| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Tiornu |
Ideal German Fleet |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 87 (02/05/04 01:05:43) |
If the German navy had been able to anticipate the sort of war it would be forced to fight, what surface vessels would have been its best choices?
|
||
Dave AAA |
Re: Ideal German Fleet | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/05/04 09:29:15) |
A peacetime fleet that met Germany's politcal and diplomatic requirements and a plan for a post war fleet that would eventually make Germany the major European naval power was what they needed.
I think sticking to the Z Plan for as long as the war permitted would be in their best long-term interests, so long as they did not plan to lose the war. Their next project completed after the Twins should have been an aircraft carrier rather than BISMARCK. What were the legal limitations on the Twins, BTW? Could they have been built as nominally 35,000 ton treaty battleships, with nine or ten 14 inch guns? In the short term, as far as going to war in 1939, there is nothing more they can do that isd of much use. Large surface warships as raiders do not seem to have been worth the effort, and design considerations to optimize them and the force structure with that in mind were a waste of effort. They also had no way to seriously contest the seas against the UK for decades to come. The existing surface fleet does seem to have been useful in the Norway campaign, and the light forces useful in the Channel, and the Baltic, but that's about it. |
||
Tiornu |
Re: Ideal German Fleet | ||
|
Posts: 87 (02/05/04 14:15:19) |
Scharnhorst began construction at a time when the Versailles Treaty forbade warships of more than 10,000 tons. However, the Germans under Hitler were not keen on adhering to the Versailles restrictions, so Scharnhorst was designed at around 20,000 tons. A number of factors then prompting a complete restart, with Scharnhorst begun again as nominally 26,000 tons--a figure with little relevance to treaties but keyed to match the announced displacement of the French Dunkerque class. Britain in 1936-37 acquiesced to Germany's demand for lesser restrictions and (in the sight of the British government) made permissible any ship designed to the same limits as imposed on the Washington and London signatories: the 10,000-ton and 35,000-ton rules in particular. In one regard, this saddled the Germans with a new limit; Versailles had said nothing about gun caliber, so a hypothetical 8000-ton monitor with 18in guns was permitted under the WWI treaty but illegal after 1936-7.
|
||
USAFcop |
Re: Ideal German Fleet | ||
|
Posts: 136 (02/05/04 19:29:50) |
They should have completely avoided pouring assets into a surface navy. I believe they would have been better off with a navy that consisted of all E-boats, shore based naval air , and submarines. With submarines they got very good bang for the buck until 1942 when losses started to outnumber production. They very nearly brought Britain to her knees with U-boat operations. In 1940 they had advanced warning by one of their most respected U-boat captains, that Britain was developeing the capability of engageing surfaced U-boats successfully at night and in poor weather. German naval commanders didnt want to believe radar could be fitted on small airplanes, or was advanced enough to hunt down a small U-boat at night. This cost them dearly.
"IF" they had recognized the danger "and if" they would have responded to it, they could have started development/construction of Walter/Elektro boats and had them ready by 1942. Even if the Walter boat production would have had to many desing problems they could have started launching the Elektros far earlier. This could have caused the Brits/Yanks huge problems. The elektros could dive so deep, were so fast underwater, and could stay there the allies would have been unable to sink them with air power. And would have had great difficulty sinking them with escort warships. Other then a sheer fantasy answer there was nothing the Germans could have produced, regarding surface assets, that would have seriously threatened the Brit navy. They "Germans" didnt have the production capability, didnt have the ports, didnt have the the naval tradition/skill . Even carriers wouldnt have helped them cause they didnt have the assets to protect/escort them and they would have been threatened by Brit air power. U-Boats were a far greater menace. The Germans got far to little return for the capitol they poured into their BBs, PBBs, and cruisers. |
||
binder001 |
the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 16 (02/05/04 21:30:53) |
I agree that Germany has a weak history of "blue water" power projection. Their surface fleet was to few and had some of the wrong ships. The German naval command was torn between the old WW1 dogma of building a surface fleet to engage or at least minimize the Royal Nay in the North Sea and the doctrine of "cruiser warfare" against commerce. The battleships were too few and too important a target when they did venture forth. The cruisers were not well prepared for long-range commerce war. Look at Prinz Eugen - she was such a maintenance nightmare that her attempt at capitalizing on her escape from the doomed Bismarck had to be cut short. I don't think the Kriegsmarine's light cruisers ever ventured far into the Atlantic. The German surface fleet was best used controlling the Baltic and in having enough of a "fleet in being" to make the RN tie up a disproportional amount of resources (the only success of Tirpitz was in being a living threat).
I agree that the German navy missed a great opportunity by not having more ocean-going U-Boats available when the war started. A real naval air arm would have helped greatly. This doesn't just mean a carrier, but dedicated well-trained naval recon aircraft were needed to guide the U-boats to more victims and to finish cripples. The effort that went into one battleship could have been put into more long range bomber/recon aircraft. German short-sightedness of naval power projection led to other lost opportunities. Instead of worrying about battleships, Raeder and his staff should have worked towards the capture/neutralization of Gibraltar and Malta, seizing the Suez Canal and the mideast oil. So the Germans weren't just handicapped by by a shortage of ships, but by a lack of tradition of naval warfare on a large scale. |
||
terasjykke |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 23 (02/05/04 23:51:29) |
German needed surface navy to attack Norway. And without Norway they wouldn't be able to attack convoys going to Murmansk with airforce. And use FW Condors to find convoys in North Atlantic. And remember that Tirpitz was such a threat that when it left Norway to attack PQ-17 allied dispersed convoy and 23 out of 36 merchants was destroyed and only 11 made it to Murmansk. Tirpitz returned to Norway without firing a shell.
|
||
MBecker01 |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 1 (02/06/04 07:50:35) |
<i>With submarines they got very good bang for the buck until 1942 when losses started to outnumber production. They very nearly brought Britain to her knees with U-boat operations.</i>
This is a popular misconception. I fact germany never came even close to that point. Lets have a look at some figures from Clay Blairs "The Hunters"(a must read!!!) From 1939 to Dec. 1941 Britain lost 1124 ships(=5.3 grt) but they build, bought, leased or confiscated some 6 million grt. The british merchant navy grew from 3000 ships with 17.8 million grt to 3600 ships and 20.7 million grt. Now lets have a closer look at the convoys. During the first 28 month of the war about 900 convoys crossed the atlantic. Just 19(!!) suffered bigger losses of six ships or more. Out of a total of 12,000 ships only 291 were lost, or in other words: 98% made it unharmed. Britain bend but it was far from breaking! Markus |
||
USAFcop |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 136 (02/06/04 08:08:16) |
"""""" Tirpitz returned to Norway without firing a shell. """"""
So naturally what do they end up doing with her? They docked her because they were afraid of loseing her and she was then a target for midget subs and sunk by air power. As far as I know Tirpitz only fired her guns once in anger and then as support for an amphib op. Again I dont understand the fascination with this Battleship. If she had one success, which is doubtful, it was in scattering a convoy, "which she never saw", and it was left to U-boats and air power to destroy the convoy. Bismark didnt do much better, but at least B-Mark could claim an enemy battleship. Tirpitz spent more time hosting dinners, trialing, and taking cruises then it did fighting, and spent more time being repaired then it did doing the above three. As a warship it was even more worthless then the Yamato. But let me guess? In WWll, Even tho BBs hardly ever fired their guns against other ships at night or in bad weather "or at all", they were "great night and all weather attack platforms thruout the war"? Right? Boy, BBs sure earned their keep at night and in poor weather all right. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/06/04 09:58:36) |
Quote:Even the most cursory look at Second World War naval history would show that to be complete nonsense. |
||
Tiornu |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (02/06/04 14:32:31) |
Was there anything to be gained by deploying a squadron of battleships in the Baltic?
|
||
USAFcop |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 136 (02/06/04 19:57:47) |
""""Even the most cursory look at Second World War naval history would show that to be complete nonsense"""
Well? For instance? In the Pacific there were, what? a whole two nighttime BB engagements? Guadalcanal and Leyte correct? And in the first battle of Guadalcanal the night/bad weather performance was terrible. How about the Atlantic? Im afraid the surface weapon of choice at night, most of the time, was the lowly destroyer. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/07/04 05:12:13) |
Look it up yourself.
www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1939-45RN.htm www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/ Then come back and try to say that battleships seldom fired their guns at surface targets during the Second World War |
||
eltel22 |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 53 (02/07/04 18:38:44) |
Battleships fired OK, but the practical problem was always accuracy. They might get in the odd lucky shot, but the fact was that WWII spelt the end of the battleship. It simply could not compete with the aircraft carrier for effectiveness.
That is why the German Navy concentrated on U-Boats after the loss of the Graf Spee, Tirpitz, and Bismarck. They simply hadn't got an aeroplane that could be used on a carrier. The Royal Navy hadn't much either. The Fairey Swordfish tha was used against the Bismarck, and the raid on Tranto was obsolete, by anyone's standards. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/07/04 19:07:15) |
Battleship fire was at least as accurate as any other surface ship. Chances at hitting of hitting at exteme ranges were much less, but engagements at more than about 20,000 yards seem to have been uncommon, and no other ship was effective at those ranges anyway.
They started concentrating on U-Boats well before the loss of TIRPITZ in 1944. The reason was not because they had no suitable carrier aircraft, carrier versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87 were tested, but because they could not build sufficient major surface warships to successfully engage the RN. Their capital ships were too valuable to use, and too liable to be lost if used at all aggressively. A single carrier, if they had one, would have done no better than BISMARCK. U-Boats were far more effective and tranferring naval resourses from the surface fleet to them was more useful. |
||
USAFcop |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 136 (02/07/04 20:27:41) |
I take it by your lack of rebuttle Dave that you agree with me. One of your links wouldnt load and the other? I know what BBs were in WWll and how many night battles, poor weather battles, and BB battle there were. I'd be willing to bet PBY night bombers sunk more ships at night then BBs did. But listen, I dont want to hijack this thread like we did the last one. Keep it civil and above all no pouting.
An achilles heal for the German navy was the German air force. Goering consistantly ignored their pleas for air support and Hitler wouldnt allow the Navy to have their own air arm. When Doenitz became Grand Admiral Hitler stuck his nose in every operation of the Navy, he wanted victories but didnt want his be-loved capitol ships risked. It was all a recipe for disaster and defeat. In the U-boat war the writing was on the wall. The Germans were slow to produce new designs and refused to believe the allies had advanced radars, radio directional finders...ect They had a hard enough time getting thru the Bay of Biscay in one piece, and then found themselves faceing CVEs and fast destroyers in the open Atlantic. In Nov '41 one of their top U-boat commanders warned them that a Brit fighter attacked them with great accuracy in the pitch dark night. It was obvious they had developed a radar for aircraft which operated at a frequency they couldnt detect. A WWll sub that loses the night is a weapon that loses its ability to fight. "If" the German navy would have heeded this warning, instead of waiting an additional year, and kicked started the Elektro-boat program they would have had the elektros in 1943. In time to incur Euro invasion shipping. The Elekros would have been effective but would they have been capable of winning he war? I doubt it. The German BBs, pBBs, Cruisers gave them very little return for the money. Like BBs thruout the war the German ships achieved very little. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: the German fleet... | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/07/04 23:13:30) |
I don't think it would have done much more for the Germans (but I could be wrong). As I understand it, Soviet major surface units in the Baltic were rendered ineffective for most of the war by the German Army's possession of most of the south coast. They might have been effective supporting operations ashore when the Soviets began their reconquest of the Baltic States, so long as the Red Air Force could be kept at bay.
A German BB division, even just the Twins, would have been more useful in the Black Sea, but I can't see Turkey allowing them in even if they got past the RN. |
||
USAFcop |
Re: Ideal German Fleet | ||
|
Posts: 136 (02/08/04 15:11:13) |
Even if they "anticipated" the war they were going to have to fight I dont know what they could have done different. Their battle fleet of WWl was on the bottom of the sea, they only had a limited ship building capacity, and only had limited time to build them. While I question the reasons for building them the Germans, in fact, came up with some brilliant designs for BBs and their armored cruisers. Ive always admired the pocket BBs . If the Kriegsmarine would have had its own air arm things would have gone better for them. But anyone should have been able to see the window to win the war was very short, and in that "window" the submarine was the weapon to bring Britain to her knees. |
||
Pz gen |
Over-rated | ||
|
Posts: 47 (02/09/04 15:20:59) |
Quote: I have always thought them over-rated myself. What exactly did they achieve? |
||
USAFcop |
Re: Over-rated | ||
|
Posts: 136 (02/09/04 19:27:16) |
"""""""I have always thought them over-rated myself. What exactly did they achieve? """"""""
More then the BBs did. The concept of a small heavily armored commerce raider was a more useful one then attempting to outgun the Royal Navy with Heavy BBs. First off the Germans couldnt make enough of them, didnt have the air power to protect them, and they would never seriously threaten the heavy units of TRN with them. The two they eventually made never really accomplished anything, other then Bismark and even she never interdicted commerce. The only goal the German Navy should have had, other then coastal defense and the Norway campaign, was sinking supply ships to England, and later Russia. Trying to match TRN gun for gun was never going to happen, besides air power made traditional BBs roles outdated. The 3 original PBBs were launched in the early '30s and used many revolutionary building techniques includeing the first welded hulls. The Germans got much better bang for their buck with their armored cruisers then they did their BBs. But even with them they didnt use as effectively as they could have. The concept behind these ships, BTW also built by all major navies, was going to outlast that of the major Battlewagon. You see it today in the Ticonderoga class American cruiser. |
||
Pz gen |
Really?? | ||
|
Posts: 47 (02/09/04 22:35:20) |
Quote: Maybe that is the case for US BB, but I suggest that the R class and particularly the QE class achieved a lot. potential interventation by British BB was a factor in detering the German invasion in 1940. And you have also made the common mistake of calling the Bismarsk a pocket Battleship...at over 50,000 tons....she was a battleship..pure and simple. The Deutschland class....was no more than 16,500 tons. Graf Spee: Sunk in 1939 by 6/8" cruiser, Lutzow was seen beached firing at the Russians and Scheer sank 17 ships and was bombed at her berth. For all the expense and hype...a decent heavy criuser in the mold of the Prinz Eugen was probably a better investment. Just look at the US Alaska class...same thing...too big and expensive to operate as a cruiser and too vulnerable to run with heavy units. As a commence raider.....what can an 11" gun do that a 8" can't...answer ...Nothing. |
||
Tiornu |
Re: Really?? | ||
|
Posts: 87 (02/09/04 23:00:51) |
I would not consider Hipper an adequate model for cruiser construction except in the most general sense. If you're going to throw 15,000 tons into a cruiser, you better get one that starts up when you turn the key, and one that has better armor protection.
The advantage of a 28cm ship is the inability of single Allied cruisers to match it in battle. This theory falls short in the specific case of the Deutschlands because their limited speed made it relatively easy for cruisers to gang up on them. However, an enlarged cruiser-killer ship would do the trick. This is the sort of ship I would suggest as the largest member of the German fleet, and it actually was what the Germans started to build as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The British have to use their capital ships as a counter, which means they don't have the luxury of just throwing all their battleships into the Mediterranean Campaign. |
||