What if the Germans had their WW1 surface fleet still?

I forgot to name the authors and the publisher: Erich Gröner and Dieter Jung, Bernard & Graefe Verlag, Bonn, Germany.

BTW, according to the latest shipment status from Alibris, the books are on their way...

RAM

 

The important part of what was going on with the inter-war German navy was a debate much like that of the Luftwaffe between two factions advocating very different courses of development. This could be likened to the debate between Wever wanting strategic bombing and Udet wanting a more tactical air force with dive bombing at its center. In the navy the debate was between two old friends; Admiral Erich Räder and Admiral Wolfgang Wegener.

Wegener argued for an offensive strategy aimed against Britain. His vision was a conventional fleet operating into the North Sea combined with the conquest of Norway, Denmark and, the Shetlands to give access to the Atlantic. He also rejected the Mahanian "risk theory" advocating instead a Guerre de Course based out of these areas into the Atlantic forcing the British into tactical actions and (hopefully) leading to their defeat in detail.
Wegener felt that by threatening British trade "every battle, every skirmish would have contributed towards a decision..." It was much more a Clauswitzian view of naval warfare. There would be no one decisive battle.
However, Wegener would never go beyond this theoretical basis.

Räder on the other hand was completely conventional and conservative in his view of maritime strategy. He saw a Weltmachtflotte (World-class fleet) as the key to naval success. That is, he wanted a repeat of the High Seas Fleet of WW 1. This became the Z-plan in part.
While early build German ships of the inter-war period were constructed with only relatively limited range and endurance by 1938 new designs were being put forward (like the H and O classes) that had long range endurance and an eye to being able to operate from Germany well out into the Atlantic. Aiding this Räder had also commissioned an excellent class of underway replenishment ships the Dithmarschen.

The problem for Germany was one strategic plan was too vauge in its execution to ever become reality. The other to extravagant to ever succeed. It made enemies of two old friends in the process and in the end left Germany without a useful naval strategy or navy.

 

This is essentially correct. The implications of each vision were, fundamentally, either pursuing a course which relegated Germany to the position of the weaker navy (Guerre de Course), or attempting to build a navy which could challenge either the Royal Navy or the US Navy, or both in combination. Raeder's vision required a 'balanced fleet" with appropriate numbers of destroyers, cruisers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines and fleet auxiliaries, because only a balanced fleet could hope to meet another balanced fleet in combat and prevail.

The problem with the first option was that a Guerre de Course strategy had slight chance of contributing to a decisive victory over an opponent with a well developed navy. It was, traditionally, the strategy of a country which had a weak navy and hoped to achieve a decisive victory through other than naval means. The possible adoption of a Guerre de Course strategy by Germany did, however, create a certain amount of trepididation in the Royal Navy. It would require Britain to build large numbers of trade protection cruisers to counter German commerce raiders. It was by no means clear that Britain would be able to build the requisite numbers of cruisers quickly enough, if Germany decided to concentrate on commerce destruction vessels.

The balanced fleet concept, on the other hand, was far beyond Germany's economic and industrial capabilities. It would have required a fleet of 20-30 fast 40,000 to 50,000 ton battleships, at least a dozen modern large fleet carriers, around 70 cruisers, and something on the order of 200 to 250 destroyers, plus submarines, and a fleet train of approximately 100 auxiliary vessels. Germany simply didn't have the money, ship yard capacity, or skilled work force to make such a fleet a reality. In fact, during WW II, Germany managed to build and commission fewer than 45 destroyers, while Britain alone, built and commissioned almost 300.

A subsidiary problem was that German warship designers were inexperienced and virtually starting from scratch, whereas US and British warship designers had decades of warship design and development behind them. This showed in the designs of such vessels as the Z-23-class (Zerstorer 1936A) destroyers with 150 MM twin gun mounts on their forecastles. The idea was to create a destroyer-sized vessel with an exceptionally powerful gun armament. They were failures because the gun mounts were too heavy and caused sea-keeping problems which made the forward armament useless in any kind of seaway. Another issue was the use of high pressure steam plants without sufficient development and testing; these engineering plants were very unreliable and drastically reduced the serviceability of German destroyers. Lack of design experience also manifested itself in highly optimistic endurance calculations for all classes of warship; I can't think of a single German warship class that, in actual service, didn't fall far short of it's designed range.

 

I'd thought Germany had a ropbust shipbuilding industry pre 1914. Building a lot of cargo ships as well as the Kaisers war fleet. Have I been wrong? Or was the capability lost post 1914?

 

Both Britain and Germany lost warship building capacity post-1918. Britain because of the Washington Naval Treaty, and secondarily, the economic troubles beginning in 1929. Germany's warship building capacity was almost wiped out by the Versailles treaty, the naval provisions of which remained in effect until 1935. Building warships is one of those things which, if you don't keep doing it continuously, you lose the capacity to do it at all. That's because idle warship building infrastructure is extremely costly to maintain, and the skilled workforce gravitates into other industries.

 

I though about this at some length and it occured to me that even without Versailles and other treaties, Germany especially Germany would have to unload the bulk of her surface fleet due to the ecconomic collapse in the late 1920's and the depression of the 1930's. One thing that stands out in all of this without The Versailles Treaty Germany would almost still retain all of her overeas possessions so with that i thought about each class of ship, i'll start with the BB's with this first installment.

Class to be scrapped

Brandenburg x 2
Kaiser Friedrich III x 5
Wittelsbach x 4
Braunschweig x 5
Deutschland x 5

Class to be converted to Heavy Criuser

Nassau x 4
Helgoland x 4
Friedrich der Gropfe x 4

To be refitted

Konig x 4
Bayern x 4

Resulting in retention of 8 battleships and conversion to 12 Heavy Cruisers while scrapping 21 old battleships.

I would however still build 4 new battleshisp

Tirpitz Class x 2
Scharnhorst Class x 2

Leaving Germany with a total of 12 Battleships.

v.R

 

Here is my installment in regards to Battlecruisers and hypothetical Aircraft Carriers.

Class to be scrapped

Von der Tann x 1
Moltke x 2

Class to be modernised

Seydlitz x 1
Derfflinger x 3
Mackensen x 4
*Yorck x 3 one extra ship to be built called Ersatz Von der Tann

Also i would build an additional 4 Yorck hulls and complete them as aircraft carriers.

Thus giving the Kriegsmarine so far 12 Battleships, 12 Battlecruisers, 12 Heavy Cruisers and 4 aircraft carriers.

This would be the basis and the first phase in my capital ship programme. And it would be the basis of my Kriegsmarine having at least 4 carrier taskforces.

v.R

 

I'm curious. How exactly are you going to convert old coal fired slow battleships with vertical triple expansion engines into "heavy cruisers?"

Of the battlecruisers only two Mackensen class are realistic possibilities for a post war fleet. The other two are not far enough completed to warrant continuing in peacetime as are the never laid down Yorck class.

Also what happens with the Washington Naval Treaty? As has been pointed out the best the Germans could have possibly hoped for here was about 8 to 10 capital ships and 2 or 3 carriers in tonnage.

 

I went back and looked at the sequence of posts on this thread and it was you that brought up the Washington Naval Treaty, and you have mentioned it several times including your last post, so where in the original question does it mention the Washington Naval Treaty, it doesn't, in fact according to the original question even the Versailles Treaty never came into effect, so Germany retained her entire Fleet, and that fleet was not subject to any treaty stipulations, as well as any other world navy to be blunt.

So unfortunately your argument is moot.

What i have done is what i would have done in this situation, without shackled to any treaty that never existed.

v.R

 

The Washington Naval Treaty took effect in 1922 after WW 1 ended. It effected every major naval power all of whom still had their WW 1 fleets intact. If the Germans had their fleet intact it would have certainly included them too.
Ignoring this and assuming that the Germans alone would keep their entire fleet while the navies of England, the United States, and France in particular made massive reductions in their numbers is ludicrious.

But, the answer given does not address the other two questions posed:

How do you propose to make "heavy cruisers" out of the older German battleships and, how are the last two Mackensens and the Ersatz Yorck class going to be completed in peacetime?

 

T.A. is correct, and if he hadn't mentioned the Washington Naval Treaty, I would have. Regardless of the original question, the WNT was a central fact of life for navies in the 1920's and 1930's, and to ignore it in any discussion of naval forces during this period, counter factual or otherwise, is to ignore the single most important historical influence on naval design and construction during the period. Arguing that Germany wouldn't have been subject to the WNT or some other naval limitation treaty is completely unrealistic; it was the pre-WW I Anglo-German naval armaments race that gave rise to near universal international sentiment that naval armaments had to be subject to some limitation.

Your specific proposal for the notional German fleet runs counter to the most likely limitations that would have been imposed on Germany. First, Germany, like Japan, would most likely have been limited to 315,000 tons of capital ships and 81,000 tons of aircraft carriers. In addition, only two of the aircraft carriers can be of 33,000 tons, and these have to be hulls that were currently being built in 1922. The rest of the carriers have to be under 27,000 tons. That means Germany can have two converted Yorck class battle cruisers as carriers, provided they were laid down prior to 1922, and one additional carrier of around 15,000 tons.

Another restriction was that no new capital ships could be built for 10 years, and then only to replace old scrapped ships, and that no new capital ships could exceed 35,000 tons. So the best Germany is likely to get is about 9 converted/rebuilt capital ships of around 35.000 tons each, no new ships for ten years (new building being allowed commencing in 1932-33), and three carriers, two of about 33,000 tons, and one purpose built of about 15,000 tons. Neither the Scharnhorst-class, nor the Bismarck class designs are likely to be built in that time frame. The Scharnhorst-class because 11" guns make no sense under the WNT regime, and the Bismarck-class because they are too large. Historically, navies subject to the WNT limitations designed much more efficient capital ships than the Bismarck design represented, anyway.

Now, you can argue that Germany could refuse to participate in the WNT, or that the WNT never would have come about, but no informed person will take that argument seriously; it would be just so much ignorant hot air.If Germany does retain her WW I fleet, it would be subject to the same conditions and restrictions that all the other major navies had to deal with in the 1920's and 1930's, not to mention the economic constraints historically encountered. That would make your proposed German fleet wildly irrational.

 

It clearly states in the original question that treaties such as Versailles and Washington never came into fruition never existed, so therefore your continual use of such treaties in this POD is invalid and completely off topic.

Also to T.A Gardner

When is it a condition of contributing to the forum one need a university degree in military naval egineering.

Well any case i'll just stick to the original question and you can do as you please.

v.R

 

I would love to answer this.

The original question posed this that after WW1 there was no Treaty of Versailles and there was no Washington Naval Treaty and because of that Germany retained her entire fleet, it was not sent to Scapa Flow, or that many ships were interned in other countries, i have however did address the reduction of numbers within the German Navy. I have included the World Stock Market crash in the late 1920's and the Depression of the 1930's. Germany could not continue to pay for an expensive surface fleet while riding out the Depression and so the German Navy went on a large scale scrapping programme.

I decided that i place myself in the shoes of the German Navy and which ships i personally would keep and those i would scrap.

I am not an expert of rebuilding ships, but i am sure that the Germans are fully capable of converiting their ships from coal fired reciprocating engines to either steam or oil fired turbines, i am not saying it is not difficult, it is.

And to your last comment of the Mackensens and Yorck class of ship being completed in peace time, question were it not that the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Admiral Hipper, Admiral Graf Spee, Admiral Scheer, Blucher, Lutzow, etc... were begun in peacetime or was i mistaken.

v.R

 

And adding unasked parameters to a question is by all vestiges of the rules of the debate, should be ruled null and void as being off topic, the originator of the question clearly stipulates that the German Navy is clearly retained, it is clear and concise that the Treaty of Versailles and the Washington Naval Treaty never came into existence, and moderator at high school level would have stepped in and declare those answers that include the Washington Naval Treaty off topic.

So to conclude if by all accounts the original question clearly stipulates that Treaty of Versailles and the Washington Naval Treat never occured in this time line, the adding these treaties into an argument is improbable and off topic.

v.R

 

A degree isn't. But, when one puts up a hypothesis or position, particularly one calling for something far from historical norms, it is usual for them to support their position with some details. Hence, my question about the conversion of battleships to heavy cruisers you mentioned. Simply saying so-and-so did / does this isn't generally acceptable on its own.
Also, both of my questions addressed to your earlier response were for additional details of this sort.

For instance, of the four Mackensen class laid down the following is historical:

Mackensen had been launched and was about a year from completion when the war ended. Had the Germans retained their fleet she no doubt would have been completed much as Hood was for the RN; probably under similar terms.

Freya / Prinz Eitel Friedrich was still on the ways and likely would not have completed before the Washington Naval Treaty negotiations began. These likely would have caused a stop in her work as the Germans would likely realize that like Hood's sister ships she would never be completed. The best possibility is that in a WNT situation this ship ends up as a carrier conversion.

Graf Spee was also launched and about 18 months from completion. In a WNT scenario she is very likely to end up a carrier conversion like the US Saratoga and Lexington or Japanese Kaga and Akagi.

Fürst Bismarck would have been scrapped on the ways having only very little progress towards completion before the war ended.

As for the three proposed Yorck class (Yorck, Scharnhorst, and Gnesienau) it is doubtful any would have ever been finished. The closest any were to completion in 1918 was more than two years out.

Now, if we assume that the WNT does not happen then, the following is likely:

Germany completes the remaining two Baden class and the two Mackensens that are in the water. The others are cancelled. Due to economic conditions the Germans are forced to scrap or lay up a good portion of their fleet. They sell a few units abroad to countries like Greece or Turkey and to South American countries.
The majority of remaining units undergo only superficial modifications to reduce costs (ie., bulging, adding AA guns, possibly new deck armor, some machinery mods). In carriers, the Germans are likely to just dabble at first. Their navy has very short legs for the most part and would have great difficulty operating outside the North Sea so land aircraft could be substituted and likely would be just as happened in Italy and to some extent Britain due to air force rivalries.

The British continue to build new construction but are greatly slowed by the generally poor economic conditions that exist. The British possess a fleet of about 25 battleships and battlecruisers of varying age. They also have a number of carriers of varying quality but very poor aircraft aboard them.

Italy and France pretty much follow their historical builds but start their newer classes earlier.

The Japanese continue their builds also. They possess about 16 battleships by 1930. They also build several carriers from scratch like the US does.

The US, hurt least by the war, builds the Lexington class (6 ships) and the six South Dakotas giving them about 30 capital ships in all. They also continue builds on smaller ships and build a number of aircraft carriers. Their capital ships undergo very extensive rebuilds, far more extensive than the WNT allowed (think the West Virgina, Tennessee, or California in 1944 kind of rebuilds) making even their older ships very dangerous. By the late twenties they are easily the largest and most powerful fleet on the planet and growing; particularly because of the Japanese threat.

Combined with Britain there is no possibility Germany or Japan could win a naval war. Of course, all this naval building hurts Germany most. They are need a large army as a land power. But, they are spending like drunken sailors trying to maintain a large fleet. Something would have to give and it most likely isn't going to be the army that suffers.

 

I have decided that i'll do my thing and you do yours.

v.R

 

No, the original question does not specifically reference the Washington Naval Treaty. it says. "Anyways, what if after the first world war, Germany had there entire surface fleet still. It wasn't scuttled at Scapa Flow(?) and the treaty of Versailles and the rest of the Naval treaties did not get in effect." I read that, perhaps incorrectly, as meaning that the Versailles treaty and no other war-ending treaties with clauses pertaining to naval forces, came into effect. Maybe the author simply didn't realize that the WNT was some five years after the end of WW I and had nothing to do with the end of the High Seas Fleet. It certainly makes no sense to exclude the WNT from consideration of the question because such an exclusion introduces far too many ahistorical factors into the discussion to proceed with any rational analysis. Even the historical economic factors involved in the world-wide depression of 1930 could easily have been drastically changed by another naval armaments race between the US, Britain, Japan and Germany.

As for converting war vessels powered by coal-fired reciprocating engines to oil-fired steam turbines, it's physically possible to do so. Anything is physically possible if you have unlimited time and money, but it makes far more sense to design new vessels from scratch than to try to convert from reciprocating engines to turbines; the different size, shape, and weight of the different propulsion systems would require completely different hull forms to perform satisfactorily, not to mention considerations of fuel storage, shafting, internal subdivision, and armor distribution. It's just not practical, and to my knowledge, was never successfully done or even seriously contemplated.

 

Keeping the leopard from changing his spots? Trying to stay in the kitchen even if not being able to stand the fire real cooks can fan? Typical response: if I'm unable to play ball with the other kids I'm picking mine up and am going to sit in a corner and pretend it's the others fault. Heck, not even my daughters don't do that anymore.

Now ask yourselves: as everyone has to follow the same rules, as the Washington treaty is not applicable to Germany nor to the other nations too, what would the others build if they were unfettered as well?

This is hopeless.