Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

Discussions on the Allies and the Neutral States in general and the countries that does not have sections of their own.
Post Reply
User avatar
Longarm
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 22 Jul 2004, 06:59
Location: Celestial

Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#1

Post by Longarm » 15 Apr 2008, 07:30

In the early 20th century, the Dutch navy was merely a shadow of its former self, but she was struggling to maintain as a power to be reckoned with, the plans to rebuild her aging body were put into practice, but as can be judged afterwards, few successes have been achieved, I'm looking for more info focused on this ill-fated Dutch navy-building process, particularly on the strategy, thanks in advance.



Jerry Asher
Member
Posts: 719
Joined: 06 Aug 2006, 03:48
Location: California

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#3

Post by Jerry Asher » 17 Apr 2008, 06:11

I've really packed this away somewhere but Ger Teitler who edited the Brill publication "A Dutch Spy In China", Brill, Leiden, 1999, I recall was also the author or a pamphlet regarding the the proposed (not build) battleships in the late 1930's. If I recall correctly there was a very through discussion of the naval circumstances that pretain to the East Indies and the resultant decisions. Dutch fear of secret Japanese submarine or seaplane bases (Don't overlook 13,000 islands over a thousand linear miles) led to emphasis on seaplanes and I've always been impressed by the number of photo's of IJN seaplane tenders/carriers that have made it into English language publications citing Dutch source material. HTH

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#4

Post by Andy H » 17 Apr 2008, 17:30

From Royal Netherlands Navy published by Macdonald in 1967
The larger part of the RNN was always stationed in the Far East, and the originalrigid division between the Home and Eastern fleets was later more flexible. While the cost of the Navy was borne by the home government there was, in addition, the Gouvernementsmarine-a civil force-whose cost was borne by the East Indies Government.......In the worsening international situation preceeding the WW2, the RNN made determined, but belated, efforts to increase its fighting strength. Three Battlecruisers, two light cruisers, four destroyers, nine submarines, seven armoured gunboats and a host of smaller craft were ordered, or authorised, of which only a handful ever came into service
Regards

Andy H

User avatar
pikeshot1600
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 06 Apr 2006, 15:58
Location: USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#5

Post by pikeshot1600 » 20 Apr 2008, 02:56

The funds anticipated to be expended in the 1930s on the capital units for the Netherlands Indies would have been wasted money. Aside from the fact that the Germans had no intention of delivering the 11" guns for the proposed battle cruisers, the IJN would have had little difficulty in dealing with such ships and the inadequate torpedo craft (destroyers/submarines) that were proposed. The lack of sufficient air cover was another issue.

The Indies were as indefensible against a Japanese aggressive move as were the Philippines, and even if the three battlecruisers had been available in early 1942, had they been captured by Japanese forces, they would likely have joined the IJN to be used as "super cruisers" against the Allies.

The long age of European imperial presence in the East was winding down, and partial measures like the RNN CBs was not going to change that.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#6

Post by Andy H » 22 Apr 2008, 14:12

Pikeshot wrote:
Aside from the fact that the Germans had no intention of delivering the 11" guns for the proposed battle cruisers,
Hi

Can you provide further information to flesh out your statement

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
pikeshot1600
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 06 Apr 2006, 15:58
Location: USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#7

Post by pikeshot1600 » 22 Apr 2008, 16:19

Andy H wrote:Pikeshot wrote:
Aside from the fact that the Germans had no intention of delivering the 11" guns for the proposed battle cruisers,
Hi

Can you provide further information to flesh out your statement

Regards

Andy H
The RNN, not having experience with modern capital ships, had to search out other powers' expertise and also armaments to realize the "1047" CBs. I don't know if they approached Britain, but the majority of the foreign expertise came from Italian and German builders. In the very late 1930s (1939/40), they were not the best friends of states that had a North Sea coast due to potential war plans.

Germany had commissioned Scharnhorst and Gneisenau which were roughly equivalent to 1047s, except for superior armor. Britain had the reconstructed Renown and the old Hood and Repulse, and France had the new Dunquerques. There was already enough potential class equivalent tonnage in existence, and three more of those was not in Germany's interests. Yes, they were intended for the Indies, but ships can sail back to Europe, and that did not complement German OKW scenarios. As things developed, it didn't matter, events overtaking the plans of the Dutch.

The German naval architects and engineers kept making "suggestions for improvement" that delayed the plan design, and the Italians were not helpful either. Had the war not begun until 1941 or later, it is doubtful those ships would have been in commission yet, and certainly would not have been in receipt of twenty-seven 28.3 cm guns that could be used against German forces.

I suspect the Dutch knew they were in a very disadvantageous position, but couldn't do anything about it.

ML Kurze
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 12:32
Location: Netherlands, Arnhem

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#8

Post by ML Kurze » 26 Feb 2009, 15:15

Hey everyone, hope I can be of some help in this little discussion. Something similar is going on in the What if section. There are some good books about this topic, but all are in Dutch. If some of you can read Dutch, the titles are below. They have been out of print for a while , but still the best works on the topic.
It was decided in 1927 in the 'Grondslagen voor de verdediging van en de organisatie van de weermacht in Nederlands-Indië' (trans: Foundations for the defence of and the organisation of the defence force in the Dutch-Indies) that the Navy would be the first and primary line of defence against any attack aimed at the Dutch-Indies. However, it was realised that the Navy wasn't up for the task and needed additional funding to expand and have more modern equipment. Despite the great depression and Dutch pacifism, the Fleetplan Deckers of 1935 wasn't resisted or changed due to an understanding in the goverment that militairy spending should not be budgetted , while the pacifist movement didn't unite in face of the new Fleetlaw. As such, Plan Deckers was given the green light. The plan envisioned:

- Three cruisers for the defence of the Dutch-Indies. Two active, one in reserve. These were De Ruyter, Java and Sumatra. Java and Sumatra would eventually be replaced by two new cruisers, named at the time Eendracht and Kijkduin with 10 15cm guns and 6 53,3 cm torpedotubes. These two would have been completed around 1941, 1942. In reality, they were captured by the Germans and the hulls finished under designation KH1 and KH2. They were finished by the Dutch in the 50's as De Ruyter and De Zeven Provinciën with more aa guns.
- Two squadronleadships. These were Tromp and Jacob van Heemskerck. Both would have been completed around the end of 1940 and would have 6 15 cm guns and 6 53,3 torpedotubes. They would lead destroyer squadrons. Both served in and survived the war.
- Twelve destroyers. Eight of these were from the Admiralen-class, built in the 1920's, while four new ones would be constructed. These would have been finished around the end of 1940, beginning 1941. In the war, only one saw service, the Isaac Sweers and was the only Dutch vessel to be equipped with a Dutch radar system (from Holland Signaal).
- Three gunboats, all with three 15 cm guns and a recon plane. These were Flores, Soemba and Johan Maurits van Nassau (in service).
- Three additional gunboats, K1, K2 and K3 (under construction). These were captured and used by the Germans. Only one was recovered after the war (K3).
- One new artillery training vessel, the Van Kinsbergen, armed with 4 12 cm guns and various AA guns. This ship was primarily used as a station ship in the West Indies during the war. There were other instruction ships, but were all older vessels taken from frontline duties like the Soerabaya (former Zeven Provinciën).
- Eighteen submarines of various classes, both K and O series.
- Various smaller vessel, such as minesweepers, instructing vessels, Dutch-Indies gouvernmental navy ships and obsolete ships. The latter category would be used in defence of the Dutch coast were firepower would be more important then speed. The gouvernmental navy consisted of various ships, including mtbs, mgbs and opiumhunterships, which were usually armed with a couple of 7,5 cm or 3,7 cm guns for policing and interdiction.

In 1938-1939 it was recognised that Deckers fleetplan would be insufficient to resist a Japanese attack. More powerful surface ships were needed. This would lead to the Dutch 1047 design and the Vlootplan 1940 (Fleetplan 1940). The three vessels would cost an astounding 283 million guilders and would be armed with 3x3 28,3 cm, 6x2 12 cm and 7x2 40 mm guns and with 22,5 cm modern armour. It was planned for the three vessels to be completed around 1944, with constructing starting on the first on June 1st, 1940. The ships were projected to be built in the Netherlands. However, due to the Zeven Provinciën incident in the 30's and the financial and industrial abilities of the Netherlands, it would have been a major problem to construct and man all three vessels. As such, I believe it would have gone in the same direction as the Dutch cruiser program of 1915-1925. The program projected three cruisers, Java, Sumatra and Celebes but only two would be finished. The third would have been scrapped within a year, perhaps two.
Another interesting note is that it was considered to built two battleships or 40 submarines and more aircraft instead of the battlecruisers. How the battleships would've looked like can only be guessed at, but would likely be based on Italian designs.

Without the German invasion in 1940, the Dutch fleet would have been as following in 1941/1942.
- Five active cruisers, one reserve (as in the real world war, Sumatra would not have been activated due to reliability and manning issues. I've added the squadronleadships to this tally because they were viewed as very light cruisers).
- Twelve destroyers.
- Between 3 and 6 gunboats.
- Eighteen submarines.
- Various other vessels.

Literature:
Anten, J., a.o., Hr. Ms. Kruisers 'Java' en 'Sumatra' (2001).
Boer, P.C., Het verlies van Java: een kwestie van air power (2006).
Hokke, C., Opkomst en ondergang van onze gouvernements (setengah) marine (kompenie) (1950).
Legemaate, H.J., a.o., Hr. Ms. Kruiser 'De Ruyter' 1933-1942 (1999).
Mark, C., a.o., Schepen van de Koninklijke marine in W.O. II (1997).
Verbeek, J.R., Kustverdediging 1900-1940 (1988).

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#9

Post by Andy H » 28 Feb 2009, 13:04

Many thanks ML Kurze for your input and the book titles you have listed.

Regards

Andy H

PS: A belated thanks to Pikeshot1600 for your response.

ML Kurze
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 12:32
Location: Netherlands, Arnhem

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#10

Post by ML Kurze » 22 Mar 2009, 22:20

For those interested, there is another good book on the Dutch battlecruiser program:

Teitler, G., De strijd om the slagkruisers 1938-1940 (Dieren 1984). Title transl.: The fight for the battlecruisers 1938-1940.

From it I've gleaned that the envisioned escorts for the battlecruisers were fast motorboats which would have been armed with light aa-guns, depthcharges and some advocated torpedos, while others didn't. No clear designspecifications were made, but there would have been four for every bc (12 in total) and they would have been more then 100 tons.

kgvm
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 21:14
Location: Hannover, Germany

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#11

Post by kgvm » 22 Mar 2009, 22:47

If you want something in English:
Warship International No. 3 of 1980, Battlecruiser Design Studies for the Royal Netherlands Navy 1939-40

the_ed17
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 01 May 2009, 00:46

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#12

Post by the_ed17 » 01 May 2009, 00:53

That IS a great resource (I have a copy), though it too is out of print. For something that is on the web, you guys ought to check out the Wikipedia article I wrote on these BCs ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser

Bessar
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Aug 2005, 07:21
Location: USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#13

Post by Bessar » 03 May 2009, 04:52

Here is a workup I did of the 1047 design using the "Springsharp" program (a slightly different version of this appeared on the Warship Projects Discussion baord.

Nederland, Netherlands Battle Cruiser laid down 1941

Displacement:
28,592 t light; 29,630 t standard; 31,736 t normal; 33,421 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
781.51 ft / 774.28 ft x 96.59 ft x 27.89 ft (normal load)
238.21 m / 236.00 m x 29.44 m x 8.50 m

Armament:
9 - 11.02" / 280 mm guns (3x3 guns), 669.80lbs / 303.82kg shells, 1941 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (6x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
14 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (7x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, majority aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1941 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 6,690 lbs / 3,035 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 106

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.86" / 225 mm 470.00 ft / 143.26 m 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 278.87 ft / 85.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
25.41 ft / 7.74 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 1.57" / 40 mm 470.00 ft / 143.26 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Main Belt covers 93 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 470.00 ft / 143.26 m 22.00 ft / 6.71 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 5.12" / 130 mm 8.86" / 225 mm
2nd: 2.36" / 60 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 2.95" / 75 mm

- Armour deck: 5.91" / 150 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 183,541 shp / 136,922 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 4,500nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,791 tons

Complement:
1,188 - 1,545

Cost:
£14.727 million / $58.907 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 836 tons, 2.6 %
Armour: 11,347 tons, 35.8 %
- Belts: 3,535 tons, 11.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 602 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 1,472 tons, 4.6 %
- Armour Deck: 5,610 tons, 17.7 %
- Conning Tower: 128 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 4,850 tons, 15.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,552 tons, 36.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,144 tons, 9.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 7 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
51,034 lbs / 23,149 Kg = 76.2 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 7.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 7.1 ft / 2.2 m
Roll period: 15.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.533
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.02 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -6.56 ft / -2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Mid (40 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.88 ft / 6.98 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 183.8 %
Waterplane Area: 51,350 Square feet or 4,771 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 158 lbs/sq ft or 774 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.14
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Hope this is of interest

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#14

Post by mescal » 14 May 2009, 16:36

This is certainly interesting.

It really looks like a slightly smaller and less armoured Gneisenau (including the "Ship tends to be wet forward" :D ).

I have one or two questions/remarks :
* why not leave the ends unarmored, instead of putting a rater symbolic .98" belt ?
* 14 40mm AA guns seem a bit low for a ship laid down so late
* "Miscellaneous weights: 7 tons" => as I understand SpringSharp, I think that you should leave far more miscellaneous weight if you want your ship to be able to carry one or more aircraft.
Olivier

Bessar
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Aug 2005, 07:21
Location: USA

Re: Dutch navy-building strategy in pre-ww2 years

#15

Post by Bessar » 15 May 2009, 05:08

The light AA armament was in line with contemporary designs--and consider these would have been the triaxially stabilized Hazemayer mount that the Dutch installed on their ships from De Ruyter onwards. It is reasonable if the war had started and the value of a heavier light battery was demonstrated, the Dutch would have modified their design.

The light armour protection on the ends was in the design--I tried to follow the specifications as described in Mr. Noot's article in Warship International. I would guess the Dutch specified this on the advice of the Germans, who realized the value of protecting the ship's speed by armoring the bow after their experience with Lutzow and Seydlitz in 1916.

I did this before I had refined my Springsharp technique, only adding the allowance for aviation in Noot's article. If I was starting from scratch I would make it about 35 tons. There are some who think the fire control equipment ought to be added in as well.

In any case I was trying to demonstrate that the design was really well thought-out and that the Dutch team did a creditable job within the stringent parameters.

I am glad you found this interesting--I was afraid the technicalness of seakeeping, hull strength, stability etc. might be offputting. This is a hobby, not a naval architecture forum after all.

Post Reply

Return to “The Allies and the Neutral States in general”