special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,240
- May 13, 2018
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
France | Germany | |
Destroyers | 34 | 32 |
Super Destroyers (Are they separate class or fast light cruisers?) | 32 | - |
Torpedo Boats | 14 | 12 |
Cruisers, Light | 11 | 7 |
Cruisers, Heavy | 7 | 3 (PBBs) |
Battleships | 8 (6 WWI + 2 Dunkerque) | 3 (2 WWI+ Panzeschiffe D) |
Aircraft Carriers | 1 | 1 |
Submarines | 86! | 51 |
Correction:
I thought about it overnight, while Panzerschiffe D was planned for 18k tons std., its probably going to come in heavy - there's no passing a ship off as a cruiser. Beside it passes duck test for capital ship: guns over 10", over 17k tons and capital expenditure by country. Getting an exception for the 28cm guns on PBBs should be possible - there are exemption for Hood, Lexingtons and not worth France going to war over.
Minor complaint - PBB/Panzerschiffe tonnage is included in the AGNA agreement as capital ships.
Returning to this thread that has been dormant for a while, and thinking of the plan above by D don4331 , an AH German naval strategy for the surface part that is substantially more focused on naval aviation than historically, using about the same total tonnage as historical:
So how could these, hypothetically, have been used? By the Norway invasion, maybe 1 fleet carrier, two CL's, and a bunch of destroyers might be ready. Instead of Blucher, send in a few destroyers up the Oslo fjord. Sucks to lose one, but less a disaster than losing a heavy cruiser. Moving up Norway, the fleet carrier launches strikes on Norwegian positions, and maintains situational awareness so the invasion fleet isn't caught with their pants down. The older carrier can help, or if nothing else help ferry planes up to Norwegian airfields to quickly consolidate positions. For the battle of Britain, maybe the second fleet carrier is ready too, and they can launch hit and run raids against North-East UK. Or maybe team up with the Luftwaffe to provide fighter cover for LW bombers coming from Norway? I'm not sure breaking out into the Atlantic is feasible. Maybe they try with one carrier (+ escorts) and it gets sunk similarly to Bismarck historically. So the rest of the war the carriers spend mostly in Norwegian waters, occasionally launching some air strikes on, say, Scapa flow or Iceland, and of course against the Arctic convoys. Eventually of course their luck runs out and the Allies catch them, be it with Tallboys, submarines, carrier launched air strikes or whatever.
- A crucial element is getting experience of naval aviation ASAP. Thus, as part of the various (semi-)clandestine rearmament efforts that the Weimar republic engages in, around 1930 or so a liner or fast transport under construction is converted to a carrier (similar to other early carriers like Hosho, Langley, Argus, ...). Make it unarmed, and call it a fast mail ship or something equally silly, with the idea that mail aircraft can takeoff/land when sufficiently close to shore to deliver mail faster than having to steam all the way to port. This gives the Germans time to develop carrier doctrine without flagrantly violating the Versailles treaty.
- Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are built as historically. Yes, it's a waste to cancel the Panzerschiffe D's, but at that time the potential enemy is France, and the D's are too weak to counter the Dunkerques.
- Subsequent to the AGNA being signed, Germany has 47kton of carrier tonnage available. The first carrier from point 1. above can be classified as an aircraft ferry, or even for the time being be left unarmed operated by an "officially" civilian crew (hey, the UK managed to build the Unicorn and classify it as a "aviation support ship", so...). To fit this tonnage, two 23kton fleet carriers are laid down. The idea behind them is that in a potential conflict with France carrier task forces will break out into the open sea, and harass French shipping or even launch air strikes on French foreign territories.
- Hitler sneezes on some magic pixie dust and gives the KM full control over their own aviation. Goering is of course furious but has to stuff it. Due to limited R&D resources the KM still has to do with mostly navalized versions of land based aircraft rather than bespoke carrier aircraft. The mainstay will be a navalized Bf 109 fighter, and a navalized Stuka dive bomber. A project to develop a suitable torpedo bomber is ongoing but never reaches maturity and widespread deployment.
- To support the carriers, design a ~10kton light cruiser of an improved Leipzig design, and a longer range destroyer type of say around 2000 tons (yes, forget the 15cm guns on the destroyers!).
- The big sacrifices here compared to historical are the two Bismarck's and the three Hippers. That gives about 130kton to use for other things. Say, 3 23kton carriers, 3 10kton light cruisers, and 15 2kton destroyers.
A major problem for the Kriegsmarine is that a lot of their ships were just plain bad designs compounded by bad designs of machinery. Then they squared the problems by trying to do too much, armament/speed or combinations.
- To support the carriers, design a ~10kton light cruiser of an improved Leipzig design, and a longer range destroyer type of say around 2000 tons (yes, forget the 15cm guns on the destroyers!).
- The big sacrifices here compared to historical are the two Bismarck's and the three Hippers. That gives about 130kton to use for other things. Say, 3 23kton carriers, 3 10kton light cruisers, and 15 2kton destroyers.
A major problem for the Kriegsmarine is that a lot of their ships were just plain bad designs compounded by bad designs of machinery. Then they squared the problems by trying to do too much, armament/speed or combinations.
Leipzig was and improved Koln and the Kolns were among the worst cruisers built between the wars. Not hard to improve them but what do you get in the end?
The British town classes are not impressive on paper but they worked. Germans spent too much tonnage on trick propulsion and leading edge guns/armament.
German 5.9s out ranged the British 6in guns by around 4000yds? trouble is that nobodies 6in guns could hit at max range. Germans paid for long range with short barrel life, they also had less magazine capacity. They carried about 50% more torpedoes. and so on.
Same with the Destroyers, it wasn't the 15cm guns so much as the roughly 70,000hp engines needed for the 36-38kt speeds. British Tribal class had 44,000hp and 1/2 the boilers (not quite fair the British boilers were not the high pressure steam type).
Only 18 destroyers were completed with 5.9in guns.
The Big German ships scared the British. A few 10kton 6in cruisers and 15 2kton destroyers would not even have been a decent lunch for the RN.
Looking at displacement to broadside weight, the Bismarcks must be the one of lightest armed, or unbalanced dreadnought battleships. Anyone else would have put nine, ten or even twelve 15" guns, or nine 16" guns on a similar displacement. Only the one-off Vanguard comes close with her four second hand twin 15" turrets.
The Germans had planned 8x16" for their H-class, similar to the IJN's Nagatos from decades earlier. 9x16" is a good layout that only Britain (just NelRods) and the US made use of.Drachinifel points out this engineering inefficiency. The Americans put 9x16" guns onto a hull 7,000 tons lighter, with arguably better armor and similar speed.
A navalized BF 109? They had enough problems landing without waves moving the runway.
And where do they train? In the Baltic, where they won't face sea states as per North Sea ops? And to get them to waters off France. Maybe get them through the Dover Straits where French land-based air gets a crack?
If it's only Germany v France, Army and LW should get the resources. If it's Germany v UK as well as France, any German carrier will get sunk before it sinks Hood.
A potential rival for the Bf109E (T) may have been the He112B - history may never know, but their performance profiles (the Bf109E) were comparable.Indeed. But that was what they historically were planning for their naval aviation. Would it have worked, no idea. Potentially if the fuselage is strengthened sufficiently?
Not to mention that many of those German cruisers couldn't face into the weather, many of their destroyers required oil retained for ballast which reduced their range, and even the Ugly Sisters took beatings from -- yikes! -- the weather, much less shells, mines, and so forth.
Drachinifel points out this engineering inefficiency. The Americans put 9x16" guns onto a hull 7,000 tons lighter, with arguably better armor and similar speed.
The Germans had planned 8x16" for their H-class, similar to the IJN's Nagatos from decades earlier. 9x16" is a good layout that only Britain (just NelRods) and the US made use of.
Drachinifel points out this engineering inefficiency. The Americans put 9x16" guns onto a hull 7,000 tons lighter, with arguably better armor and similar speed.
The Germans had planned 8x16" for their H-class, similar to the IJN's Nagatos from decades earlier. 9x16" is a good layout that only Britain (just NelRods) and the US made use of.
It's impressive how a single piece of armoured steel can be both hard and soft at different thicknesses.Here's Nathan Okun's analysis and comparison to other contemporary capital ships: ARMOR PROTECTION OF KM BISMARCK by Nathan Okun 9/6/91