Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I agree. For starters, Bismarck and Tirpitz did not accomplish anything that two more Scharnhorsts could have done for cheaper. Maybe if the Treaties can be ignored, skip the 11" and go for three turrets of twin 15" guns on all four (or six) Scharnhorsts. Or even perhaps better, go with a development of the WW1 era 13.78" or 12", ideally in three triple mounts.They need to build ships that hold together in rough weather. Replace Bismarck and Tirpitz with two more Scharnhorsts, that's 16-17,000 tons of steel for other projects. Build ocean-going destroyers that avoid the instability issues.
I agree. For starters, Bismarck and Tirpitz did not accomplish anything that two more Scharnhorsts could have done for cheaper. Maybe if the Treaties can be ignored, skip the 11" and go for three turrets of twin 15" guns on all four (or six) Scharnhorsts. Or even perhaps better, go with a development of the WW1 era 13.78" or 12", ideally in three triple mounts.
If I'm running focus on uboats. I'd kill the entire surface fleet beyond cruisers and put all that steel into tanks, new APCs and trucks to take Russia by the end of 1941. If you can't do it, then don't invade Poland in 1939.If I were running the Kriegsmarine I'd kill the Bismarcks ...
If I'm running focus on uboats. I'd kill the entire surface fleet beyond cruisers and put all that steel into tanks, new APCs and trucks to take Russia by the end of 1941. If you can't do it, then don't invade Poland in 1939.
It's saying that turf wars are inherent in how pretty much any large-scale organization is setup. It's really up to the top management to monitor and intervene and keep down the turf wars to a manageable level so that the organization (in this case, a military as a whole) serves the purpose for which it exists. It seems Germany was doing that part quite poorly. That, as such, is not uncommon in dictatorships, as they often use a divide-and-conquer strategy with turf wars and competition for favors from the Great Leader as a way to control their underlings and keep them loyal.None of that is a positive argument for keeping maritime patrol in the hands of the Air Force.
the Germans seemed to do a lot of stuff well in the 20s and early/mid 30s. A lot of the weapons (planes/tanks/artillery/ships) seem to have been solid workman like designs. A bit better than a lot of the other nations stuff. Problem seems to have started in the late 30s ? Believed a little too much of their own propaganda? It is like they tried to leap frog a bunch of different technologies and/or believed they were smarter than their opponents.
The standard 88mm AA gun was good gun but it was not exceptional in any way. What was exceptional was the mount and the overall weight (a bit lighter than average) and perhaps the fire control system. The later long barreled 88mm gun went a little overboard. It fired the standard shell at about 1000m/s instead of 820m/s but it came at the cost of much shorter barrel life, in large part because it used about twice the propellent per shot. The Germans had a real thing for high veleocity guns and maybe they should have backed off just a bit.
German Type XXI subs had some real problems.
Maybe something halfway would have been easier and still given the Allies fits. 12 knots for 2 hours? Or perhaps 6kts with lot less noise?
For starters, Bismarck and Tirpitz did not accomplish anything that two more Scharnhorsts could have done for cheaper. Maybe if the Treaties can be ignored, skip the 11" and go for three turrets of twin 15" guns on all four (or six) Scharnhorsts. Or even perhaps better, go with a development of the WW1 era 13.78" or 12", ideally in three triple mounts.
In early 1937, when the RLM issued their request, which the Fi167 was a result, the IJN had the B5N under development.Not entirely, as she was originally conceived. You are forgetting the Fiesler Fi167 torpedo bomber / Recce aurcraft designed specifically to operate from her deck. Production died with the suspension of GZ in 1940. These would have operated alongside the Me109T and Ju87C.
When plans to complete were resurrected in 1942 the air group was to be built around a new Ju87 version and the Me155 (in its first incarnation)
Surely if the Japanese, whose industrial base was no bigger than Germany, could come up with a long ranged potent naval fighter as well as an equivalent for their Army, Germany could do the same?
True, but we're looking at this from the retroscope.re
Time and manufacturing resources were (I think) the major problem.
There is no reason to think the Fi167 would not have done a good job of delivering torpedoes in the North Atlantic and MTO - after all, the Swordfish and Albacore did.
The German engineering establishment could certainly have designed a better carrier based fighter. than the Bf109T - but what would the cost in terms of time and manufacturing resources be? And was there any point (even from their viewpoint) if they were not going to get the GZ or the smaller designs completed sooner?
IMO, the KM (or whoever the decision makers were) were looking at building a very small carrier force without any justification.
Meanwhile, Japan was active in the Pacific. Germany had military liaisons in Japan along with Heinkel engineers.
There is absolutely no way that Germany was not aware of what worked for a major maritime power.
Surely if the Japanese, whose industrial base was no bigger than Germany, could come up with a long ranged potent naval fighter as well as an equivalent for their Army, Germany could do the same?
In 1935, around the time of King George V Silver Jubilee Fleet Review in July, some German personnel involved in the design of GZ were allowed to tour HMS Furious. They followed that up with a trip to Japan before the end of the year and visited Akagi. That would be around the time she was beginning her reconstruction.True, but we're looking at this from the retroscope.
At the time of Germany's carrier vision, lead wasn't flying yet.
Meanwhile, Japan was active in the Pacific. Germany had military liaisons in Japan along with Heinkel engineers.
There is absolutely no way that Germany was not aware of what worked for a major maritime power.
Japan's economy suffered greatly in the 1920sNot losing WWI, not being subject to the restrictions of the Versailles treaty, not suffering as much in the post WWI economic slump (eg the hyperinflation of the Weimar republic) was surely a big part of it?
With the Italians fielding triple 15" and the French quad 14", the German twin 15" mounts were certainly obsolete and an inefficient use of displacement by the 1930s. If triple or quad 15" are somehow beyond German capabilities then I would build triple 12" or 13.7" mounts.Subsequent to the AGNA (which allowed the Germans to build beyond the limits of the Versailles treaty) they could build up to 16" guns, just like the other treaty signatories. Hitler insisted on 11" for the Scharnhorsts in order to not piss off the Brits. I think there were also considerations that switching to 15" would have delayed them, hence the plan to launch with 11" guns and retrofit them later.
Perhaps had they gone for interrupted screw breechblocks instead of sliding ones they could have packed slightly bigger guns into the barbette diameter?
France's quick surrender must have emboldened them. Poland bravely fought the might of both Germany and the USSR for 26 days. Meanwhile the seemingly world military power of France lasted only nine days more. Tell Mussolini to remain neutral so to avoid distractions in North Africa and the Mediterranean, and don't declare war on the USA in Dec 1941 (the staff at the German embassy in Washington who understood US resolve and capability must have thought Hitler was insane). Then, go for it all against the USSR.NotIt's mystifying, really, how they thought they could pull it off. Drinking their own kool-aid, to put it mildly.
With the Italians fielding triple 15" and the French quad 14", the German twin 15" mounts were certainly obsolete and an inefficient use of displacement by the 1930s. If triple or quad 15" are somehow beyond German capabilities then I would build triple 12" or 13.7" mounts.
With the Italians fielding triple 15" and the French quad 14", the German twin 15" mounts were certainly obsolete and an inefficient use of displacement by the 1930s. If triple or quad 15" are somehow beyond German capabilities then I would build triple 12" or 13.7" mounts.