Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
Post Reply
Oberstleutnant_Dimas
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Aug 2018, 20:00
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#1

Post by Oberstleutnant_Dimas » 19 Aug 2018, 22:03

Can anyone tell me why the Kriegsmarine look so weak than the Japanese navy?

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

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#2

Post by Paul Lakowski » 20 Aug 2018, 02:57

They were considered to be least valuable of the services and least reliable - based on the mutiny they pushed at the end of WW-I.


Darius333
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 07 Jun 2006, 22:31
Location: Germany

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#3

Post by Darius333 » 20 Aug 2018, 08:23

Why was the Japanese Army look so weak than the German army?

Thoddy
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 18 Jun 2017, 12:37
Location: Germany

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#4

Post by Thoddy » 20 Aug 2018, 08:28

The peace treaty of Versailles 1919 caused the german navy forcibly disarmed to 15,000 personnel.
Rearmament past 1934 was comparatively expensive compared to the other parts of the Wehrmacht.
"Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!"

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

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#5

Post by Andy H » 03 Oct 2018, 21:35

Darius333 wrote:
20 Aug 2018, 08:23
Why was the Japanese Army look so weak than the German army?
Hi

That's not a question for this area of the Forum, so I suggest you ask that within the Japan at War section.

Thanks

Andy

User avatar
Hoover
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: 20 Sep 2005, 09:52
Location: Verden/Germany
Contact:

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#6

Post by Hoover » 16 Oct 2018, 09:04

As Teddy said. After 1919 all modern ships were scuttled or handed over to the Entente countries.
Only a few old ships remained (like the Schleswig-Holstein), but they were obsolete for modern sea battles. From 1934 the time was far too short and Germany had not enought resources to built up a modern Navy beside the rebuilding of the Army.

The Japanese Imperial Navy still had their "big ships" from WW1 and could modernize them, like te other nations did, too.

In addition, Hitler never has been a big navy fan. His focus were on tanks and guns. The Navy never got that support by Hitler like the Army or on a smaller scale the Luftwaffe.

Bye
Frank

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

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#7

Post by Paul Lakowski » 19 Oct 2018, 23:37

further to above most discussions within KM agreed investing in U-Boat fleet had to be priority one, since this would be the vehicle of any effects in war time. Any investment in surface ships had to solve coastal defence mission first and ONLY THEN consider major warship construction that had to fit into to above mentioned U-Boat strategy and industrial effort.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#8

Post by Stiltzkin » 20 Oct 2018, 00:17

Can anyone tell me why the Kriegsmarine look so weak than the Japanese navy?
Because Germany focused on land warfare and Japan had to go to the sea (and since naval warfare is a material intensive and expensive way of conducting war, they could never compete with the Anglo-American league financially). Germany would have shifted its resources once in control of the European mainland.
Historically, they tried to achieve that in both World Wars and failed. Inside its original borders (that is either 1913 or 1937), Germany could never compete with Britain, though the overall tonnage increased substantially over the years.

Also, I would not be so sure as to title it as too "weak". Judging that only a fraction of their resources were committed to the naval conflict in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, it seems that German and Italian efforts did more damage to the Allied merchant marine force relative to Japan's efforts (they did of course sink more battleships).

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

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#9

Post by Andy H » 20 Oct 2018, 18:41

Stiltzkin wrote:
20 Oct 2018, 00:17
Also, I would not be so sure as to title it as too "weak". Judging that only a fraction of their resources were committed to the naval conflict in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, it seems that German and Italian efforts did more damage to the Allied merchant marine force relative to Japan's efforts (they did of course sink more battleships).
Hi Stiltzkin

IJN Submarine force was viewed as a purely scouting force and to act on the whole in conjunction with the larger surface units.
It had very little interest in economic or convoy warfare and it showed by the relatively small amount of merchant ships losts to IJN subs. This wasn't the case for either the KM or RM.

Mmm the largest proportion of the KM & RM's maritime/naval assets were focused upon the Atlantic and Med, with very few being deployed to say the Baltic and Black Sea etc

Regards

Andy H

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#10

Post by Stiltzkin » 20 Oct 2018, 21:12

IJN Submarine force was viewed as a purely scouting force and to act on the whole in conjunction with the larger surface units.
It had very little interest in economic or convoy warfare and it showed by the relatively small amount of merchant ships losts to IJN subs. This wasn't the case for either the KM or RM.

Mmm the largest proportion of the KM & RM's maritime/naval assets were focused upon the Atlantic and Med, with very few being deployed to say the Baltic and Black Sea etc
Yes I am aware of this, as it is based on the actual traffic (mainly supplying Britain and the USSR). It is far more useful to compare the battleship/submarine losses to GRT losses of US battleships in the PTO, but disrupting the supply lines vital to the "islands hopping" operations was nontheless relevant. Japan relied on imports of resources and thus had to protect their routes, judging by the immense merchant shipping losses https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... -wwii.html this proved to be a difficult task (compare, US submarine to Japanese merchant marine losses).

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#11

Post by Sid Guttridge » 21 Oct 2018, 12:16

Hi Oberstleutnant Dimas,

It was a matter of priorities.

Germany first had to make sure that she could not be occupied. The occupation threat came from the land, not the sea, so priority in rearmament in the 1930s was given to the Army and Luftwaffe.

Germany had naval ambitions to challenge the British later on, as the building of the Tirpitz, Bismarck and Graf Zeppelin showed, but war broke out before the full programme could be implemented. Thereafter undersea and coastal operations became the naval priorities.

By contrast, as an island group, Japan could only project its power elsewhere by sea and, having been an Ally in WWI and been guaranteed the ability to build a significant navy by the Washington Naval Treaty in the 1920s, it had had decades to build up its fleet.

Cheers,

Sid

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

Re: Why Kriegsmarine too weak?

#12

Post by thaddeus_c » 03 Nov 2018, 12:37

also the KM had been instructed a war was not imminent so the historical fleet was only a patchwork of planned build (Plan Z)

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”