Surface Fleet Building Program, Post Sept. 1939

[Takao]

nebelwerferXXX,

I second Ironmachine's criticism of you sloppy work. Do some research into you "facts" before posting them, preferably double check you data with two or more sources.

Washington Treaty: 35,000-ton for battleships and 10,000-ton for heavy cruisers.
---45,000-ton battleship (USA)
---40,000-ton battleship (British)
---3 x 64,000-ton battleships (Japan)

This passage is utter garbage.

First, the USA NEVER produced a 45,000 ton (standard displacement) battleship while the 35,000 ton limit was still in force. In 1942, The USS North Carolina had a standard displacement of 36,600 tons, and the South Dakota class battleship USS Indiana has a standard displacement of 35,900 tons. Also, the HMS King George V had a standard displacement of 38,031 tons.

Second, Japan had withdrawn from the Treaty and thus was under no limitations what-so-ever. With Japan's withdrawl from the Treaty, the first "escalator clause", Article 4 came into play

(2) No capital ship shall carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 14 in. (356 mm.); provided however that if any of the Parties to the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament signed at Washington on 6 February 1922, should fail to enter into an agreement to conform to this provision prior to the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, but in any case not later than 1 April 1937, the maximum calibre of gun carried by capital ships shall be 16 in. (406 mm.).

This allowed battleships to carry guns of a maximum caliber of 16-inches.

In 1938, the remaining nations invoked the second "escalator clause", Article 25

Article 25

(1) In the event of any vessel not in conformity with the limitations and restrictions as to standard displacement and armament prescribed by Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the present Treaty being authorised, constructed or acquired by a Power not a party to the present Treaty, each High Contracting Party reserves the right to depart if, and to the extent to which, he considers such departures necessary in order to meet the requirements of his national security;

(a) During the remaining period of the Treaty, from the limitations and restrictions of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6(1) and 7, and

(b) During the current year, from his Annual Programmes of construction and declarations of acquisition.


This right shall be exercised in accordance with the following provisions:

(2) Any High Contracting Party who considers it necessary that such right should be exercised, shall notify the other High Contracting Parties to that effect, stating precisely the nature and extent of the proposed departures and the reasons therefor.

(3) The High Contracting Parties shall thereupon consult together and endeavour to reach an agreement with a view to reducing to a minimum the extent of the departures which may be made.

(4) On the expiration of a period of three months from the date of the first of any notifications which may have been given under paragraph (2) above, each of the High Contracting Parties shall, subject to any agreement which may have been reached to the contrary, be entitled to depart during the remaining period of the present Treaty from the limitations and restrictions prescribed in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6(1) and 7 thereof.

(5) On the expiration of the period mentioned in the preceding paragraph, any High Contracting Party shall be at liberty, subject to any agreement which may have been reached during the consultations provided for in paragraph (3) above, and on informing all the other High Contracting Parties, to depart from his Annual Programmes of construction and declarations of acquisition and to alter the characteristics of any vessels building or which have already appeared in his Programmes or declarations.

(6) In such event, no delay in the acquisition, the laying of the keel, or the altering of any vessel shall be necessary by reason of any of the provisions of Part III of the present Treaty. The particulars mentioned in Article 12(b) shall, however, be communicated to all the other High Contracting Parties before the keels of any vessels are laid. In the case of acquisition, information relating to the vessel shall be given under the provisions of Article 14.

The discussions over this clause resulted in the maximum displacement being upped to 45,000 tons standard displacement.

Had the Article 25 "escalator clause" not been invoked, the Bismarck class, the French Richelieu class, and Italian Vittorio Veneto class battleships would have fallen farther outside Treaty limits than any US or British battleship.

The 1934 Program:
---Gneisenau
---28 U-boats
---fast MTB (Schnellboote) A diesel engine development contract had been given to private industry, and this produced the magnificent 20-cylinder Daimler-Benz V-form diesel.

What did you forget that Germany had started 4 Scnellboots in 1931, and another 7 in 1933(the last three had the Daimler-Benz 16 cylinder diesel instead of the 7 cylinder MAN diesel.

Also, why did you split this "1934 Program" in half?

The 1937 'Z' Plan program:
---6 battleships
---8 heavy cruisers
---17 light cruisers
---4 aircraft carriers
---223 U-boats

The Germans were only building 5 Heavy Cruisers(Admiral Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen, Seydlitz, and Lutzow), care to name the missing three...

IIRC, the Germans were also planning on building more than 17 light cruisers, I think the number I recall most was 22. Also, you forgot to add the hundreds of destroyers and smaller escorts that were included in the Z-Plan.


IMHO, these "Programs" that you mention are fictitious and were never part of any overall Kriegsmarine plan.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Ironmachine and Takao,
I committed a mistake in typing. It should be, 'The 1933 Program' and 'The 1934 Program'. I am using a book that was Printed in China. They might probably altered the facts. I just copied it from that book. Thanks!

[Takao]

Ahh, that pretty much explains it. The facts might not have been altered, it may have just been a bad translation.

See the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both ordered in February, 1934, not one in 1933 and the other in 1934. The Deutschland/Lutzow was ordered in 1928, not 1929, and the Admiral Graf Spee had her contract placed in August, 1932, not 1929. I'm still looking for the Admiral Scheer's order date, the best I have found was "Soon after 1931." in "Marine-Arsenal Band 12: Panzerschiff/Schwere Kreuzer Admiral Scheer" by Siegfried Bayer.

Further, only one U-Boat was ordered in 1933 and the was the Finnish "Vesikko", which was a prototype for the Type IIA class coastal submarine. After the Germans were finished with the submarine, the Finns purchased it in 1936. The Germans would not order their own Type IIB coastal submarines until July 20, 1934, with U-7 through U-12(6 boats), followed by the Type IAs U-25 & U-26(2 Boats), ordered on December 17, 1934. On February 2, 1935 orders were placed for they Type IIAs U-1 through U-6(6 boats) and the Type IIBs U-13 through U-24(12 boats). Orders for the larger Type VIIAs would be placed on March 25, 1935 for U-33 through U-36(4 boats), and on April 1, 1935 for U-27 through U-35(6 boats).

This gives us 8 boats ordered in 1934 and 28 boats in 1935. Now to put a further twist on this is the "Fiscal Year", which for Germany, IIRC, is April 1 - March 31, so FY 1934 would run from April 1, 1934 - March 31, 1935. Which would give us 30 U-boat orders placed during FY 1934.

As you can see the numbers just don't match up with your source.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Ahh, that pretty much explains it. The facts might not have been altered, it may have just been a bad translation.

See the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both ordered in February, 1934, not one in 1933 and the other in 1934. The Deutschland/Lutzow was ordered in 1928, not 1929, and the Admiral Graf Spee had her contract placed in August, 1932, not 1929. I'm still looking for the Admiral Scheer's order date, the best I have found was "Soon after 1931." in "Marine-Arsenal Band 12: Panzerschiff/Schwere Kreuzer Admiral Scheer" by Siegfried Bayer.

Further, only one U-Boat was ordered in 1933 and the was the Finnish "Vesikko", which was a prototype for the Type IIA class coastal submarine. After the Germans were finished with the submarine, the Finns purchased it in 1936. The Germans would not order their own Type IIB coastal submarines until July 20, 1934, with U-7 through U-12 (6 boats), followed by the Type IAs U-25 & U-26 (2 Boats), ordered on December 17, 1934. On February 2, 1935 orders were placed for they Type IIAs U-1 through U-6 (6 boats) and the Type IIBs U-13 through U-24 (12 boats). Orders for the larger Type VIIAs would be placed on March 25, 1935 for U-33 through U-36 (4 boats), and on April 1, 1935 for U-27 through U-35 (6 boats).

This gives us 8 boats ordered in 1934 and 28 boats in 1935. Now to put a further twist on this is the "Fiscal Year", which for Germany, IIRC, is April 1 - March 31, so FY 1934 would run from April 1, 1934 - March 31, 1935. Which would give us 30 U-boat orders placed during FY 1934.

As you can see the numbers just don't match up with your source.

So, the correct entry should be like this?

The 1934 Program...(Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and 8 x U-boats)
The 1935 Program...(28 x U-boats)

[nebelwerferXXX]

Treaty of Versailles: 6 battleships, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats---15,000 men. Does this 36 ships were also included in the ship strength of the German Navy in September 1939?

[Takao]

The 1934 Program...(Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and 8 x Type II U-boats)
The 1935 Program...(28 x Type VII U-boats)

re-read my response again, not all the boats in 1934 were Type IIs and not all the boats in 1935 were Type VIIs.

Treaty of Versailles: 6 battleships, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats---15,000 men. Does this 36 ships were also included in the ship strength of the German Navy in September 1939?

Germany was allowed 8 pre-dreadnoughts and 8 light cruisers, two of each were to be kept in reserve.
The list of Treaty Reichsmarine warships is:
Battleships:

# Braunschweig
# Elass
# Hessen
# Preussen
# Lothringen
# Hannover
# Schlesien*
# Schleswig-Holstein*

Cruisers:

# Niobe*
# Nymphe*
# Thetis*
# Amazone
# Medusa
# Arkona
# Hamburg
# Berlin

Destroyers:

# V1
# V2
# V3
# V5
# V6
# G6
# G7 (later T108)
# G8 (later T109)
# G10 (later T110)
# G11 (later T111)
# S18
# S19
# S23

Torpedo Boats:

# T108* (ex-G7)
# T109* (ex-G8)
# T110* (ex-G10)
# T111* (ex-G11)
# T151*
# T152*
# T153*
# T154*
# T155*
# T156*
# T157*
# T158*
# T175
# T185
# T190*
# T196

Minesweepers

# 38 Vessels

Gunnery Tenders

# Drache
# Hay
# plus 5 others

Auxiliary Vessels

# 18 Picket vessels
# 8 fishery protection vessels
# 2 accommodation ships
# 4 survey vessels
# 1 sailing ship
# various minor craft
found here http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=51

Treaty of Versailles: 6 battleships, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats---15,000 men. Does this 36 ships were also included in the ship strength of the German Navy in September 1939?

I'm not sure what you want to know here
1.) Were the Treaty ships included in the German naval strength of 1939? I don't know off-hand. Several of the ships were sold off and scrapped, while others were put to different uses than what they were originally intended. You can sift through the various ships here: http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte ... index.html
2.) Was the Treaty of Versailles still limiting the strength of the German Navy in 1939? No, Germany renounced the arms limitations of the Treaty, IIRC, 1932. Thus she could build what she wanted. However, in 1935, Germany and Great Britain signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which limited German to 35% of Britain's naval tonnage in all classes of warships.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Thanks Takao...

[nebelwerferXXX]

The raw material used in one Panzer Mark IV tank (without weapons, optical instruments or radio equipment) comprised 88,000 lb of steel...2.6 lb tin...430 lb copper...525 lb aluminum...140 lb lead...146 lb zinc...1/3 lb magnesium...256 lb rubber. For the 42,000-ton Bismarck-Class battleship, What's the breakdown of the raw materials used?

[nebelwerferXXX]

Sorry to everyone if I made some comments about computations and conversion estimates.

[Paul Lakowski]

The raw material used in one Panzer Mark IV tank (without weapons, optical instruments or radio equipment) comprised 88,000 lb of steel...2.6 lb tin...430 lb copper...525 lb aluminum...140 lb lead...146 lb zinc...1/3 lb magnesium...256 lb rubber. For the 42,000-ton Bismarck-Class battleship, What's the breakdown of the raw materials used?

Where did you get that from? 40 tons of materials to produce a 19-24 ton tank. Remove gun ammo fuel and crew and its probably 2 tons less.

[nebelwerferXXX]

The raw material used in one Panzer Mark IV tank (without weapons, optical instruments or radio equipment) comprised 86,000 lb of steel...2.6 lb tin...430 lb copper...525 lb aluminum...140 lb lead...146 lb zinc...1/3 lb magnesium...256 lb rubber. For the 42,000-ton Bismarck-Class battleship, What's the breakdown of the raw materials used?

Where did you get that from? 40 tons of materials to produce a 19-24 ton tank. Remove gun ammo fuel and crew and its probably 2 tons less.

source:
German Tanks & Fighting Vehicles of World War II, Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, p. 57

[Takao]

Actually, it is Iron(Fe), not Steel. 20211 kilos was unalloyed and 18752 kilos was alloyed sheet metal. NebelwrferXXX also left out 116.3 kilos of Potassium(K).

Panzer IV and its Variants, Walter Spielberger, pg. 60.