Kriegsmarine Ship X

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#16

Post by Paul Lakowski » 01 Oct 2016, 06:39

Takao wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:BTW allied use of helicopters were merely for search and rescue , trails in convoy duties match similar trials with Flettner helicopters operating in the Baltic from cruisers and tenders. Original plan for Fl-282 was to be a scout /ASW helicopter to supplement ship born A/C. This was established in 1938 when Raeder ordered contract to develop such Helicopters. Trails for these helicopters were begun in 1940. When were the allied trails begun?
The US Navy began testing autogyros in 1931, don't think Germany is going to be that, and found them wanting. The US Navy again tested autogyros, as well as the Royal Navy, in 1940, and again found them wanting.

A landing platform was considered impractical because of air turbulence from the superstructure. Further, when landing vertically, the pilot lost sight of the landing platform. Finally, the autogyro was not considered offensive due to it's lack of any real payload capacity.

Still, out of these discussions, came the USS Long Island, the prototype for a class of ship far more useful class of warship, the CVE.

all true but USN already had aircraft carriers....as did the RN. The KM on the other hand- not only had no aircraft carriers - but surface raiders operating oceans away would be the last ships that would get carrier air support...... Their perspectives were completely different. In 1937/38 the KM trialed STOL takeoff and landings with the Storch on a 14 x 25m deck mounted on a fleet tender. Yes the reported the same things others did [turbulence etc] but suggested follow on studies with mesh screens to brake down these vortexes into manageable amounts. The war interrupted any follow on studies.

If each raider started the war with a 20 x 40m STOL deck operating several STOL [Fi 156 or Fi 167] as scouting and CAP over the ship, that could help immensely .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#17

Post by Takao » 01 Oct 2016, 14:01

Paul Lakowski wrote:
all true but USN already had aircraft carriers....as did the RN. The KM on the other hand- not only had no aircraft carriers - but surface raiders operating oceans away would be the last ships that would get carrier air support...... Their perspectives were completely different. In 1937/38 the KM trialed STOL takeoff and landings with the Storch on a 14 x 25m deck mounted on a fleet tender. Yes the reported the same things others did [turbulence etc] but suggested follow on studies with mesh screens to brake down these vortexes into manageable amounts. The war interrupted any follow on studies.

If each raider started the war with a 20 x 40m STOL deck operating several STOL [Fi 156 or Fi 167] as scouting and CAP over the ship, that could help immensely .
If the Kriegsmarine felt that a catapult would give away a hilfskreuzer, what do you think a flight deck will do?

Although, the Fi-156 could operate under more conditions than an Arado-196, the nothing range of the Fi-156 imposes more problems than it solves.

I don't think a 20m X 40m flight deck will cut it for a Fi-167...With a forward landing deck, Landings would be quite detrimental to both plane & pilot. With an after flight deck, with windscreens, takeoff would be an issue.

Not to mention storage space for "several" Fi-156s or Fi-167s.


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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#18

Post by thaddeus_c » 01 Oct 2016, 15:54

the KM was landing the Flettner on a platform mounted on gun turret although the planned G-class escorts had a more conventional rear deck platform.

a 20k tonne auxiliary cruiser could have carried a swarm of those. again my point that it would have been useful if it ONLY flew several hundred feet overhead.

Graniterail
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 10:00
Location: NZ

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#19

Post by Graniterail » 01 Oct 2016, 18:06

Perhaps if a pre-war experimental marine unit had something like a handful of F-Lighters to practice with and build a body of theory for opposed landings around then a Malta attack might have been attempted. As to whether they actually had any such ideas & they just got put by the wayside in the general rush to rearmament or they just didn't think of it in the first place I don't know.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#20

Post by Paul Lakowski » 01 Oct 2016, 20:27

Takao wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:
all true but USN already had aircraft carriers....as did the RN. The KM on the other hand- not only had no aircraft carriers - but surface raiders operating oceans away would be the last ships that would get carrier air support...... Their perspectives were completely different. In 1937/38 the KM trialed STOL takeoff and landings with the Storch on a 14 x 25m deck mounted on a fleet tender. Yes the reported the same things others did [turbulence etc] but suggested follow on studies with mesh screens to brake down these vortexes into manageable amounts. The war interrupted any follow on studies.

If each raider started the war with a 20 x 40m STOL deck operating several STOL [Fi 156 or Fi 167] as scouting and CAP over the ship, that could help immensely .
If the Kriegsmarine felt that a catapult would give away a hilfskreuzer, what do you think a flight deck will do?

Although, the Fi-156 could operate under more conditions than an Arado-196, the nothing range of the Fi-156 imposes more problems than it solves.

I don't think a 20m X 40m flight deck will cut it for a Fi-167...With a forward landing deck, Landings would be quite detrimental to both plane & pilot. With an after flight deck, with windscreens, takeoff would be an issue.

Not to mention storage space for "several" Fi-156s or Fi-167s.

Surface raiders are PBS /CA/BB designed to find & attack convoys not the HSK. HSK would be better fitted out to carry 1/2 dozen sea planes in the hold so they can terrorise the southern hemisphere. In WW-I these HSK required -on average- 8-10 allied cruisers/destroyers/AMC to hunt them down and neutralize them....but still averaged capturing/sinking as many allied shipping. That's 1/2 dozen warships siphoned off from the northern hemisphere to hunt each HSK deployed . Had the KM been allowed to prepare for WW-II they could have deployed almost 20 HSK.

The Fi 167 had the same STOL characteristic's as the Fi 156, so it could land and takeoff provided the deck is high enough on the superstructure. The Fi 167 is fast enough to intercept Swordfish & Albacore and provide basic CAP if needed. The Fi 156 would only be a prewar stepping stone to Fi-167.Storage space would be either side of the funnel area with fold away wings.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#21

Post by Paul Lakowski » 01 Oct 2016, 21:04

Graniterail wrote:Perhaps if a pre-war experimental marine unit had something like a handful of F-Lighters to practice with and build a body of theory for opposed landings around then a Malta attack might have been attempted. As to whether they actually had any such ideas & they just got put by the wayside in the general rush to rearmament or they just didn't think of it in the first place I don't know.

The Kaisers forces in WW-I conducted a successful amphibious landing on "Operation Albion" in the Baltic in 1917.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Albion

From this action post war RM established amphibious exercise with the development of the 2nd Engineer battalion at Stettin . By 1926 they were conducting annual exercise landing on some island with dedicated steamers and WW-I 'horse boats'. By 1930 they had drawn up plans for the use of converted river barges & coastal barges to deploy larger units by coastal seas to flank an enemy during war. It should be noted that by 1926 the USMC had only 3 battalions.

With proper support & better German economy they could have been a factor in WW-II.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#22

Post by thaddeus_c » 03 Oct 2016, 03:41

could the MFPs/AFPs handle more powerful engines? even with redesigned bows? lost so many because they were so slow.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#23

Post by T. A. Gardner » 08 Oct 2016, 22:02

Paul Lakowski wrote:
Takao wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:
all true but USN already had aircraft carriers....as did the RN. The KM on the other hand- not only had no aircraft carriers - but surface raiders operating oceans away would be the last ships that would get carrier air support...... Their perspectives were completely different. In 1937/38 the KM trialed STOL takeoff and landings with the Storch on a 14 x 25m deck mounted on a fleet tender. Yes the reported the same things others did [turbulence etc] but suggested follow on studies with mesh screens to brake down these vortexes into manageable amounts. The war interrupted any follow on studies.

If each raider started the war with a 20 x 40m STOL deck operating several STOL [Fi 156 or Fi 167] as scouting and CAP over the ship, that could help immensely .
If the Kriegsmarine felt that a catapult would give away a hilfskreuzer, what do you think a flight deck will do?

Although, the Fi-156 could operate under more conditions than an Arado-196, the nothing range of the Fi-156 imposes more problems than it solves.

I don't think a 20m X 40m flight deck will cut it for a Fi-167...With a forward landing deck, Landings would be quite detrimental to both plane & pilot. With an after flight deck, with windscreens, takeoff would be an issue.

Not to mention storage space for "several" Fi-156s or Fi-167s.

Surface raiders are PBS /CA/BB designed to find & attack convoys not the HSK. HSK would be better fitted out to carry 1/2 dozen sea planes in the hold so they can terrorise the southern hemisphere. In WW-I these HSK required -on average- 8-10 allied cruisers/destroyers/AMC to hunt them down and neutralize them....but still averaged capturing/sinking as many allied shipping. That's 1/2 dozen warships siphoned off from the northern hemisphere to hunt each HSK deployed . Had the KM been allowed to prepare for WW-II they could have deployed almost 20 HSK.

The Fi 167 had the same STOL characteristic's as the Fi 156, so it could land and takeoff provided the deck is high enough on the superstructure. The Fi 167 is fast enough to intercept Swordfish & Albacore and provide basic CAP if needed. The Fi 156 would only be a prewar stepping stone to Fi-167.Storage space would be either side of the funnel area with fold away wings.
Actually, sending a second ship along fitted as a seaplane tender would have been the optimal solution. Such a ship could carry say as many as 20+ seaplanes like the Ar 196 or Fi 167, maybe even a few larger multi-engine types as well. There's no reason the Germans couldn't have fitted out a few large merchants this way to accompany their raiders.

It would have other advantages too. A pair of ships appearing on the horizon and acting like friendlies would probably cause most merchant captains less concern than a single vessel would. They might claim they are sailing together for protection and ask if their target would like to join them. Having large numbers of seaplanes available means when weather permits they can scout far and wide around the raiders for targets and enemy warships to be avoided.
The presence of a tender also means that it is possible Germany could fly out a large seaplane with spares, and such, to meet the raiders somewhere at sea. It could refuel and be serviced by the tender then fly back to Germany.
Such a seaplane tender in the company of a merchant cruiser also would allow the aircraft to find and report merchant shipping for U-boats to attack in some cases.
Last edited by T. A. Gardner on 09 Oct 2016, 19:26, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#24

Post by thaddeus_c » 09 Oct 2016, 16:58

Paul Lakowski wrote:Surface raiders are PBS /CA/BB designed to find & attack convoys not the HSK. HSK would be better fitted out to carry 1/2 dozen sea planes in the hold so they can terrorise the southern hemisphere. In WW-I these HSK required -on average- 8-10 allied cruisers/destroyers/AMC to hunt them down and neutralize them....but still averaged capturing/sinking as many allied shipping. That's 1/2 dozen warships siphoned off from the northern hemisphere to hunt each HSK deployed . Had the KM been allowed to prepare for WW-II they could have deployed almost 20 HSK.
the KM was short of Sperrbrecher also, even though they converted approx. 100 ships? but they had huge losses of those so it's not as though they had a fleet of 100 at any given point.

if they had adopted a strategy of asymmetrical warfare they could have prepared HSK and Sperrbrecher, S-boats, and Condors (commercial airliner) and confronted Allies with huge scratch fleet literally overnight.

... in addition to u-boat fleet.

my other Ship X is not 300 u-boats or huge u-boats but an interwar program for minisubs, a pre-war Seehund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seehund

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#25

Post by T. A. Gardner » 09 Oct 2016, 19:25

thaddeus_c wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:my other Ship X is not 300 u-boats or huge u-boats but an interwar program for minisubs, a pre-war Seehund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seehund
Unfortunately, the Seehund proved a total waste of materials and effort. They accomplished nothing. A major reason for this was they were simply too simplistic in design. The crew had no way to find targets unless it literally ran them over.
A Seehund crew couldn't operate on the surface in any sort of a seaway because the conning tower had too little freeboard. It was a risk just opening the hatch in any sort of water other than a calm. The chances of flooding were too high. Without a proper sonar, lacking good navigation gear, and having no facilities for the crew to rest, eat, or relieve themselves, the Seehund was a miserable assignment too.

Midget subs really proved a bust. A coastal boat in larger numbers might have helped however.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#26

Post by thaddeus_c » 10 Oct 2016, 05:23

T. A. Gardner wrote:
thaddeus_c wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:my other Ship X is not 300 u-boats or huge u-boats but an interwar program for minisubs, a pre-war Seehund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seehund
Unfortunately, the Seehund proved a total waste of materials and effort. They accomplished nothing. A major reason for this was they were simply too simplistic in design. The crew had no way to find targets unless it literally ran them over.
A Seehund crew couldn't operate on the surface in any sort of a seaway because the conning tower had too little freeboard. It was a risk just opening the hatch in any sort of water other than a calm. The chances of flooding were too high. Without a proper sonar, lacking good navigation gear, and having no facilities for the crew to rest, eat, or relieve themselves, the Seehund was a miserable assignment too.

Midget subs really proved a bust. A coastal boat in larger numbers might have helped however.
still a better way to deliver torpedo than riding towards target then jumping off at last (hopefully) moment?

my scenario is to build them pre-war as a basic trainer, using a clandestine program (at least the numbers could have been kept clandestine.)

was not speculating on using them in place of coastal boats but in addition to, they could have been delivered overland.

Graniterail
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 10:00
Location: NZ

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#27

Post by Graniterail » 10 Oct 2016, 06:39

If you're going to build midget submarines it might be worth looking at using them like British X-Craft against the Tirpitz. U-47 managed to get inside Scapa Flow & sink HMS Royal Oak in October, 1939. It was a huge surprise to the British, but it was wasted with only one ship being hit.

There was all that skill the Italians demonstrated at Alexandria in '41 hitting HMS Valiant & HMS Queen Elizabeth just waiting to be inquired about by the Germans, but that's (the lack of) co-ordination among the Fascist powers in WW2 for you.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#28

Post by thaddeus_c » 10 Oct 2016, 15:16

Graniterail wrote:If you're going to build midget submarines it might be worth looking at using them like British X-Craft
they had Type II coastal boats, probably did not evolve as they could have during the war, but am proposing mini-subs in large number for different mission(s)

Germany designed (thru front company) a small boat for Finland to be used on Lake Ladoga. so possible uses of smaller u-boats were at least looked at pre-war.

am using Seehund as generic term for 1-2 man boat but something beyond manned torpedo. something easily transported by rail.

KM had hindsight of WWI, expectation that they might control large coastline (if not France the Low Countries), and problem Allies could invade/raid ports or rivers (or withdraw at will thru them.)

instead of capital ships in any number the KM could arrive with long range rail guns, flotilla of mini-subs, and minelayers (and of course aircraft.)

most famous case of Dunkirk, would have lost other half of their destroyer force if launched against RN? but 50 -60 Seehund? who knows how successful? if nothing else confuse issue of how many u-boats Germany had?

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#29

Post by Paul Lakowski » 10 Oct 2016, 21:30

Don't think mini subs are worth the trouble...no offensive endurance. With the resources the KM wasted on U-Boats prior to the war, they could have built > 100 Type II U-Boats by the end of 1939, each capable of deploying up to 18 magnetic mines into RN ports to bottle up the fleet...that's ~ 2000 in the first wave deployed around the UK.

Had they employed mass production strategies from the beginning; that figure could have been 160 Type II U-Boats delivering 2900 magnetic mines. In the first year these magnetic mines sank one enemy ship for every two dozen mines deployed.


BTW the KM found the Sperrbrecher quite helpful and did indeed loose 1/2 in the first years of the war. In time they realized that a 2000t Sperrbrecher with VES was just as effective as the 6-12,000 ton versions and stopped wasting those valuable ships. Adequate prewar planning could have come to the same conclusion...especially if a number of large fast diesel merchant ships were more needed for HSK , V-Ship & other roles.

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

Re: Kriegsmarine Ship X

#30

Post by thaddeus_c » 11 Oct 2016, 06:10

Paul Lakowski wrote:BTW the KM found the Sperrbrecher quite helpful and did indeed loose 1/2 in the first years of the war. In time they realized that a 2000t Sperrbrecher with VES was just as effective as the 6-12,000 ton versions and stopped wasting those valuable ships. Adequate prewar planning could have come to the same conclusion...especially if a number of large fast diesel merchant ships were more needed for HSK , V-Ship & other roles.
what if they designed a concrete or mixed construction ship for pure minesweeping role? U.S. was able to build one per month of fairly large McCloskey Ship.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”