The Kriegsmarine's Double Whammy: Monitors and Carrier Conversions

[McPherson]

I'm not sure I even disagree with this, Mac. But it's really a critique of damage control technique and training. Isn't it?

1. It is a critique of a military mindset of two navies functionally at war.

2. In the case of the USS Pennsylvania, one notes from her action report, that she maintained a standing AAA watch in drydock!

0802 to 0805 (Exact time not known). Pennsylvania commenced firing at enemy planes, – reported as first ship opening fire by personnel on board. All anti-aircraft batteries were rapidly brought into action. After release of torpedoes three planes came in low from the port beam, strafing Pennsylvania, – strafing attack not effective. During the torpedo attack, one enemy plane was observed to burst into flames about 2,000 yards on the starboard bow.

3. That was a WELL TRAINED crew. Unbelievable how effectively they fought the ship. Simply incredible.

And it's a bit unfair to hold Prince of Wales in December 1941 (for all of the deficiencies of the crew even by the RN standards of the moment, thanks to inadequate training) up to the standards in play aboard Pennsylvania in spring 1945. The USN was, as we know, pretty good about damage control from the outset, and they got a whole lot better during the war.

4. PoW might be hard pressed to match USS Pennsylvania on 7 December 1941.

About lessons learned from Pearl Harbor.

Damn right it was.

5. The lessons learned seemed to have been quite quickly applied, by the USS Pennsylvania's crew.

6. God damn Harold Stark.

Finally, something I can agree with.

Though for a less fraught period, Betty Stark's flaws would have been less consequential.

7. Mistakes Stark made... Harold Rainsford Stark - Wikipedia

Harold Raynsford Stark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

happened long before he screwed up as CNO. And these mistakes were consequential, as we both well know from the "torpedo crisis".

But credit to FDR (a man I am not a fan of) for reaching down the ranks to put in place King and Nimitz at the moment when it mattered most.

8. Reach into the General Board and one cannot go far wrong.

And yet, *that* Admiral Richardson simply did not believe the attack would be a naval air attack, as witnessed by his steady refusal to employ torpedo nets in the harbor. There is, alas, every reason (as Gordon Prange contended) to think that had Richardson still been CinC on December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor would have happened more or less as it did in OTL. Though he was right (and courageous) to push back against FDR, FDR unwittingly did him a favor by firing him - saving him from Kimmel's fate.

9. Quoting from the citation at 6....

So, I believed that some of the responsibility for the failure to have daily long-range air reconnaissance as part of the daily routine in 1941 at Pearl Harbor lies directly on the doorstep of the CNO. Having been told by the Commander-in-Chief that daily long-range reconnaissance would be carried out, he said it "was not necessary."

It is kind of axiomatic that one does not conduct expensive PBY reconnaissance out to 600+ kilometers as Richardson did; if one is not "expectant of an air attack by an enemy aircraft carrier based and centered task force." However, the question of torpedo nets does raise another question of whether or not Admiral Richardson believed that the IJN would or could solve the problem of shallow entry and stabilized run into target of air dropped torpedoes. As one knows now, that problem SHOULD have been addressed as early as 1934, when USN aviators suggested such a weapon should be investigated. So...

Who was the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance in 1934?

Harold Stark.

As I say, though, Roosevelt kind of made up for it, and then some, by hiring King and Nimitz.

10. One son of a bitch, sent for another son of a bitch and a TEXAN.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

my speculation was for a series of large DDs to CLs ranging from 4,900t up to the Admiral hipper-sized ships, all with 15cm guns. (essentially the "mid-range" would be Spahkreuzers)

the German TBs were fine after their failed 1935 & 1937 series but they would be unneeded with larger S-Boats and other escorts and too short ranged and lightly armed to venture into the Atlantic.

you could easily make a case for larger TBs, forget about DDs entirely, however my view (a close call) is that they were correct to want 15cm guns and Atlantic range?

The 15cm dual turrets mounted on the DDs had limited DP capability. I think it's worth arming them with those, since the Kriegsmarine's ships are always going to be outnumbered. In that case, better that they can outfight any other DD on the planet and even take on small CLs if necessary when attacking convoy screens.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I'm not particularly keen on Germany building a bootleg up armored Renown clone and resting back on their laurels. Scharnhorst had many issues that generally should have required a full on change to the basic design to be remedied. If you want a 15" armed capital ship, make a proper 15" armed capital ship. I don't think an upgunned Scharnhorst really fits that bill.

I also highly doubt the Germans will be able to develop an effective dual purpose gun well period. Successful dual purpose guns were exceptionally rare, so much so that only the United States and to a lesser degree, Britain was able to develop and field them. Nations like Germany, Italy and Japan did not bother and went right to split batteries while the French endlessly attempt to make DP guns only to fail. I don't really think even the Flak 40 would have been successfully adapted and even if it was, German stabilized naval mounts suffered from issues and the gun itself in incredible overkill. The Germans were just getting around to getting those things out by the end of the war, asking for it earlier is asking for even worse issues. The gun itself was incredibly overkill with its 900 m/s muzzle velocity, so color me skeptical of its usefulness.

Seaplane tenders aren't as horrible of an idea as aircraft carriers as the Germans were already used to operating seaplanes from their various warships. I do question their usefulness in the Atlantic given how seaplane carriers are less capable of launching sorties and recovering its aircraft in basically all conditions when compared to an actual aircraft carrier. Including more ships in a raiding force only makes it more easily detected. You are better off printing 30+ knot capable Deutschland's than doing all of this silly stuff. These vessels need a constant supply of replacement aircraft parts and fuel, some of this can be carried but you are largely extending the logistical chain required for extended operations. In the end, such a thing is simply a target for British submarines or aircraft.

Quad 8" turrets? You are aware that Krupp attempted to see the German naval design board a triple 8" turret for years and they shot the offer down multiple times? Quad turrets work directly in the face of the values and realities of German design practice. Full stop, quad turrets are full of issues and very hard to properly design. Horrid idea.


Using monitors to contest the channel is straight suicide. 15 knot monitors are massive targets for destroyers, cruisers, motor torpedo boats and aircraft. Monitors are used to attack shore targets in areas where you have naval supremacy, they are too slow and weakly armed to defend themselves from anything. This is also a horrible idea.

O-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What about these? 38cm guns and with the characteristics that I mentioned on my previous post about my ideal surface raider. Smaller as well, so we have room to fit some more AA and armour (would like at least a 210mm belt, for starters).

The Germans were also planning to waterproof and redesign the 10.5cm gun mounts to fix the problems you mentioned for the H-class battleships, so I actually think a good DP is very feasible and, moreover, capable of being deployed widely. We might see a DD equivalent of the RN destroyers Lance, Lively, Legion and Larne.

30+ knot Panzerschiffen are going to really give the British a heart attack. The AGNA was negotiated to prevent such monstrosities from coming into existence. Not viable. CVS, on the other hand, are something the Germans have lots of experience with, and they are definitely worth more than full on CVs. I think this is worth further thought.

The Germans don't need conventional CAs. Let's ditch them, and instead ask the British in the AGNA for extra light cruiser tonnage. Something along the lines of Admiral Zenker's BC, OTOH, is of great use for a North Sea FIB. Any design thoughts?

Upon consideration, you are right that monitors are not what the Kriegsmarine needs, except perhaps in the Baltic. Aircraft will do a much better job, so we'll put the resources into them.

 

[HMS Warspite]

12.8 cm FlaK 40 - Wikipedia

1125 barrels built, That is equal to about 200 batteries of artillery. In naval terms, such a run with Zwillings means 500 weapon mounts, or enough for LANTFLT.



Then there is ...

Germany 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33 - NavWeaps
10.5 cm FlaK 38 - Wikipedia

Thoroughly serviceable ... IF the gadget happy Germans use USN logic and solve ship's roll, yaw and pitch inputs to the barrel point, in the fire control system solution matrix instead of trying to mechanically stabilize the gun!

Not in 1940 or before as mentioned earlier!!!

So your argument is flawed either due to not able to read, or even worse, not willing to understand.

 

[HMS Warspite]

The 15cm dual turrets mounted on the DDs had limited DP capability. I think it's worth arming them with those, since the Kriegsmarine's ships are always going to be outnumbered. In that case, better that they can outfight any other DD on the planet and even take on small CLs if necessary when attacking convoy screens.

That is correct as the twin 15 cm LC/38 Turret placed on the Type 1936 Mob was heavier than anticipated and too far forward, having a serious negative influence on the stability of the ship with such a weight in the front, reducing its overall performance as such. Having the same mounting place don a larger cruiser sized hull was far more logical as the more stable platform a cruiser hull offered not only improved the overall seaworthiness and gun handling, it also allowed a full high angle usage in an AA role, the mounting was designed to perform at, but the ships of the Type 1936 Mob were not. (The twin 15 cm LC/38 Turret when installed on the Destroyers had a limited elevation of 65 degrees, which was done to prevent damage to the lightly build destroyer's hull of the relatively heavy recoil of the large guns, when fired at a high elevation. On a larger cruiser sized hull this would not have been a serious issue though.

In an ideal world the twin 15 cm LC/38 Turret would be fitted as in the proposed M-Class light cruiser, which actually was intended to make use of the longer barrel 15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28 in a variation of the 15 cm/55 mount found on both the Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes, as well as the proposed, but canceled follow up capital ships. When replacing the original intended weapons, the full DP role could be used by this weapon, reducing the need for a heavy AA gun on the ship, as intended to be fitted, creating options for other fittings.

Some details on the large German Zerstörer concept: the German naval rearmament was heavily influence by French (and to some minor degree Italian) designs, which were build since the 20's and used a concept of a split in destroyers in both concept and function, while most other navies had a universal DD concept of some sort. The newly proposed German Zerstörer type 1934 and 1936 were to be the contemporaries of the French Contre-Torpilleur type large destroyer, which would basically operate as a sort of hybrid Destroyer leader, or very fast small cruiser in an anti destroyer role in a fleetscreen. For this reason the German designers wanted to have a larger gun caliber than contemporaries, meaning the French 5.45 inch, or 138mm gun, so the first Zerstörers of the 1934 were fitted with high muscle velocity 5.1 inch, or 128mm guns as a temporary solution, followed up by the newly designed Type 1936 making use of the also new lightweight 5.9 inch (15cm) gun specially developed for this new ship. A smaller destroyer role was intended to be done by the so called "Flotten Torpedoboote" of the older Möwe class and the more modern Type 1935, type 1939 and comparable designs, named not Zerstörer, but Flotten Torpedoboote, as they were primarily seen as equivalent of the French smaller destroyers called Torpilleurs d'Escadre, which normally were a bit larger than the German Flotten Torpedoboote, but intended to do the same sort of offensive missions = torpedoattacks and minelaying runs on an enemy fleet or territory and secondary escorting duties.

When compared to other navies, the French and German navies and to a lesser form the Regia Marina and fletchling Soviet Navy, specialized their limited naval resources in a way the bigger, Royal Navy, USN and Imperial Japanese Navy did not. These three did just the opposite, standardizing as much as possible on one multi role type of fleet destroyer with some form of specialization for all (British and Japanese mostly on torpedo offensive capabilities and USN designs mostly on gunnery, with a few exceptions) Also noteworthy is that the large German Zerstörer and also the French Contre-Torpilleurs were often beaten in overall performance such as seakeeping by the much smaller British DD's in the same conditions.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

That is correct as the twin 15 cm LC/38 Turret placed on the Type 1936 Mob was heavier than anticipated and too far forward, having a serious negative influence on the stability of the ship with such a weight in the front, reducing its overall performance as such. Having the same mounting place don a larger cruiser sized hull was far more logical as the more stable platform a cruiser hull offered not only improved the overall seaworthiness and gun handling, it also allowed a full high angle usage in an AA role, the mounting was designed to perform at, but the ships of the Type 1936 Mob were not. (The twin 15 cm LC/38 Turret when installed on the Destroyers had a limited elevation of 65 degrees, which was done to prevent damage to the lightly build destroyer's hull of the relatively heavy recoil of the large guns, when fired at a high elevation. On a larger cruiser sized hull this would not have been a serious issue though.

In an ideal world the twin 15 cm LC/38 Turret would be fitted as in the proposed M-Class light cruiser, which actually was intended to make use of the longer barrel 15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28 in a variation of the 15 cm/55 mount found on both the Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes, as well as the proposed, but canceled follow up capital ships. When replacing the original intended weapons, the full DP role could be used by this weapon, reducing the need for a heavy AA gun on the ship, as intended to be fitted, creating options for other fittings.

Some details on the large German Zerstörer concept: the German naval rearmament was heavily influence by French (and to some minor degree Italian) designs, which were build since the 20's and used a concept of a split in destroyers in both concept and function, while most other navies had a universal DD concept of some sort. The newly proposed German Zerstörer type 1934 and 1936 were to be the contemporaries of the French Contre-Torpilleur type large destroyer, which would basically operate as a sort of hybrid Destroyer leader, or very fast small cruiser in an anti destroyer role in a fleetscreen. For this reason the German designers wanted to have a larger gun caliber than contemporaries, meaning the French 5.45 inch, or 138mm gun, so the first Zerstörers of the 1934 were fitted with high muscle velocity 5.1 inch, or 128mm guns as a temporary solution, followed up by the newly designed Type 1936 making use of the also new lightweight 5.9 inch (15cm) gun specially developed for this new ship. A smaller destroyer role was intended to be done by the so called "Flotten Torpedoboote" of the older Möwe class and the more modern Type 1935, type 1939 and comparable designs, named not Zerstörer, but Flotten Torpedoboote, as they were primarily seen as equivalent of the French smaller destroyers called Torpilleurs d'Escadre, which normally were a bit larger than the German Flotten Torpedoboote, but intended to do the same sort of offensive missions = torpedoattacks and minelaying runs on an enemy fleet or territory and secondary escorting duties.

When compared to other navies, the French and German navies and to a lesser form the Regia Marina and fletchling Soviet Navy, specialized their limited naval resources in a way the bigger, Royal Navy, USN and Imperial Japanese Navy did not. These three did just the opposite, standardizing as much as possible on one multi role type of fleet destroyer with some form of specialization for all (British and Japanese mostly on torpedo offensive capabilities and USN designs mostly on gunnery, with a few exceptions) Also noteworthy is that the large German Zerstörer and also the French Contre-Torpilleurs were often beaten in overall performance such as seakeeping by the much smaller British DD's in the same conditions.

For the Zerstörer, which is basically a 3,500 tonne scout cruiser by this point, could the Kriegsmarine ring up their friends the IJN and build a ship based on Yubari? My thought is that it would carry three twin 15cm LC/38 turrets with full AA capability, or two twin 15cm turrets and two twin 10.5cm mounts to supplement AA, with some torps as well. Such a ship should have pretty good range and seakeeping, and a high speed.

 

[thaddeus]

The newly proposed German Zerstörer type 1934 and 1936 were to be the contemporaries of the French Contre-Torpilleur type large destroyer, which would basically operate as a sort of hybrid Destroyer leader, or very fast small cruiser in an anti destroyer role in a fleetscreen. For this reason the German designers wanted to have a larger gun caliber than contemporaries, meaning the French 5.45 inch, or 138mm gun, so the first Zerstörers of the 1934 were fitted with high muscle velocity 5.1 inch, or 128mm guns as a temporary solution, followed up by the newly designed Type 1936 making use of the also new lightweight 5.9 inch (15cm) gun specially developed for this new ship. A smaller destroyer role was intended to be done by the so called "Flotten Torpedoboote" of the older Möwe class and the more modern Type 1935, type 1939 and comparable designs, named not Zerstörer, but Flotten Torpedoboote, as they were primarily seen as equivalent of the French smaller destroyers called Torpilleurs d'Escadre, which normally were a bit larger than the German Flotten Torpedoboote, but intended to do the same sort of offensive missions = torpedoattacks and minelaying runs on an enemy fleet or territory and secondary escorting duties.

noteworthy is that the large German Zerstörer and also the French Contre-Torpilleurs were often beaten in overall performance such as seakeeping by the much smaller British DD's in the same conditions.

thanks for the summary!

what do you think their best and most plausible course would have been?

my suggestion was for much larger DDs and 150mm guns but had they somewhat increased the 1934 & 1936 designs to perhaps 3,700t (akin to final 1944 design) their WWII destroyers may be viewed much differently?

 

[McPherson]

Not in 1940 or before as mentioned earlier!!!

So your argument is flawed either due to not able to read, or even worse, not willing to understand.

That comment (^^^) is not valid at all. The Japanese were able to field their DP artillery example in 1942. Hence, the claim that I cannot read or understand the time issues involved is quite "nonsensical".

And I will point out...

12.8cm FlaK 40 (militaryfactory.com)

The 128mm FlaK 40 was one of the largest anti-aircraft weapon systems employed by the Germans in World War 2. Design of the type began as early as 1936 under the charge of the Rheinmetall-Borsig concern and then known as the "Gerat 40", intended as an in-the-field gun system for the German Army. Little priority was given to the project initially and a pilot gun was tested in 1937, proving the design sound though heavy and of limited value to the Army and its mobile nature. As such, the weapon was now redirected for the static anti-aircraft role that saw her mounting platform reworked in response. The end result became the "12.8cm FlaK 40", a fine anti-aircraft system that would see combat action in World War 2 while being limited by general availability.

Let me be CLEAR. (See bold), the weapon was PROOFED in 1937 and found to function. It could be manufactured from no later than 1942 forward and was actually possible to make in 1940. It was a German decision, not to do so. Whether that decision was smart, (It was not at the time, since the FLAK was needed for HA defense of German cities as well as the German fleet as witness the belated production of more than 1000 barrels after the world's second greatest military genius changed his mind.) was a production decision, not a capability decision.

As the Allied bombing campaign (day and night) was taking an ever increasing toll on German war-making capacities, a twin-gun variant was also developed and these were designated as "12.8cm FlaK 40 Zwilling". These were essentially the same class of weapon though completed with two side-by-side 128mm gun barrels, appropriate fire control systems and dual loading facilities all fitted to the original mount. Production of this form also began in 1942 to which some 34 examples were available by February of 1945. Again, the sheer weight and complexity of these systems made their availability limited and, thusly, they were utilized strictly around key Reich centers.

One final FlaK 40 alternative became the "12.8cm PaK 40" gun system. This was an anti-tank evolution of the FlaK 40 intended to arm the new "Sturer Emil" tracked heavy tank destroyers. However the Rheinmetall design lost out to a Krupp submission after evaluation. Regardless, only two Sturer Emil prototypes were completed before the end of the war in May of 1945.

In all, 1,125 FlaK 40 systems were produced between 1942 and 1945.

 

[McPherson]

O-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What about these? 38cm guns and with the characteristics that I mentioned on my previous post about my ideal surface raider. Smaller as well, so we have room to fit some more AA and armour (would like at least a 210mm belt, for starters).

The Germans were also planning to waterproof and redesign the 10.5cm gun mounts to fix the problems you mentioned for the H-class battleships, so I actually think a good DP is very feasible and, moreover, capable of being deployed widely. We might see a DD equivalent of the RN destroyers Lance, Lively, Legion and Larne.

30+ knot Panzerschiffen are going to really give the British a heart attack. The AGNA was negotiated to prevent such monstrosities from coming into existence. Not viable. CVS, on the other hand, are something the Germans have lots of experience with, and they are definitely worth more than full on CVs. I think this is worth further thought.

The Germans don't need conventional CAs. Let's ditch them, and instead ask the British in the AGNA for extra light cruiser tonnage. Something along the lines of Admiral Zenker's BC, OTOH, is of great use for a North Sea FIB. Any design thoughts?

Upon consideration, you are right that monitors are not what the Kriegsmarine needs, except perhaps in the Baltic. Aircraft will do a much better job, so we'll put the resources into them.

Not that argument...

Start here. Remember the River Plate action? That was with the incompetent Harwood for the RN. Now imagine the result with someone who knows what he is doing, like Philip Vian? The O-Class is toast.

 

[HMS Warspite]

For the Zerstörer, which is basically a 3,500 tonne scout cruiser by this point, could the Kriegsmarine ring up their friends the IJN and build a ship based on Yubari? My thought is that it would carry three twin 15cm LC/38 turrets with full AA capability, or two twin 15cm turrets and two twin 10.5cm mounts to supplement AA, with some torps as well. Such a ship should have pretty good range and seakeeping, and a high speed.

Possibly not, as the Japanese had a different view on how to design ships, compared to the Germans, namely: To fit as much firepower on a hull as small as possible in Japan, compared to simply ignoring size at all and fit the planned armament on a ship of their own liing in Germany. In this view the German Designers would almost certainly come out with their Type 1934 and Type 1936 variants as historically, or the larger never build so called "Spahkreuzer" for oceanic deployement, in a cruiser sized hull of around 6000 tons. Smaller was technically not possible given the desingned powerplant and armamentrequirements, as well as fuelcapacity. Where a Yubari type sized vessel in Japan could use the vast number of supporting bases in the Empire, Germany had no such bases and needed ships capable of going to and getting back from operational aireas.

 

[HMS Warspite]

thanks for the summary!

what do you think their best and most plausible course would have been?

my suggestion was for much larger DDs and 150mm guns but had they somewhat increased the 1934 & 1936 designs to perhaps 3,700t (akin to final 1944 design) their WWII destroyers may be viewed much differently?

Possibly not proceeding with the project as such but limmit the number of ships to a stragetical Fleet in being in and around Germany itself, ignoring the deep ocean warfare for this surface fleet, except for auxiliary vessels and sumbarines, as this was technically the mostlogical way to do things, just limmit the destroyer type vessel, or "Flottentorpedoboote" to their historcial size as this was relatively easy to construct and already multirole in design for especially short hauls in teh Northsea and Baltic, where range was not an issue. With the buildingcapacity in mind, it would be unwise to go for a oceanic or "Hochsee Flotte" as this would seriousy be restricted by the available industrial resources in the short term and only was possible on the long term, though resulting isn ships of a rather obsolete design then given the advances in naval warfare in the war itself.

That comment (^^^) is not valid at all. The Japanese were able to field their DP artillery example in 1942. Hence, the claim that I cannot read or understand the time issues involved is quite "nonsensical".

And I will point out...

12.8cm FlaK 40 (militaryfactory.com)


Let me be CLEAR. (See bold), the weapon was PROOFED in 1937 and found to function. It could be manufactured from no later than 1942 forward and was actually possible to make in 1940. It was a German decision, not to do so. Whether that decision was smart, (It was not at the time, since the FLAK was needed for HA defense of German cities as well as the German fleet as witness the belated production of more than 1000 barrels after the world's second greatest military genius changed his mind.) was a production decision, not a capability decision.

Perhaps not very clear: A gun is not a mouinting, or complicated gunturret, so the counterargument is still seriously flawed and ignoring all facts and resources provided as yet.

 

[McPherson]

Perhaps not very clear: A gun is not a mouinting, or complicated gunturret, so the counterargument is still seriously flawed and ignoring all facts and resources provided as yet.

The gun in proof has to have a ballistic table generated to be predictable in shots as well as stand up to the usual charges and barrel pressures tests for "safety", at least by American criteria. To generate ballistics tables, one has to have a trainable mount.

As such, the weapon was now redirected for the static anti-aircraft role that saw her mounting platform reworked in response...

This of course is obvious TO ME, but has escaped some other's attention?

 

[thaddeus]

what do you think their best and most plausible course would have been?

my suggestion was for much larger DDs and 150mm guns but had they somewhat increased the 1934 & 1936 designs to perhaps 3,700t (akin to final 1944 design) their WWII destroyers may be viewed much differently?

Possibly not proceeding with the project as such but limmit the number of ships to a stragetical Fleet in being in and around Germany itself, ignoring the deep ocean warfare for this surface fleet, except for auxiliary vessels and sumbarines, as this was technically the mostlogical way to do things, just limmit the destroyer type vessel, or "Flottentorpedoboote" to their historcial size as this was relatively easy to construct and already multirole in design for especially short hauls in teh Northsea and Baltic, where range was not an issue. With the buildingcapacity in mind, it would be unwise to go for a oceanic or "Hochsee Flotte" as this would seriousy be restricted by the available industrial resources in the short term and only was possible on the long term, though resulting isn ships of a rather obsolete design then given the advances in naval warfare in the war itself.

the "siren song" of their high-pressure steam engines defeated logic? (and is still tempting even with hindsight)

had they not been "tempted" there is a logical development from the 1920's TB to 1939 TB to the projected ocean going 1944 TB (with a possible detour into a diesel powered Bremse-class it was almost exact size of the 1939 TB)

if they are conserving resources what could be done with Bayern type ship, updated to the 1930's? even including the restriction to 11" guns that governed the Scharnhorst?

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

Japan 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98 - NavWeaps

They ran out of time, or this would have become their fleet standard as the 12.7/38 was the American standard.

I don’t particularly count the 10cm/65 as a successful dual purpose gun given how it was very obviously a purpose built anti-aircraft weapon. The system was never supplied with common shells, incendiary shrapnel shells or even illumination shells which would have heavily negated it's use against surface targets. Even more so, the incredibly low barrel life for such a high ROF weapon is crippling.

O-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What about these? 38cm guns and with the characteristics that I mentioned on my previous post about my ideal surface raider. Smaller as well, so we have room to fit some more AA and armour (would like at least a 210mm belt, for starters).

The Germans were also planning to waterproof and redesign the 10.5cm gun mounts to fix the problems you mentioned for the H-class battleships, so I actually think a good DP is very feasible and, moreover, capable of being deployed widely. We might see a DD equivalent of the RN destroyers Lance, Lively, Legion and Larne.

30+ knot Panzerschiffen are going to really give the British a heart attack. The AGNA was negotiated to prevent such monstrosities from coming into existence. Not viable. CVS, on the other hand, are something the Germans have lots of experience with, and they are definitely worth more than full on CVs. I think this is worth further thought.

The Germans don't need conventional CAs. Let's ditch them, and instead ask the British in the AGNA for extra light cruiser tonnage. Something along the lines of Admiral Zenker's BC, OTOH, is of great use for a North Sea FIB. Any design thoughts?

Upon consideration, you are right that monitors are not what the Kriegsmarine needs, except perhaps in the Baltic. Aircraft will do a much better job, so we'll put the resources into them.

The O class is not the ideal surface raider in the slightest. It is far too large and poorly protected to be an effective surface raider, meaning you are likely to be mission killed in your first peer engagement and the fact that you are unable to mass produce them. The ideal surface raider in my opinion would be a somewhat modified and improved Deutschland class. A raiding force is always going to be the loser in war just due to how modern combat heavily favors the defended however, the ability of the Deutschland to have an incredibly long range with suitable firepower all in a mass producible generally cruiser sized package makes it perfect.

As I stated above with the Japanese 10cm gun, the German 10.5cm guns are obviously purpose built AA weapons with minimal actual capability in effective anti surface role. They are marginally better due to their barrel life extensions and wide variety of shell types however, they are poor dual purpose systems.

Ditch the naval agreement and keep building improved Deutschland's. Don't bother with dedicated seaplane carriers, attempt to work 2-3 aircraft into the panzerschiffes themselves. Germany focusing too much on capital ships they will never have any serious number of is silly. Go all in on a raiding fleet with disguised merchant raiders, panzerschifffes and U-Boats. Build destroyers, light cruisers, whatever else for coastal use in and around Europe.

 

[tigercat]

Zerstörer 1936C History

The German Kriegsmarine, Zerstörer 1936C History, Destroyer, Zerstörer 1936C, Planed destroyers with 12,8 cm AA guns., Zerstörer 1936C class

www.german-navy.de

Looks like the Germans were working towards using 12.8cm AA as Destroyer DP armament

 

[McPherson]

I don’t particularly count the 10cm/65 as a successful dual purpose gun given how it was very obviously a purpose built anti-aircraft weapon. The system was never supplied with common shells, incendiary shrapnel shells or even illumination shells which would have heavily negated it's use against surface targets. Even more so, the incredibly low barrel life for such a high ROF weapon is crippling.

Akizuki-class destroyer (1942) - Wikipedia

Japanese Naval Ordnance (combinedfleet.com)

Long Lancers (combinedfleet.com)

- Action:
- 2130 Sighted surfaced enemy submarine stalking; turned and made flank speed to ram. At 2153 torpedoed by USS NAUTILUS (SS-168). Two torpedoes hit the starboard side, one under the bridge and the other forward under No.2 turret, but the second was a dud. The first hit tore an eight-meter diameter hole in the side. No.1 boiler and starboard engine room flooded, keel severely strained, but able to steam at 20 knots; 14 dead and 63 injured, the latter including Admiral Kimura. Six 3.9" and 401 rounds of 25 mm. fired at submarine. The loss of integrity was considerable, for flooding extended fore-and-aft from frames 6 to 90 well beyond the torpedo hole and she is left well down at the bow. AKIZUKI had to resort to emergency steering to proceed. (1)

Dual purpose gun. It, the Akitsuki used nose fused high explosive shells. NOT time fused against USS Nautilus. Notably it, HIJMS Akitsuki, LOST that engagement.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I don’t particularly count the 10cm/65 as a successful dual purpose gun given how it was very obviously a purpose built anti-aircraft weapon. The system was never supplied with common shells, incendiary shrapnel shells or even illumination shells which would have heavily negated it's use against surface targets. Even more so, the incredibly low barrel life for such a high ROF weapon is crippling.



The O class is not the ideal surface raider in the slightest. It is far too large and poorly protected to be an effective surface raider, meaning you are likely to be mission killed in your first peer engagement and the fact that you are unable to mass produce them. The ideal surface raider in my opinion would be a somewhat modified and improved Deutschland class. A raiding force is always going to be the loser in war just due to how modern combat heavily favors the defended however, the ability of the Deutschland to have an incredibly long range with suitable firepower all in a mass producible generally cruiser sized package makes it perfect.

As I stated above with the Japanese 10cm gun, the German 10.5cm guns are obviously purpose built AA weapons with minimal actual capability in effective anti surface role. They are marginally better due to their barrel life extensions and wide variety of shell types however, they are poor dual purpose systems.

Ditch the naval agreement and keep building improved Deutschland's. Don't bother with dedicated seaplane carriers, attempt to work 2-3 aircraft into the panzerschiffes themselves. Germany focusing too much on capital ships they will never have any serious number of is silly. Go all in on a raiding fleet with disguised merchant raiders, panzerschifffes and U-Boats. Build destroyers, light cruisers, whatever else for coastal use in and around Europe.

If you build Deutschlands only, you are going to cause a MASSIVE uproar in Britain and they will not stop until they have outbuilt you into the deep dark gulf.

Also, as @McPherson mentioned but on a different point, even the O-class is going to get overwhelmed by enemy cruisers. A smaller, slower, less heavily armed and less heavily armoured Panzerschiffe is going to get eaten even more quickly, unless they travel in packs - and that will make them far easier to detect, at which point the RN will send in the carriers and battlecruisers. The 11-inch guns will not kill heavy cruisers fast enough, and they aren't protected against 8-inch shellfire. Whereas an O-class at least has the ability to keep the enemy at a distance (it's much faster than the County-class), outshoot them and take far more punishment. I accept that it is not the best design, but a pair of ships along its lines, screened by half a dozen big destroyers with 5.9-inch ASuW and 4.1 inch AAW guns, will tear a cruiser squadron like that of Harwood to pieces.

You cannot rely on one type of ship to carry out surface raiding, as that will trigger a single, focused, successful response from your enemies. You 100% need AMCs and U-boats if you're going to prosecute a successful raiding war. However, you will also need surface warships to ensure that the enemy does not just plow resources into ASW escorts and light cruisers; they will also tie down capital ships escorting Atlantic convoys, which will help the Italians and, later, the Japanese.

I am not suggesting that the Germans follow Plan Z; nobody sane would do so. But I am saying that Germany needs large capital ships to attack convoys and act as a fleet in being; preferably 3 in each role, following the '3 for 1' rule regarding warship availability.

Perhaps the Germans can build an extra Scharnhorst for the FIB, and then build a new design for the raiders.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

the "siren song" of their high-pressure steam engines defeated logic? (and is still tempting even with hindsight)

had they not been "tempted" there is a logical development from the 1920's TB to 1939 TB to the projected ocean going 1944 TB (with a possible detour into a diesel powered Bremse-class it was almost exact size of the 1939 TB)

if they are conserving resources what could be done with Bayern type ship, updated to the 1930's? even including the restriction to 11" guns that governed the Scharnhorst?

Bayern is too slow to serve in a modern fleet. You'll need a speed of at least 25 knots.

A better path to go down would be Mackensen. Much faster if fitted with oil-fired boilers only, well-protected against enemy shellfire and can carry triple 11-inch guns like that on Scharnhorst instead of the dual 13.8-inch guns. Should be done on about 30,000 tonnes.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Akizuki-class destroyer (1942) - Wikipedia

Japanese Naval Ordnance (combinedfleet.com)

Long Lancers (combinedfleet.com)



Dual purpose gun. It, the Akitsuki used nose fused high explosive shells. NOT time fused against USS Nautilus. Notably it, HIJMS Akitsuki, LOST that engagement.

How would a German equivalent of Akizuki fare? Arm it with four dual 10.5cm gun mounts with better waterproofing and stability.

 

[thaddeus]

Bayern is too slow to serve in a modern fleet. You'll need a speed of at least 25 knots.

A better path to go down would be Mackensen. Much faster if fitted with oil-fired boilers only, well-protected against enemy shellfire and can carry triple 11-inch guns like that on Scharnhorst instead of the dual 13.8-inch guns. Should be done on about 30,000 tonnes.

of course I meant an updated version of Bayern which the Bismarck is often described as, but it and its sister were such a resource sink?

you are mentioning a BC which tips their hand to the UK? the follow on Sachen BB is interesting in that it had the dual propulsion system they seemed to favor, it was rated at 22 kts with 54k shp, by comparison the CL Leipzig had 72k shp and the later Spahkreuzer had projected 92k shp (both in smaller ships) so there would be some room for improvement?

mentioned 4x2 11" guns as it would be improvement over the PBs and they observed the dual arrangement more accurate?