Kriegsmarine Ship X

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#31

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Nov 2016, 03:55

generally think idea of German carriers is bad idea however noticed one of their smaller (if not smallest) designs is close is size to my speculative Ship X minelayer

http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zpla ... index.html

if they built planned 8 minelayers? could build 3 - 4 of these pocket carriers to provide air cover?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#32

Post by Paul Lakowski » 04 Nov 2016, 05:00

They might make sense if they are converted HSK ships after the raiding missions are over. The only way KM gets carriers is if they convert captured cruisers stripped to the deck and basic hanger added plus a deck on top. A simple CVE. Before the war begins the 3 PBS could be converted to basic CVE. The armaments would have been stripped off and used on the first models of the 6 Panzerschiffe orders placed under the 1932 naval plans.


thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#33

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Nov 2016, 14:03

Paul Lakowski wrote:They might make sense if they are converted HSK ships after the raiding missions are over. The only way KM gets carriers is if they convert captured cruisers stripped to the deck and basic hanger added plus a deck on top. A simple CVE. Before the war begins the 3 PBS could be converted to basic CVE. The armaments would have been stripped off and used on the first models of the 6 Panzerschiffe orders placed under the 1932 naval plans.
we may be discussing two different ships. my scenario is to construct the planned class of 8 minelayers which could approach 30 kts., approx. 6,000 tonnes. from that design spin-off a small carrier capacity for 10 -15 aircraft, not employing the long range diesels but a ship with similar speed to minelayers, to operate with them in Baltic-North Sea not overseas.

may be incorrect but you are describing converted commercial ships which would only approach 20 kts.?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#34

Post by Paul Lakowski » 04 Nov 2016, 19:25

Those minelayers were only 150m length , which is only good for MAC ships.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#35

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Nov 2016, 19:38

Paul Lakowski wrote:Those minelayers were only 150m length , which is only good for MAC ships.
and their plan for CVL approx. 160m with 140m flight deck, a somewhat enlarged hull from minelayer. you don't think they could provide (some) useful air cover for minelayers?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#36

Post by Paul Lakowski » 05 Nov 2016, 07:03

Thaddeus KM mining program involved 50-60 mine layers over the war deploying ~ 200,000 mines. In total these were responsible for some 500 Allied MV sunk or crippled. Another 6 will not alter that basic statistic enough to justify such a program, when converted civilian vessels were 'good enough'. There best survival was there disguise. Reportedly they were able to with in sight of the English coast and mine with out too much difficulty.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#37

Post by thaddeus_c » 05 Nov 2016, 15:20

Paul Lakowski wrote:Thaddeus KM mining program involved 50-60 mine layers over the war deploying ~ 200,000 mines. In total these were responsible for some 500 Allied MV sunk or crippled. Another 6 will not alter that basic statistic enough to justify such a program, when converted civilian vessels were 'good enough'. There best survival was there disguise. Reportedly they were able to with in sight of the English coast and mine with out too much difficulty.
still think their mine warfare program not pursued as aggressively as it could have been, of course they fumbled away advantage with magnetic mines. generally in favor of converted civilian ships because, as you pointed out, they are "good enough."

the minelayer class of ships could deploy as many mines as 7 destroyers and are (almost certainly) more reliable ships, with longer range. they have advantage of speed and heavy flak over converted civilian ships. the torpedo boats struggled in heavier seas(?)

below capital ships (which I place question mark over) would scrap their 40 odd destroyers in favor of torpedo boats, rebuilt light cruisers, and minelayer class.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#38

Post by Paul Lakowski » 05 Nov 2016, 21:21

I always go big or go home. The magnetic mines were handled poorly The KM strategy has to support the commerce war via U-Boat and later focus's on cutting the 'transatlantic life line'- if and when that matters.

That means you need large ships with flexible capabilities. They need range /fire power and speed, which rules out most of the historical fleet that was built. What you need is a large diesel powered cruiser warfare fleet ; but that takes time and recourses. Historically 23 large warships were laid down through the 'prewar Hitler years' that consumed 430,000 tons of warship construction from the > 1/2 million tons historical built. Historically only 1/2 of these ships were ever completed and only 1/2 of those prewar....largely because the navy was told to prepare for a war in the late 1940s.

The major naval engine industry produced 32,000 engine tons for the prewar fleet, which would really limit the size and capability of 23 raiders built prewar. Further more the manpower & fuel allowance for these major fleet units was really limited. Alternatively the zestroyer program could be sacrificed to 'up' both engine & warship tonnage fuel allowance & manpower.

I would have redirected the gun industries wasted on the Atlantic Wall and the coastal fleet industries and make better use of the indigenous merchant fleet. Initially the warehoused WW-I guns [186* 6" SKL guns + 200* 4"SKL guns + 380 *88 SKL guns] can be used along side the 500+ fishing boat fleet and the hundreds of merchant vessels to create a fleet.

For coastal defence during the war- only build coal powered patrol vessels /mine boot plus a fleet of small davit-able landing craft using the historical maritime petrol industry. That act alone should free up 1/4 million tons of diesel fuel PER YEAR to be used else were [diesel powered cruiser fleet /more U-Boats and/or jet fuel when that materialises] .

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#39

Post by thaddeus_c » 06 Nov 2016, 06:50

Paul Lakowski wrote:I always go big or go home.
how many capital ships are you projecting completed? and scrapping the destroyers AND torpedo boats?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#40

Post by Paul Lakowski » 08 Nov 2016, 07:35

thaddeus_c wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:I always go big or go home.
how many capital ships are you projecting completed? and scrapping the destroyers AND torpedo boats?

Historically up to the end of 1940 ~610,000 tons was invested in Hitler's incomplete war fleet, with 64,000 to U-Boats & another 100,000 on the escort fleet and 110,000 for special tankers....which left ~ 400,000 tons for the battle fleet .

2 x 51kt BB
2 x 39kt BB
5/3 x Ca [total planned 96kt /actual 89kt ]
0/2 CV [total planned 67kt /actual 34kt]
0/2 11kt CL [total planned 22kt /actual 2kt ]

Under a revised planned 1940 war ; the following warships COULD have been completed instead

2 x 51kt BB
2 x 39kt BB
2 x CV [total 67kt]
5 x CA [total 96kt]
5 x 11kt kreuzer

Assuming no Hitler interference in KM development...
Alternative plan II**

4 x 40kt Sch/Gne Battleships[6*15”guns]
4 x 33.5kt GZ/PS Aircraft carriers.
4+ 1 x [25kt] Pzschiffe D
------OR------

2 x 51kt Bis/Tirp Battleships
2 x 40kt Sch/Gne Battleships [6*15”guns]
8+1 x [25kt] Pzschiffe D

Assuming Raeder gets his way.....
Alternative plan III **
4 x 51kt Bis/Tirp Battleships
2 x 40kt Sch/Gne Battleships [6*15”guns]
2 x 33.5kt GZ/PS Aircraft carriers.
2 x [25kt] Pzschiffe D

**5 x CA along with 8 M class Kreuzer could be completed to escort the above battle fleet, In place of the first 22 Zerstroyers & 6 completed/incomplete Dithmarschen tankers in any of the above alternative plans;

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#41

Post by thaddeus_c » 12 Nov 2016, 07:32

Paul Lakowski wrote:I always go big or go home. The magnetic mines were handled poorly The KM strategy has to support the commerce war via U-Boat and later focus's on cutting the 'transatlantic life line'- if and when that matters.

That means you need large ships with flexible capabilities. They need range /fire power and speed, which rules out most of the historical fleet that was built. What you need is a large diesel powered cruiser warfare fleet ...
almost puts it back to square one, what Ship X could fulfill that role? in some respect the idea to arm (and armor) the carrier Graf Zeppelin looks like good idea although probably futile? (re: Bismarck) able to operate in Atlantic and attack targets hundreds of miles away?

you have highlighted the tonnage "wasted" on Dithmarschen-class supply ships/tankers however there is almost a decent concept there? a modified version could have served as carrier of sorts for u-boat fleet? radar, same engines as Pzrschiffe, modest armor?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#42

Post by Paul Lakowski » 13 Nov 2016, 22:16

Dithmarschen tankers were indeed great designs and were equipped with radars from 1940 on.

A MAC modification should have been an obvious next step. However the ship building plans were all based on Hitler's promise that war with the big navies would wait until the mid to late 1940s. My question is what fleet could be built if war was expected by 1940...with or without Hitler.

Against that back drop the 6 Dithmarschen tankers was a luxury KM could not afford. Historically KM started the war with 33 tankers -many of which were fast enough to manage 15 to16 knots. If the RAS refuelling systems were mass produced to be installed on these tankers a dozen could be completed by 1940 and dozens more during the war.

The ship yard space used for the Dithmarschen tankers could have built 1/2 dozen -evolved PBS designs - by 1938/39.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#43

Post by thaddeus_c » 15 Nov 2016, 04:47

Paul Lakowski wrote:Dithmarschen tankers were indeed great designs and were equipped with radars from 1940 on.

My question is what fleet could be built if war was expected by 1940...with or without Hitler.

Against that back drop the 6 Dithmarschen tankers was a luxury KM could not afford.

The ship yard space used for the Dithmarschen tankers could have built 1/2 dozen -evolved PBS designs - by 1938/39.
my scenario is that entire planned class of nine Dithmarschen-class tankers could have been constructed with same or evolved diesel engines used on Pzrschiffe, that they could have magnified the effects of u-boat war for fraction of cost and crew of PBS or other warships.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#44

Post by Paul Lakowski » 15 Nov 2016, 08:00

thaddeus_c wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:Dithmarschen tankers were indeed great designs and were equipped with radars from 1940 on.

My question is what fleet could be built if war was expected by 1940...with or without Hitler.

Against that back drop the 6 Dithmarschen tankers was a luxury KM could not afford.

The ship yard space used for the Dithmarschen tankers could have built 1/2 dozen -evolved PBS designs - by 1938/39.
my scenario is that entire planned class of nine Dithmarschen-class tankers could have been constructed with same or evolved diesel engines used on Pzrschiffe, that they could have magnified the effects of u-boat war for fraction of cost and crew of PBS or other warships.
with out 9 improved Panzerschiffe to work from these AOE , it would be a waste. Given the choice you would have to build the Panzerschiffe first.....and you can build them with twice as much fuel....like P CLASS....so you don't need the refuel at sea ?

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#45

Post by thaddeus_c » 16 Nov 2016, 03:29

Paul Lakowski wrote:
thaddeus_c wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:Against that back drop the 6 Dithmarschen tankers was a luxury KM could not afford.

The ship yard space used for the Dithmarschen tankers could have built 1/2 dozen -evolved PBS designs - by 1938/39.
my scenario is that entire planned class of nine Dithmarschen-class tankers could have been constructed with same or evolved diesel engines used on Pzrschiffe, that they could have magnified the effects of u-boat war for fraction of cost and crew of PBS or other warships.
with out 9 improved Panzerschiffe to work from these AOE , it would be a waste. Given the choice you would have to build the Panzerschiffe first.....and you can build them with twice as much fuel....like P CLASS....so you don't need the refuel at sea ?
sorry unclear? are you stating it would not be worth effort/expense to build Dithmarschen-class without large number of warships to support?

my view they would have been better employed supporting u-boats and auxiliary cruisers.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”