Better German naval strategy 1930-1945?

The plenty of 18pdrs is a myth. Most of the WW I 18pdrs were worn out and scrapped. The late 1918-19-20 production had the newer, better carriages but most of them were rebuilt into 18/25pdrs. The article linked to by EwenS shows the general situation. There were some guns the US sent over, 75mm Field guns.
That said The invading Germans were going to have an artillery shortage of their own. Getting enough guns (and their horses) ashore in the first few days to match the number of riflemen was going to be a little hard. And guns are useless without ammo and even in WW I some guns were firing 3-400 rounds per day. 75-77mm field guns could shoot up several tons of ammo per day each.

To get on topic a little. The goal for the Germans in this Invade Britain First strategy is that the British are a constantly moving target.
Size of the British army was changing a lot, the size of the British navy was changing.
If the Germans devote too much steel, and engines for powered landing craft prior to launching the war in the west, how does that affect the ability to take over Belgium and Holland quickly to gain control the the areas needed to launch the invasion.
Or the Germans build up the invasion fleet over the winter and attack the next spring but then the British have rebuilt.

Admiral Beez said:

How about this for a 1930s onward German naval strategy.... Jan 1930, Weimer Republic rejects the notion of naval power and cancels the three Deutschlands. Instead Germany double downs on gaining an economic and industrial lead, including a large expansion in the German merchant and liner fleet.

Click to expand...

To what end?
In 1930 the Kriegsmarine has a bunch of truly crappy left over ships from well before 1910 for the major ships and pre 1914 for the destroyer and under ships.
Yes they were working on the K-class but the Kriegsmarine needs a lot of small warships to defend their coast/s (both sided of Denmark) and to play the mine/counter mine game.
Having a lot more Cargo and Liners in the late 30s without escort ships does not give you an invasion fleet. It means you are supplying target practice for the RN.
Having more ships available for "raiders" might actually simplify the British problem. They do not need "light" cruisers with twelve 6in guns to handle converted merchant ships.
Leanders and Didoes and large DD can chew up merchant raiders.

And/or the British scale back their own fleet programs.

Shortround6 said:

To what end?

Click to expand...

Economic rather than military dominance. Pre-1933 Nazi rise, of course.

EwenS said:

Plenty ? Everything is relative.

About 60% of the British Army's total artillery equipment was lost in France in 1940 and 50% of its tanks. For an Army expanding from a small peacetime regular force to a much larger wartime conscript force in a short period of time, there was not enough to go around. This article sets out losses and what remained as well as giving an indication of just how many divisions could be fully equipped with what was left. In reality most were short of something.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-dunkirk&catid=50:eek:ther-articles&Itemid=61

Click to expand...

ORDNANCE QF 18 PDR Mk. IV & Mk. V - Quartermaster Section
'The 18 pounder had become the mainstay of all British and Commonwealth light field regiments from the outbreak of World War One until the early phases of World War Two. Many were up-graded in the 1930s with a new carriage which was fitted with pneumatic tires to allow for motorisation. The numbers started to decline once the 25 pounder became available, but many were still in service all over the world with British and Empire troops. Of the 216 18 pounders taken to France with the BEF all were lost, some saw action in Africa and the Far-East. Many were converted to 18/25 pounders and used as an interim gun until the 25 pounder became available. By the end of 1940 only around 250 guns were left in service.'

How many of the Mk1 and Mk2 that hadn't been updated I haven't found, but there were over 3000 at the Armistice, and the early Mark guns were not used for the 18/25 pdr series, just the 3,4, and Mk5. Some unknown number to me were upgraded by removal of wooden wheels to steel and rubber, to allow high speed towing.

At the end of the Great War, over 8M shells of all types remained

Admiral Beez said:

How about this for a 1930s onward German naval strategy.... Jan 1930, Weimer Republic rejects the notion of naval power and cancels the three Deutschlands. Instead Germany double downs on gaining an economic and industrial lead, including a large expansion in the German merchant and liner fleet.

Click to expand...

That's national and not naval strategy -- not that I'd argue your point itself. We see that too at Pearl Harbor -- "sometimes the best move is to not play the game", right.

While the RN might have been concerned about the Deutschland class, they still had 4 ships better armed and faster (HMS Tiger was not yet scrapped). The French, on the other hand, were terrified. Their promise to assist Poland in time of conflict was out the window - with the superior speed and fire control of the pocket BBs, there was no way the WWI BB/treaty cruisers could force their way into the Baltic. Therefore, the Deutschland class are exactly what Germany needed at the time.

Hitler is going to send a lot of you to the gas chambers - he absolutely doesn't want war with UK until he has ensured he won't be fighting a 2 front war. So, if you're building anti UK materiel, have your gas mask handy. Germany doesn't have the cash to buy 10k tons of lead from England and UK probably isn't selling Germany lead for submarine batteries anyway. So, building more submarine earlier wasn't happening. Germany would have been more than happy for RN to pay top £ for armour plate even after they invaded Poland had they not declared war.

Everyone wants/expects to get to refight the last war with better equipment and avoid the issues of the last war...

In WWI, the RN/USN mined from Scotland to Norway, effectively trapping High Seas Fleet in harbour.

Returning to what when wrong/could have been done better in WWI.
Battle of Dogger Bank demonstrated that being able to outrun RN was important.
Lastly, I need some sort of ADP to be able to travel via river to Black Sea. Allowing KM to control Black Sea/transport troops to Caucasia early in Barbarossa. Opening 2nd front as it were. We also need to be able to assist Turkey in keeping the RN out of the Bosphorus Strait.

Once Nazi's have the oil of Caucasia and Bulgaria, food supplies of France, Hungary, Poland and Ukraine, iron from Sweden/France, Copper from Poland; if UK still wants to make war, KM may draft up naval plans to address the issue. If Germany can have good relationships with Turkey, the Chromium, Cobalt, Nickel that are needed for high temperature alloys would be out there.

don4331 said:

Without 20/20 hindsight, how does one know high pressure steam is going to have all sorts of issues?

Click to expand...

The better question is how do you know high pressure steam is NOT going to have issues. Foresight is all that is necessary. A proper testing and development program would have shown that 1,000 psi steam pressure was not going to work. At the time the Germans were introducing their ultra high pressure steam plants in their 1934 destroyers, the Americans, who had the experience of high pressure land based plants to draw upon, were much more conservative settling for an increase from 465 psi to 565 psi for their Gridley class destroyers. A further increase to 665 psi in the Sims class was where they finally settled for their WWII destroyers. 2/3s the pressure of the German plants and approached in a more methodical manner.

Shortround6 said:

To what end?
In 1930 the Kriegsmarine has a bunch of truly crappy left over ships from well before 1910 for the major ships and pre 1914 for the destroyer and under ships.
Yes they were working on the K-class but the Kriegsmarine needs a lot of small warships to defend their coast/s (both sided of Denmark) and to play the mine/counter mine game.

Click to expand...

A coastal fleet capable of mine warfare (defensive & offensive), torpedo strikes against larger opponents, ASW, and escorting cargo ships (say, ore carriers from Narvik, though this particular usecase probably wasn't on the book in 1930..) is probably needed and useful regardless of what decisions they do wrt large blue water warships.

As for the Deutschland class, ostensibly they were designed as a counter to Poland/France/Russia(?) naval forces blockading Königsberg. And in addition to that role, they had long enough endurance to have somewhat successful raiding careers during WWII. In that sense money well spent, although of course adding such big guns to the limited displacement meant compromises wrt armor and speed.

Having a lot more Cargo and Liners in the late 30s without escort ships does not give you an invasion fleet. It means you are supplying target practice for the RN.
Having more ships available for "raiders" might actually simplify the British problem. They do not need "light" cruisers with twelve 6in guns to handle converted merchant ships.
Leanders and Didoes and large DD can chew up merchant raiders.

Click to expand...

Yes, but.. I do think the idea about merchant raiders had merit. For one, they were pretty cheap. Particularly as during peace time they could be out there earning money rather than being an economic boat anchor like a bespoke warship. The state could probably(?) quite cheaply ensure that ships suitable for such conversions are built, e.g. by providing loan guarantees (which, FWIW, is largely how yards finance building big cruise ships to this day) or by adding a little bit of state money on top to ensure that features required by the raider conversions are built-in.

As for raiders capable of relatively comfortably (as in, not risking mission killing damage to itself) beating a cruiser let alone a "full tonnage" treaty cruiser, I'm sure they'd want such but that gets awfully expensive very quickly.

In the end, I think what eventually ended the career of surface raiders, regardless of size, was better Allied situational awareness via long range patrol aircraft (and radar, and patrol aircraft from escort carriers etc.), rather than the Germans not finding the correct balance between cost, capability, and numbers. But they had a few successful years before the Allies built up that capability.

Reluctant Poster said:

The better question is how do you know high pressure steam is NOT going to have issues. Foresight is all that is necessary. A proper testing and development program would have shown that 1,000 psi steam pressure was not going to work. At the time the Germans were introducing their ultra high pressure steam plants in their 1934 destroyers, the Americans, who had the experience of high pressure land based plants to draw upon, were much more conservative settling for an increase from 465 psi to 565 psi for their Gridley class destroyers. A further increase to 665 psi in the Sims class was where they finally settled for their WWII destroyers. 2/3s the pressure of the German plants and approached in a more methodical manner.

Click to expand...

This explains why.

EwenS said:

This explains why.

History and Technology - German Power Plants in World War II - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Click to expand...

I am personally familiar with the problems of boiler control and I can tell you it was not simple on dry land with relatively stable conditions (eg no sudden load changes) and the advantages of programable logic controls. I cannot imagine trying to deal with those issues in the tiny machine spaces in a ship with sudden demands to full power etc.

Reluctant Poster said:

The better question is how do you know high pressure steam is NOT going to have issues. Foresight is all that is necessary. A proper testing and development program would have shown that 1,000 psi steam pressure was not going to work. At the time the Germans were introducing their ultra high pressure steam plants in their 1934 destroyers, the Americans, who had the experience of high pressure land based plants to draw upon, were much more conservative settling for an increase from 465 psi to 565 psi for their Gridley class destroyers. A further increase to 665 psi in the Sims class was where they finally settled for their WWII destroyers. 2/3s the pressure of the German plants and approached in a more methodical manner.

Click to expand...

This, to an extent at least, seems to have been an endemic problem the Germans had. Much of the catastrophic reliability issues they had with aircraft engines mid-war seem to be due to rushing improvements into production with inadequate testing (see e.g. Calum Douglas book).

I guess they were trying to 'speedrun' R&D projects, in order to catch up with the rest of the industrial powers, after setbacks caused by losing WWI and the interwar economic crash.

z42 said:

In the end, I think what eventually ended the career of surface raiders, regardless of size, was better Allied situational awareness via long range patrol aircraft (and radar, and patrol aircraft from escort carriers etc.), rather than the Germans not finding the correct balance between cost, capability, and numbers. But they had a few successful years before the Allies built up that capability

Click to expand...

Quite agree. The ability of aircraft advanced faster than the building time of large ships and air borne radar was a major game changer.

z42 said:

A coastal fleet capable of mine warfare (defensive & offensive), torpedo strikes against larger opponents, ASW, and escorting cargo ships (say, ore carriers from Narvik, though this particular usecase probably wasn't on the book in 1930..) is probably needed and useful regardless of what decisions they do wrt large blue water warships.

Click to expand...

Here we run into what was actually needed vs what was wanted for prestige, image building.

z42 said:

As for the Deutschland class, ostensibly they were designed as a counter to Poland/France/Russia(?) naval forces blockading Königsberg. And in addition to that role, they had long enough endurance to have somewhat successful raiding careers during WWII. In that sense money well spent, although of course adding such big guns to the limited displacement meant compromises wrt armor and speed.

Click to expand...

Oldest German battleship that could have been replaced in 1922 according to treaty.

SMS Preussen 16,000hp 18kts (new) and 13,000tons normal. Laid down 1902 and completed 1905.
This what the Versailles treaty authors had in mind.
What scared the crap out of France and England was instead of building a ship that had a range of 5200nm at 10kts the Germans built a ship that was supposed to go 10,000nm at 20 kts. (top speed 26kts). Not a capability that was at all needed in the Baltic or even the North sea. Everybody KNEW what the goal was and it was NOT safe guarding the German Coast. What their success rate was over 10 years after the plans were drawn up is not important. They heavily influenced French and British building programs for almost a decade.
They raised the prestige of the German Navy and German war industry significantly very quickly. That may not have translated into actual warship orders but it did create interest.
Germans might have been able to build a 10,000 ton ship of 21-22kts with six 11in guns and much thicker armor and two of them could have stood up to the Marat.

z42 said:

Yes, but.. I do think the idea about merchant raiders had merit. For one, they were pretty cheap. Particularly as during peace time they could be out there earning money rather than being an economic boat anchor like a bespoke warship. The state could probably(?) quite cheaply ensure that ships suitable for such conversions are built, e.g. by providing loan guarantees (which, FWIW, is largely how yards finance building big cruise ships to this day) or by adding a little bit of state money on top to ensure that features required by the raider conversions are built-in.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately there were 2 if not 3 different economic disasters during the 1920s and 30s which significantly affected German plans. And they affected international trade. And the demand for new commercial ships. The basic idea was good but the demand for 14kt-18kt freighters was not great in the civilian market. British were also watching for ships that might be suitable as they had a rather large program of Axillary cruisers themselves, 56 (?) AMC, 16 OBV (Ocean Boarding Vessels), 12 ABV (Armed Boarding Vessels, smaller). two convoy escorts, and up to 89 Auxiliary patrol vessels. Some went back into commerce fairly soon, some served in more than one capacity/designation.
There were a number of other types like Special Service Vessels ( Q-Ships), sea going and coastal AA vessels. Aux minelayers.

Not saying the Germans could not use another 1/2 dozen to dozen but doubling the number at sea at any time might not result in double the number of sinkings.
Doubling the number of raiders in the South Atlantic might double the chances of the British actually finding one of them

EwenS said:

This explains why.

History and Technology - German Power Plants in World War II - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Click to expand...

Peter was doing OK until the last paragraph.

The diesels in the PBBs were very unreliable even after 5 years of working on them - the crews were continuously overhauling them due to issues with rings. The engines were also continuously cracking and breaking their blocks (the choice of 5 and 9 cylinder engines probably contributed - with different number of pistons going up as opposed to down, they were prone to vibration). Engines went from 100 tonnes in Deutschland to over 125 tons each in AGS as MAN attempted to add material to fix the problem. And the vibration was low frequency which makes humans sick with long exposure. The biggest advantage: As there were 8 main engines, taking 1 down didn't significantly affect performance.

KM thought using S-boat high speed diesels would be a solution to providing sprint speed to Type IX U-boats. They could pack 6 -3k hp engines in same space as the 2 - 2,200hp medium speed engines that had been used. In the S-boat engines has worked fine when you went for a couple hour cruise from France to England on Saturday night, had a little fun drag racing with the Vosper boats, then cruised home. And for the rest of the week maintained the engines in preparation for the next Saturday's fun. But when they were put in the U-boat, after just a couple days of continuous low power running the engines were breaking down. The submarines were lucky to make it back to port.

don4331 said:

Peter was doing OK until the last paragraph.

The diesels in the PBBs were very unreliable even after 5 years of working on them - the crews were continuously overhauling them due to issues with rings. The engines were also continuously cracking and breaking their blocks (the choice of 5 and 9 cylinder engines probably contributed - with different number of pistons going up as opposed to down, they were prone to vibration).

Click to expand...

Odd cylinder numbers are not a problem for big slow speed Diesels. MAN currently offers any number from 6 to 12 in their ME series which ranges from 4,350 to 82,440 kW!

don4331 said:

Peter was doing OK until the last paragraph.

The diesels in the PBBs were very unreliable even after 5 years of working on them - the crews were continuously overhauling them due to issues with rings. The engines were also continuously cracking and breaking their blocks (the choice of 5 and 9 cylinder engines probably contributed - with different number of pistons going up as opposed to down, they were prone to vibration). Engines went from 100 tonnes in Deutschland to over 125 tons each in AGS as MAN attempted to add material to fix the problem. And the vibration was low frequency which makes humans sick with long exposure. The biggest advantage: As there were 8 main engines, taking 1 down didn't significantly affect performance.

Click to expand...

These double-acting two-stroke medium speed diesels may have been a case of biting off more than one can chew. Post-war, medium speed diesels have more or less converged on single-acting four-stroke types. And, contemporary medium speed marine diesels achieve power densities far in excess of the diesels they installed on the Deutschland class, and about on par with the next generation engines they designed for destroyers and some of the Z-plan big ships.

In retrospect, they might have been better off trying to improve a simpler single-acting four-stroke base design.

For more info see MAN Double-Acting Diesel Marine Engines

z42 said:

These double-acting two-stroke medium speed diesels may have been a case of biting off more than one can chew. Post-war, medium speed diesels have more or less converged on single-acting four-stroke types. And, contemporary medium speed marine diesels achieve power densities far in excess of the diesels they installed on the Deutschland class, and about on par with the next generation engines they designed for destroyers and some of the Z-plan big ships.

In retrospect, they might have been better off trying to improve a simpler single-acting four-stroke base design.

For more info see MAN Double-Acting Diesel Marine Engines

Click to expand...

Double acting diesels seemed like a good idea in terms of space saving but the excessive height actually made them difficult to protect in a warship. Several manufacturers built them in both two and four stroke but the seal for the crosshead was troublesome. In think turbocharging killed them off.

Always this possibility, if height is an issue

marathag said:

Always this possibility, if height is an issue
View attachment 796695

Click to expand...

Okay. We've got the engine that makes the Gloster F.5/34 competitive with the A6M.

z42 said:

Yes, but.. I do think the idea about merchant raiders had merit. For one, they were pretty cheap. Particularly as during peace time they could be out there earning money rather than being an economic boat anchor like a bespoke warship. The state could probably(?) quite cheaply ensure that ships suitable for such conversions are built, e.g. by providing loan guarantees (which, FWIW, is largely how yards finance building big cruise ships to this day) or by adding a little bit of state money on top to ensure that features required by the raider conversions are built-in.

In the end, I think what eventually ended the career of surface raiders, regardless of size, was better Allied situational awareness via long range patrol aircraft (and radar, and patrol aircraft from escort carriers etc.), rather than the Germans not finding the correct balance between cost, capability, and numbers. But they had a few successful years before the Allies built up that capability.

Click to expand...

Using merchant raiders can be part of a strategy, but only small part. It is rather uncertain.
The German merchant marine was rather small, for several reasons, like being blockaded in WW I and some of the ships being used for war Reparations and the seizure of all of German's colonies after WW I. Re-establishing commercial connections may have been a bit difficult after WW I and the two major economic crises didn't help.
Merchant ships may be cheap but in order to make money they have to be at sea and thus unavailable (mostly) if war is declared suddenly. A number of German ships were interned in neutral countries in Sept 1939, some tried to make it home, only a few (percentage wise) made it. Germany has a more restricted access to the worlds Oceans than England and the English had several centuries of blockading enemies. One reason they liked using Merchant ships for back up.

Germans may have beefed up decks and bulkheads to take gun mounts and paid for engines that would give 2-4 kts more than strictly needed but the number of ships in German ports at any time would have been a fraction of the number of ships modified maybe 10-25% ? 25% being rather generous and counting ships NOT leaving Germany for several weeks before war breaks out?
Somebody would have noticed if most of the German merchant ships had stopped sailing for an number of weeks before Sept 1st, 1939.
A few days is one thing. Some ships going to the far east had runs of 34-50 days each way.
Turning around in the South Atlantic or Indian ocean was possible use this as strategy over several years seems rather risky.

SaparotRob said:

The eureka moment came from Mr. Higgins. Granted I saw the "whole story" on a YT vid but it sure jives from what I've read and experienced. Higgins had been building boats in the South, Florida or Louisiana, methinks. Higgins built wooden boats that could maneuver in shallows and on and off sand bars for fish and game. The 'Gummint and Higgins hooked up. They noodled around and came up with a 36 foot wooden landing with a honking big skeg. I know. I personally scraped and painted the one on my Sea Explorer Ship (Post)'s LCP(L?) for years. Built in Manitowac, Wisconsin. The same hull can be seen in pictures of the Guadalcanal campaign. The one without the ramp. Just imagine it with a small cabin about 10 ft aft of the bow up to the engine box.
The "A Ha!" moment came when The 'Gummint showed Higgins the Daihatsu model and its ramp. The result was a sea worthy landing craft, not a motorized landing barge.

Click to expand...

One of these things is not like the others. The Higgins boat bow ramp is a copy of the MLC not the Daihatshu.