The Battleships that should have never been, 1930-1945!

In the booklets of the German navy WW-11 , SCMOLKE & KOOP report that a post war engineering study of KM warship building was published in the 1950s. This study was conducted by EX wartime members of the KM design service. They concluded that instead of building the 4 battleships [TWINS & BS/TP] and the 5 Hipper cruisers , the KM could have either built 21 smaller Panzerschiffe or 375 TYPE VII U-Boats.

Either option would have been preferable to the wartime KM.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think its entirely reasonable for the US to realise that the treaties have basically failed even if the US isn't yet and may not get involved, Asia and Europe are starting to rearm fast if not openly falling apart by 1937 and that therefore the entire US battle line will need to be replaced with the next decade simply to maintain deterrent value.

Worse case they end up with 4 more weaker ships that can still match anything pre WNT (especially as the old US line was simply to slow for WWII CV actions) so we are talking about the US needing to build another 9 ships minimum before it becomes a problem that you built the extra NCs, for a 15 ship strong force of LNT or more than 9 ships if international numbers grow as is likely with effective treaties.

I think the idea that its reasonable to wait until war is actually declared to replace the older totally obviously obsolete pre standards in the US battleship line is simply very much an issue of inertia from the treaties and lack of critical judgement. The US had full knowledge about how its WWI program ran and the timetable it would take to replace battleships in time for a war I think not responding in a timely fashion to others leaving the treaties and starting ships is very much an avoidable fault.

PS- The easiest POD might be simply that the USN insists that it should match the 5 KVGs with 5 14" NCs to maintain its ratios?
The only issue I have with a 14" North Carolina, is that the switch to 16" really didn't delay the ship at all. It was built into the design to be able to substitute triple 16" turrets for the original quad 14" from the start. The provision was built into the plans so that even after construction had started they could be switched over.
 
Except the SoDaks were always intended to be armed with the 16" gun. The reason with the year's delay in building them was because the Navy wasn't happy with the North Carolinas and ordered a new design drawn up instead of ordering two repeat North Carolinas

If the USN had 6 x 35,000 Ton Treaty limited 14" armed BBs laid down as soon as the treaty expired then they could have had all 6 in service by end of 1941 - just when everyone elses (Italy, Germany, France, Japan and the UKs were due to start entering service)

The reason that they were unhappy with the NoCals was that the design had to be further compromised due to the installation of the 16" guns over the intended 14" - have them with 14" and job done
 

SsgtC

Banned
The reason that they were unhappy with the NoCals was that the design had to be further compromised due to the installation of the 16" guns over the intended 14" - have them with 14" and job done
Except the design wasn't compromised by the switch to 16". They swapped out quad turrets for triples (which was included in the plans). Honestly, even saying they "switched" to 16" is, I think, a political slight of hand. I seriously doubt the Navy ever intended to arm them with 14" guns. Oh, I know all the design studies listed 14" as the armament, but they switched to 16" extraordinarily fast when Japan refused to sign 2LNT.
 
Except the design wasn't compromised by the switch to 16". They swapped out quad turrets for triples (which was included in the plans). Honestly, even saying they "switched" to 16" is, I think, a political slight of hand. I seriously doubt the Navy ever intended to arm them with 14" guns. Oh, I know all the design studies listed 14" as the armament, but they switched to 16" extraordinarily fast when Japan refused to sign 2LNT.

It was compromised because they had to wait therefore delaying the availability of those ships - the NoCals were not laid down until 27 October 1937 and 14 June 1938 respectively with the SoDaks not laid down until 1939/40

Again - lay 6 units down in 1937 - like the Brits did with the KGVs and once its clear the escelator clause has been triggered laydown the larger Iowa's 2 a year from 1939 - you then have 6 useful BBs by 1941

Everyone else - UK, France, Italy, Germany and Japan had laid new Fast BBs down ASAP after the Treaty had lapsed!

The USN also had a need for Fast BBs to match or over match the 4 Kongo rebuilds as none of the USN Battleships were faster than IIRC 23 knots
 

SsgtC

Banned
It was compromised because they had to wait therefore delaying the availability of those ships - the NoCals were not laid down until 27 October 1937 and 14 June 1938 respectively with the SoDaks not laid down until 1939/40

Again - lay 6 units down in 1937 - like the Brits did with the KGVs and once its clear the escelator clause has been triggered laydown the larger Iowa's 2 a year from 1939 - you then have 6 useful BBs by 1941

Everyone else - UK, France, Italy, Germany and Japan had laid new Fast BBs down ASAP after the Treaty had lapsed!

The USN also had a need for Fast BBs to match or over match the 4 Kongo rebuilds as none of the USN Battleships were faster than IIRC 23 knots
Except they weren't delayed or compromised by the switch to 16". They were delayed because the Navy couldn't make up their goddamn minds about what they actually wanted! Look at the sheer number of designs they sifted through. Everything from a 23kt 16" gunned updated standard to a 30+ knot 14" gunned battlecruiser. Hell even the original proposals were nothing alike. One was basically a 14" gunned Nelson! That's where the real problem was. Not knowing what they wanted.
 
Except they weren't delayed or compromised by the switch to 16". They were delayed because the Navy couldn't make up their goddamn minds about what they actually wanted! Look at the sheer number of designs they sifted through. Everything from a 23kt 16" gunned updated standard to a 30+ knot 14" gunned battlecruiser. Hell even the original proposals were nothing alike. One was basically a 14" gunned Nelson! That's where the real problem was. Not knowing what they wanted.

Which is why I suggest not building those 6 vessels as OTL and instead pressing ahead with laying down six 12 x 14" armed 35,000 ton 27 knots BBs in 1937 and not waiting.

Everyone else also had a number of angst ridden decisions but all came to a conclusion by 1937 at the lastest

Antony Preston lamented the decision to delay the construction of those ships and the later carriers as it basically meant that most of them arrived a year or 2 too late with the main 'decisions' being fought by the ships already in service.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Which is why I suggest not building those 6 vessels as OTL and instead pressing ahead with laying down six 12 x 14" armed 35,000 ton 27 knots BBs in 1937 and not waiting.

Everyone else also had a number of angst ridden decisions but all came to a conclusion by 1937 at the lastest

Antony Preston lamented the decision to delay the construction of those ships and the later carriers as it basically meant that most of them arrived a year or 2 too late with the main 'decisions' being fought by the ships already in service.
This is where politics rears its ugly head. The Navy did decide what they wanted to do what you suggest. Except the SECNAV and President didn't like it. And the Navy was forced to go back and rework a design they had already rejected. That's a big part of why the Navy was so unhappy with the ships. They knew they were inferior to what everyone else was building.
 

Driftless

Donor
Someone with more knowledge of submarine operations should chime in here, but I'm not sure if all sailors are psychologically suitable for submarine service, especially on those cramped old diesel boats.
 
Someone with more knowledge of submarine operations should chime in here, but I'm not sure if all sailors are psychologically suitable for submarine service, especially on those cramped old diesel boats.

This is exactly what I've said on other threads. You can put anyone on a ship. Put me on a carrier or battleship and I'm probably ok, put me on a destroyer or escort and I will be spending most of my time leaning over the rail 'feeding the fish' if you get my drift. Put me on a sub and I'd be psychotic in an hour.

I visited the sub in Philadelphia moored next to the Oregon back in the 90's. The sub was empty except for two guides, one at each end. I was with my ship's second mate, we were the only two visitors. The sub was not loaded for a war patrol, with so many crates shoved in that you had to crawl on top of them to get from one part of the sub to another. Both main hatches were open. And even then I was was getting more claustrophobic by the minute.

So no, being a submariner is something special. And I salute those who can do it and do because I sure as hell couldn't...
 
As above shows in 1940 KM had over 400 vessels in their fleet [not including V-Boat] , so they had enough sailors.
How many are actual serious warship as opposed to AA/Minesweepers/OPVs? (In 1940 on your sheet)
5BBs + 4CA +4CL + 15DD + 44TB + 40 MTBs = 112 real warships out of 400+ v 88 U boats I simply don't think the majority of support vessels crew are going to cut it as U boat crew?
 
Where would you have enough dockyard space for 375 U-Boats, not to mention providing crews?

Also a number of very paranoid gentlemen in a certain building in Whitehall called the Admiralty would see the building of so many U boats in the late 30s as a very effective declaration of intent for U-boats only have one real full time job - the blockade of the United Kingdom.

A response would start well before the number of U-boats got into double figures!
 
Oh I have just thought of an obvious one

HMS Vanguard - intended to provide the UK with a quickly built 'cheap' fast BB by reusing old 15" turrets etc

She turned out to be neither quickly built not cheap and was completed after the war and often referred to as the Great White Elephant

Either continue one or both of the 2 Lions (both halted on the outbreak of war and already partially built) or plunge those resources into finishing the Armoured Carriers (I would prefer the latter) which were delayed as a result of the need for escorts and this new BB
 
I think the obvious Battleship that should never have been was HMS Vanguard. By the time she was laid down the writing was on the wall for Battleships. Use the resources put into her to build the third Audacious class. The KGV's could do anything she could just as well, and she only lasted a couple of years longer than they did.

Ninja'd
 
I think the obvious Battleship that should never have been was HMS Vanguard. By the time she was laid down the writing was on the wall for Battleships. Use the resources put into her to build the third Audacious class. The KGV's could do anything she could just as well, and she only lasted a couple of years longer than they did.

Ninja'd

I did feel bad

Edit: But on the positive side - great minds and all that....
 
The majority of the battleships laid down in the prewar era were, IMHO, good decisions at the time they were ordered. The ascendancy of the carrier was not proven yet, and the idea was to build a balanced fleet. (Taranto and Pearl Harbor proved that battleships were sitting ducks in harbor--blindingly obvious.)
Lacking all weather capability, battleships are needed at night and in other non-flying weather.

The later ones built might have been worth cancelling, but when to pull the plug is the key question. Bismarck and Tirpitz probably shouldn't have been built, though. Same with Graf Zeppelin

I disagree on B and T. Look at the resources they tied down. In her short life, B had a large chunk of the Royal Navy hunting her and she sank HOOD and sent POW back to the body and fender shop. T as Cryhavoc likes to say, was a very successful fleet in being all by herself.
 
How many are actual serious warship as opposed to AA/Minesweepers/OPVs? (In 1940 on your sheet)
5BBs + 4CA +4CL + 15DD + 44TB + 40 MTBs = 112 real warships out of 400+ v 88 U boats I simply don't think the majority of support vessels crew are going to cut it as U boat crew?

They are ALL very serious warships when you have none. All their training was serious enough and given a need for more U-Boats they would have trained more crews.

If these EX KM naval engineers said it could be done , who are we to question them. Unlike us they were actually there!
 
Last edited:
Also a number of very paranoid gentlemen in a certain building in Whitehall called the Admiralty would see the building of so many U boats in the late 30s as a very effective declaration of intent for U-boats only have one real full time job - the blockade of the United Kingdom.

A response would start well before the number of U-boats got into double figures!


UK never started WW-II because more U-Boat were ordered. They started it because Hitler was beginning his conquest of Europe....quite a bit more important.
 
Top