesel power and seems like a more coherent progression.
 
how would they have been in violation of AGNA? they would have abandoned the long range diesel engines of the Panzerschiffe and were actually below the 20,000 tonne displacement claimed for D-class and S & G?
The Anglo-German Naval Agreement allowed Germany to build up to 35% of the UK in any given type of ship, with the types set by existing naval treaties. Ships smaller than 17500 long tons standard with guns over 203mm were banned by treaties, Hipper was ~16000 long tons standard, so if the conversion adds less than 1500 long tons, she is prohibited. Admittedly if she is larger it probably doesn't quite violate the letter of the agreement[1], but it sure as hell violates the spirit of it, which was to make Germany build a balanced fleet

[1] In 1935 it doesn't[2], but the treaty requires Germany to go by other Naval Treaties, so the UK can just ban them at 2LNT next year

[2] Well there is a very thin reed one could go on regarding the WNT implying the banning of such ships for everybody but France and Italy
 

hipper

Banned
The Anglo-German Naval Agreement allowed Germany to build up to 35% of the UK in any given type of ship, with the types set by existing naval treaties. Ships smaller than 17500 long tons standard with guns over 203mm were banned by treaties, Hipper was ~16000 long tons standard, so if the conversion adds less than 1500 long tons, she is prohibited. Admittedly if she is larger it probably doesn't quite violate the letter of the agreement[1], but it sure as hell violates the spirit of it, which was to make Germany build a balanced fleet

[1] In 1935 it doesn't[2], but the treaty requires Germany to go by other Naval Treaties, so the UK can just ban them at 2LNT next year

[2] Well there is a very thin reed one could go on regarding the WNT implying the banning of such ships for everybody but France and Italy

Ships over 10,000 tonnes with more than 8" guns were classified as battleships under the WNT which applied to the Germans via the AGNA

They could have made about 8 20,000 tonne "battleships" in addition to the three pocket battleships. and kept under the 35% of British battleship tonnage rule,
see the plans for Panzerschiffe D & E, Interesting ships very similar to an Invincible class BC.
 
Ships over 10,000 tonnes with more than 8" guns were classified as battleships under the WNT which applied to the Germans via the AGNA

They could have made about 8 20,000 tonne "battleships" in addition to the three pocket battleships. and kept under the 35% of British battleship tonnage rule,
see the plans for Panzerschiffe D & E, Interesting ships very similar to an Invincible class BC.
Misspoke, it was 2LNT that banned the 10,000-17,500 ships, not 1LNT. The WNT was not the only one Germany has to follow in terms of ship types

If Germany orders 20,000 ton capital ships, Britain is going to ban them next year in 2LNT, and Germany has to follow relevant international treaties in terms of types

Britain does not want Germany building 20,000 ton ships. The whole point of the AGNA was to get Germany not to build them. In fact the British interpretation of the AGNA was that since Britain did not have any ships of that type, Germany could not build any more of them
 
It is difficult without hindsight to say that it was a mistake after all the shipbuilding plan was looking at bearing fruit between 1944 and 1948 - not 1939 and 1941!

However Germany is unlikely to be able to match the United Kingdom - I mean lets consider that Germany had war not occurred would have built 1 possibly 2 CV by 1944 and would have completed the 4 BBs (S+G and B+T) while the UK would have built 9 BB (5 KGV and 4 Lions) with possibly 2 more Lions on the slips and have built 6 Armoured Fleet carriers - not to mention what they already had - France would have built 4 Modern BBs and 2 fleet carriers

Of course Italy and Japan might even up the odds slightly (if we ignore the USA!) but when this plan needs to be instigated which is likely mid/late 30s that is all an unknown.

I think that the only way that Germany could win WW2 (aside from defeating Russia ASAP) - is to successfully blockade Britain as efficiently and as early as possible in an effort to bring her to terms.

As she has no way of taking on the British fleet directly to achieve this - the blockade must be via 'Asymmetrical Naval warfare'

  • For this they need effective LRMP A/C in sufficient numbers (without knowing that they are going to hold France and Norway in advance) - this A/C capable of VLR and also capable of taking the opportunity to attack undefended merchants
  • A larger than OTL number of raiders - both converted merchant ships (build a larger number of fast 'refrigerated' Long Range Merchants in the mid to late 30s with existing hard points for guns etc suitable for fast conversion to raiders with mine laying capability) and fast long range Crusiers (the latter capable of out running a British Cruiser therefore it does not need larger guns - the max should be the 5.9") and both types capable of carrying a spotter plane. I would build these instead of the Hippers and Bismarck/Tirpitz and dont even start GZ.
  • Destroyers - don't over engineer - make them fast but more littoral in nature - again give mine laying capability
  • A much greater mine laying ability at the beginning of the war - ie ready to quickly convert suitable vessels as mine layers at the beginning of the war
  • And more submarines with the understanding that no more than 1/3 on average of the submarines will be on station at any given time (the rest in refit, training or in transit to or from station)

Now obviously there are issues with this plan

  • Firstly the Luftwaffe would be providing the LRMP A/C and we all know the politics involved that would probably prevent this from happening - certainly in enough numbers - not sure how to circumvent this!
  • The Raiders both Merchant and Cruiser are likely to have been swept from the seas by 1941 - so they and the subs need to get in their 'licks' as effectively as possible - and if the war is not over by then - well German is likely in trouble anyway!
  • I don't think that anyone really appreciated how quickly airpower would improve during this period and how emerging technologies would all align to defeat the U Boat threat by mid war as well as becoming a serious and credible threat to warships. So this cannot be planned for. But improving airpower and associated technologies would scupper a number of the 'war winning' ideas I postulated above.
  • Mine warfare is not a war winning tactic or strategy - not on its own by a long shot - the British generally were able to keep ahead of this particular technological curve and had the vessels and expertise to combat it. That being said mines did contribute to a large number of sinkings and are a relatively cost effective way of contributing to the grand strategy of blockading the UK. Of the above I think this is the easiest to improve.
  • Not building Battleships....This was seen as a national and political statement at the time 'look at us we have gert great Battleships' just like the big players - 'you need to take us seriously!' - think of them as the ICBMs of the day - so not building all of the 4 BBs is a difficult decision at the time especially as Britain and France and the USA have so many and are certain to build more from 1937. Certainly they did prove useful in keeping the Royal Navy focused and if they were not built - what do the British do - slow down the construction of the KGVs, layup the Rs and use the crews for other ships and use the extra resources to build more DDs and escorts?
  • This of course impacts the ability to build lots of lighter LR Cruisers and more DDs. Although the construction of a class of long range fast freighter than can be rapidly modified to become a raider would also be relatively easy to implement - although finding crews would be hard to implement*.
  • Building more U-boats. Its an obvious one - but the obviousness of it go both ways as U-boats have but one main reason for existence - the Blockading of the UK - a UK that is acutely aware of the impact U-boats had in the previous war and if they realise which they likely would that Germany is constructing lots of them - it as much as anything is going to change the UK's attitude to other events at the time. Also while USW is the most effective use of the U Boat it brought the USA into the previous war.

All in all I think that this alternative tactic will not work - the ability of the allies to build lots of aircraft which depending on the threat can be adapted rapidly - ie VLR Liberators used instead for purely ASW and maritime patrol purposes in 1941 rather than just a handful of them!
The Geography of the Battle of the Atlantic even with Norway and France in Axis hands - still massively favored the Allies
And lastly regardless of the formation, strategy and tactics used by the German forces involved in what is ultimately the Battle of the Atlantic it is going up against the world's then largest navy and then increasingly against the other worlds largest navy

*Regarding crews for the merchant raiders - it must have been apparent that once war with Britain and France began Germany's Merchant fleet would rapidly be swept from the seas in matter of weeks - so perhaps subtly many ships are recalled to Germany or friendly ports and this provides a larger pool of potential volunteers for those ships?
I agree with nearly all of that.

My disagreements are that the Germans would have completed Battleships H and J by 1944 with K, L, M and N plus the 3 battle cruisers ordered in 1939 under construction. OTOH the British would have increased their battleship building rate from the 1940-41 Navy Estimates onwards from 2 a year to at least 3 a year.

I also think that there would have been 10 armoured carriers completed or under construction as the plan between 1935 and 1939 was to have a force of 14 aircraft carriers by the middle of the 1940s. That is 10 armoured carriers, Ark Royal and the 3 Follies.
 
These are the tonnage quotas under the AGNA when it was signed. The British Empire's tonnage quotas are what it was allowed under the 2nd LNT.
Submarines
52,700 tons British Empire 100% 52,700 tons Germany​
Aircraft Carriers
135,000 tons British Empire 35% 47,250 tons Germany​
Battleships
525,000 tons British Empire 35% 183,750 tons Germany​
Cruisers
Heavy
146,800 tons British Empire 35% 51,380 tons Germany​
Light
192,200 tons British Empire 35% 67,270 tons Germany​
Total
339,000 tons British Empire 35% 118,650 tons Germany​
Destroyers
150,000 tons British Empire 35% 52,500 tons Germany
Correction. They are the 1LNT tonnage quotas. There weren't any tonnage quotas in the 2LNT.
 
Last edited:
Under the AGNA at the time that it was signed the Germans had enough tonnage to build three 35,000 ton battleships. See below:
10,000 Deutschland
10,000 Admiral Scheer
10,000 Admiral Graff Spee
26,000 Scharnhorst
26,000 Gneisenau
35,000 Battleship F (Bismarck)
35,000 Battleship G (Tirpitz)
35,000 Battleship H
187,000 Total

At October 1935 it was planned to lay down Battleship H on 1st October 1937 and complete her on 1st February 1941. However, due to a shortage of suitable slipways and an over long design process she wasn't laid down until 1st July 1939.

With hindsight (and subject to having the capacity to build the gun turrets) the Germans should have laid down a third Bismarck in December 1936 in place of Graff Zeppelin.
 
I agree with nearly all of that.

My disagreements are that the Germans would have completed Battleships H and J by 1944 with K, L, M and N plus the 3 battle cruisers ordered in 1939 under construction. OTOH the British would have increased their battleship building rate from the 1940-41 Navy Estimates onwards from 2 a year to at least 3 a year.

I also think that there would have been 10 armoured carriers completed or under construction as the plan between 1935 and 1939 was to have a force of 14 aircraft carriers by the middle of the 1940s. That is 10 armoured carriers, Ark Royal and the 3 Follies.

Hello mate

Given Germany's previous form I would think that Hutton would be possibly launched and fitting out by 1944 but certainly not in service and Berlichingen would be further behind.

But perhaps I am being a bit unfair as I am basing this on the time it took to get the pervious ships ready and factoring the increased size of these two ships and their guns.

Good call on the carriers
 
Hello mate

Given Germany's previous form I would think that Hutton would be possibly launched and fitting out by 1944 but certainly not in service and Berlichingen would be further behind.

But perhaps I am being a bit unfair as I am basing this on the time it took to get the pervious ships ready and factoring the increased size of these two ships and their guns.

Good call on the carriers
I think the extended building times for German warships begun in the period 1936-39 was due to the naval armaments industry been swamped by the sudden increase in orders made possible by the AGNA. That was certainly the case on the other side of the North Sea with the big increase in naval construction when the tonnage quotas came to an end at the beginning of 1937.

However, I think that by the end of 1939 supply was catching up with demand in Britain and Germany.
 
Top