Plan Z

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 21 Aug 2010 03:39

German 'Z-Plan'
(a) Six battleships of 56,000 tons;
(b) Two battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz) of 42,000 tons;
(c) Three pocket-battleships of 31,000 tons, mounting 15-inch guns, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau converted from 11-inch to 15-inch;
(d) Three pocket-battleships (Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, Graf Spee);
(e) Two aircraft-carriers (Graf Zeppelin, launched in 1938, plus one other);
(f) Five heavy cruisers (Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen, Seydlitz, Lutzow);
(g) Forty-four light cruisers (of which six were already completed);
(h) Sixty-eight destroyers and ninety torpedo-boats;
(i) Some 249 U-boats-coastal, sea-going, and ocean-going.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14969
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Plan Z

Post by Andy H » 22 Aug 2010 14:01

Pue fantasy unless the other arms of Germany were greatly reduced.

Regards

Andy H

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 23 Aug 2010 08:24

Research on Comparative German 'Z-Plan'

Battleships 1919-77:
---6 battleships to be ready by 1944
---8 heavy cruisers, 4 by 1943 plus 4 by 1944
---4 aircraft carriers, 2 by 1941 plus 2 by 1947
---223 submarines, 128 by 1943 plus 95 by 1947

German Weapons of World War II:
---8 battleships
---5 battle-cruisers
---4 aircraft carriers
---8 heavy cruisers
---68 destroyers
---249 submarines

Encyclopedia of World War II:
---6 battleships
---8 heavy cruisers
---17 light cruisers
---4 aircraft carriers

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Plan Z

Post by bf109 emil » 23 Aug 2010 11:39

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Research on Comparative German 'Z-Plan'

Battleships 1919-77:
---6 battleships to be ready by 1944
---8 heavy cruisers, 4 by 1943 plus 4 by 1944
---4 aircraft carriers, 2 by 1941 plus 2 by 1947
---223 submarines, 128 by 1943 plus 95 by 1947

German Weapons of World War II:
---8 battleships
---5 battle-cruisers
---4 aircraft carriers
---8 heavy cruisers
---68 destroyers
---249 submarines

Encyclopedia of World War II:
---6 battleships
---8 heavy cruisers
---17 light cruisers
---4 aircraft carriers
is their enough fjords in Norway able enough to hide these futuristic German BB if and had they been built?

then again like the Tirpitz fate for been an idle threat and eventually turning turtle and rolling over, so to would most of Plan Z had it been built

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Plan Z

Post by mescal » 23 Aug 2010 12:08

The Z-plan accepted in January 1939 aimed at a balanced fleet able to defy the Royal Navy on the high sea, with the ultimate purpose of being able to take control of the sea around Great Britain to force its surrender, and to have an answer to the USN power in the Atlantic.

The Kriegsmarine would have swelled to 800+ warships, the most notable being :

BB & BC :
2 Bismarck
6 H-class battleships (62,000 tons, 8*16")
2 Scharnhorst
3 O-class battlecruisers (35,000 tons, 6*15")
=> 13 ships

4 Aircraft carriers

3 Deutschland
12 P-class Panzerschiffe (25,000 tons, 6*11")
=> 15 Panzerschiffe

5 Hipper
Emden, 3 K-class, Leipzig, Nürnberg
6 M-class cruisers (10,500 tons, 8*5.9") in two sub-classes

6 (or 12? or 22?) Spähkreuzer


Note that on the other side, the Royal Navy would probably not have remained idle if Germany went on with this plan.
It's difficult to guess what precisely would have been built, but it would probably have been a variation around the 1936 Tentative Fleet Plan.
According to Brown, this plan envisionned a fleet of
18 Battleships (probably 3 rebuilt QE, Renown, Repulse, Hood, 5 KGV and 13 new BBs)
8 fleet carriers (Ark Royal and 7 new ships)
5 light carriers ("trade protection carriers")
8 CA
55 CL
120 DD ...

On the other side of the Atlantic, the successive Navy bills from 1937 to 1940 called for 17 new battleships (2 North Carolina, 4 SoDak, 6 Iowa, 5 Montana) and a horde of carriers (Essex-class) and smaller vessels.


Thus the Z-plan was only a trigger to a renewed naval arms race - a race Germany was bound to lose.
Olivier

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 28 Aug 2010 08:45

The core of the Plan Z was 512,000 tons of steel.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Plan Z

Post by bf109 emil » 28 Aug 2010 16:11

nebelwerferXXX wrote:The core of the Plan Z was 512,000 tons of steel.
whose steel and from where...

better yet in which Nations shipyards in construction metered out to as German capacity to construct such a fleet was beyond her capabilities given the time frame

I think that a mythical force of plan Z being constructed and allowed to do so unhampered while Britain sits idle and allows her independence to now become threatened by an equally sized German navy and does nothing to halt supplies of steel from being imported during peaceful times while watching and sitting on her hands simply wasn't going to happen...I could be wrong but i think after WW1, Germany's chances of building a comparable fleet given the opportunity which would threaten Britain, France, the USA wouldn't go un-noticed or un-challenged.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Plan Z

Post by Guaporense » 01 Sep 2010 02:25

mescal wrote:Thus the Z-plan was only a trigger to a renewed naval arms race - a race Germany was bound to lose.
Mescal's determinism...

It is true that the US+UK, with their combined 190 million people had greater shipbuilding potential than Germany's 80 million people.

However, if Germany starts a massive shipbuild program sooner than US+UK, they might have a temporary lead in naval mass, with would enable them to defeat UK and establish naval superiority in the Atlantic ocean. Also, it is possible that if Germany utilizes their resources in a more efficient way than the Allies, they could reduce the difference in the rate of shipbuilding potential.

Also, if Germany got agaisnt UK alone, they would certainly have the advantage in shipbuilding potential. The US might take some years to enter the race and the time difference could have drastic consequences. Once Germany manages to have naval superiority in the Atlantic and the Pacific, they could prevent the accumulation of naval vessels by any potential enemy by destroying them once they are in the sea.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Plan Z

Post by Guaporense » 01 Sep 2010 02:48

Historically, Germany's shipbuilding efforts were small considering the size of their resource base available. Between 1940 and 1944, 8.8%* of Germany's combat munitions production was allocated to the production of naval vessels, with turned out 250 submarines per year plus some warships. Altogether, Germany produced 1.500 naval vessels during WW2, with a total displacement of over 1.2 million tons. By contrast, UK allocated about 23.4% of their combat munitions production into the Navy in 1941.**

*Arming the Reich, Tooze, table 4. Average for 1940-44 period.

**A volume index of total munitions output of the United Kingdom, 1939-1944, Mark Harrison, page 7.

The shipbuilding industry employed only 143.000 people in May 1943, while the aircraft industry employed 740.000 people, the motor vehicle industry employed 394.000 workers and the machinery industry employed 1.105.000 workers. Source: http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/149/221/0 And submarine production was about 25 per month that time.

Combat vessels production, thousands of metric tons:

US (1940-1945): 3.560.000 tons. Source: Wartime Production Achievements, 107.
Japan (1941-1945): 1.048.000 tons. Source: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#dotjf
Germany (1941-1944): 810.000 tons, of submarines only. Source: The German War Economy, Nicolas Kaldor, 1946, page 15.
UK (1940-1944): 1.430.000 tons. Source: The German War Economy, Nicolas Kaldor, 1946, page 15.

Allied: 4.990.000 tons. Axis: 1.858.000 tons.

*Also, the little know organization called the Wehrmacht employed 9.480.000 people at the time.

If Germany drops, 23.4% of their war production into the Navy like UK, instead of 8.8%, their production would be 2.153.000 tons between 1941-44. So the Axis total would increase to 3.201.000 tons, or 64% of Allied production.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Zebedee
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 05:21
Location: Manchester UK

Re: Fuel Needs of Plan Z

Post by Zebedee » 01 Sep 2010 05:33

From Tooze's The Wages of Destruction (p.294, Allen Lane, 2006):

Under the Z Plan the navy's heating-oil needs were expected to rise from the 1.4 million tons per annum originally envisioned in 1936 to 6 million tons by 1947-8, and it's requirements for diesel fuel to rise from 400,000 tons to 2 million tons. Even on the most optimistic assumptions, domestic production was not expected to exceed 2 million tons of oil and 1.34 million tons of diesel fuel by 1947-8. The German navy would therefore have to rely on accumulated stocks, which in 1939 amounted to less than 1 million tons for fuel oil and diesel combined. To provide even twelve months of unlimited operation it was calculated that the Kriegsmarine would need to construct no less than 9.6 million cubic metres of protected storage capacity.

Tooze cites Zieb's Logistik Probleme der Kriegsmarine and Meiser-Doernberg's Die Oelsversorgung der Kriegsmarine 1935 bis 1945 in his footnote for this passage.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Re: Plan Z

Post by Tim Smith » 01 Sep 2010 08:21

nebelwerferXXX wrote:The core of the Plan Z was 512,000 tons of steel.
Equivalent to 20,000 Panzer IV tanks.

So if Plan Z goes ahead, Barbarossa is totally out of the question. Germany has to permit substantial Soviet influence over Eastern Europe - Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Which means Germany would become economically completely dependent on the goodwill of the USSR.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 01 Sep 2010 09:03

Tim Smith wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:The core of the Plan Z was 513,000 tons of steel.
Equivalent to 20,000 Panzer IV tanks.

So if Plan Z goes ahead, Barbarossa is totally out of the question. Germany has to permit substantial Soviet influence over Eastern Europe - Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Which means Germany would become economically completely dependent on the goodwill of the USSR.
Another variation order for the 513,000 tons: If realigned into land-based weapons:
(a) Six battleships of 56,000 tons...336,000 tons
(b) Two battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz) of 42,000 tons...84,000 tons
(c) Three pocket-battleships (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) of 31,000 tons...93,000 tons

336,000 tons...equivalent to 40,000 Sd.Kfz. 251 half-tracks (actual production: 15,000 half-tracks)
84,000 tons...equivalent to 1,527 Tiger tanks (actual production: 1,355 Tiger tanks)
93,000 tons...equivalent to 37,200,000 belts of 50-round MG ammunition good for 1,077 days of combat.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Plan Z

Post by mescal » 01 Sep 2010 16:27

Guaporense wrote:Mescal's determinism...
Well, there is determinism in warship building.
It's simply not possible to make a shipbuilding industry appear out of nowhere... or, to be more precise, it's possible (cf. the Wilhelminian/Tirpitzian navy), but it's far more difficult than developping a preexisting shipbuilding activity.

Just as an example, to complete the Z-plan, Germany first has to build the slips to accommodate the BBs, whereas UK already has more or less enough slips to counter the Z-plan (depends perhaps on the precise level of reaction).

Moreover, there is a huge 'inertia component' in shipbiulding. That is, by the 30's, it took approximately 7 years from the preliminary study of a BB to its commissioning (and around 5-6 years for carriers). Most of these delays cannot be compressed without grave risks.
So, having a head start is a critical advantage in a naval arms race - because whatever the reaction of your opponent, you'll have years to react, since the first batch of his ships will 'only' make good the initial disadvantage.
And on this very matter, UK had a massive advantage in numbers of capital units afloat by 1939. Moreover, in the first quarter of 1939, when Germany was deciding to start the Z-plan, there were no less than 10 capital units (5 BB, 5 CV) on the building slips in UK, plus 3 BB/BC under reconstruction.
Guaporense wrote:It is true that the US+UK, with their combined 190 million people had greater shipbuilding potential than Germany's 80 million people.
It's not only a question of manpower resources. But also of geography. Germany had not so many deepwater harbors, and contrary to UK, most of its heavy industry was not located along a coast.
Guaporense wrote: However, if Germany starts a massive shipbuild program sooner than US+UK, they might have a temporary lead in naval mass, with would enable them to defeat UK and establish naval superiority in the Atlantic ocean.
Are we speaking of the 1939 Z-plan or of an hypothetical 1935 equivalent of Z-plan here ?
And what lead ??
Germany was 12 BB and ~4 CV behind at the very beginning of such an hypothetical race.
This is an incredibly wide gap to bridge, and that's precisely because I do not see how Germany could possibly bridge this gap that I stated that Germany was bound to lose a renewed naval arms race.

Guaporense wrote: Also, it is possible that if Germany utilizes their resources in a more efficient way than the Allies, they could reduce the difference in the rate of shipbuilding potential.
But to achieve control of the sea, it's better to actually build ships than 'reducing difference in the rate of shipbuilding potential'.
Guaporense wrote: Also, if Germany got agaisnt UK alone, they would certainly have the advantage in shipbuilding potential.
You're still stuck with your 'potential' ?

If the quote below is the reason "proving" it, it's a bit shallow ...
Guaporense wrote: If Germany drops, 23.4% of their war production into the Navy like UK, instead of 8.8%, their production would be 2.153.000 tons between 1941-44.
1) why do you assume linearity ?
2) why do you assume that the British and German would turn raw material into warship at the same rate ? (said differently, why do you think that the reallocation of resources from whatever OTL use to shipbuilding is costless ?)
3) why do you assume that UK and Germany's manpower have the same effficiency in building warships ?
4) why do you assume that, if Germany reallocates resources to the Navy, UK does no reallocation ?
etc ...

Anyway that's by no way a "proof".
Just an inference, and most probably not a very good one.

Oh, and BTW if Germany reallocate resources to the Navy, the Army will have less.
So France might weel stay in the war - adding many warships to the Allied potential...


Guaporense wrote: Once Germany manages to have naval superiority in the Atlantic and the Pacific,
8O 8O 8O
Oh dear !!
Atlantic AND Pacific, no less.



Finally, note also that, even if one assume that Germany had been able to build the Z-fleet, the real value of such a fleet would have been questionable.
Its opponent spent 20 years refining their doctrine and testing it, as well as testing their weapons, there was an inescapable geographic disadvantage ...

Germany's navy would have been committed to the fight while still very 'organisationnally green'.
Olivier

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Plan Z

Post by bf109 emil » 01 Sep 2010 16:55

Also, if Germany got agaisnt UK alone, they would certainly have the advantage in shipbuilding potential.
source please....and does the UK include Canada which shipyards alone outclassed and out produced those of Germany single handily?
If Germany drops, 23.4% of their war production into the Navy like UK, instead of 8.8%, their production would be 2.153.000 tons between 1941-44.
source please...and a clairvoyant stating of where, and upon which shipyards had the extra capacity to complete these increases in production...ahem and Germany....not the use of French Posts as plan Z was not intended nor apt to using French shipyards when planned...
However, if Germany starts a massive shipbuild program sooner than US+UK, they might have a temporary lead in naval mass, with would enable them to defeat UK and establish naval superiority in the Atlantic ocean.
The German economy never held the resources to purchase nor construct these ships as pointed out earlier that without war and Germany plundering other nations gold, reserves and manpower, there economy collapses by 1940...

It is wonderful that you seem to take the side of Germany and appear to hold a bias stance as to the superiority of the Nazi economy. But being an economist surely you can see the tilting of data and facts to one side has a downfall while trying to posse as being only a lister of facts and sources...

In the end i don't think the assets plundered from Jewish citizens, foreign banks and little capital held in Nazi control either affords the material it needed to purchase, facilities it would need to construct, or labor it would need to enslave in order to complete or attempt the fictitious plan Z proposal.
If Germany drops, 23.4% of their war production into the Navy like UK, instead of 8.8%, their production would be 2.153.000 tons between 1941-44. So the Axis total would increase to 3.201.000 tons, or 64% of Allied production.
this makes no sense and being an economist one should be able to see this...as prior to Germany simply changing 23.4% of their war production, can you source where German shipyards and buildings had the capacity to increase 200% above and beyond the capacity available?? as it isn't a science of math and numbers but of economies and logistics, simply changing a % does not allow Germany the ability to now complete the theory of increased production..come on are you going to tell me you actually believe this???

This would be like saying if the USA spent the 2 billion on tanks rather then the Manhattan project and employed the 130,000 people in this field, they would have had another 45,000 M4 Sherman combating in Europe above what was already made er 2,000,000,000 divided by 44,000, etc. or could have easily made an extra 3,129 B-29 using the same logic you propose? Without taking into consideration the infrastructure or locale or ability to actually divert this production into another munitions industry by simply quoting $$ and labor... :roll: :roll:

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Plan Z

Post by LWD » 02 Sep 2010 14:02

Guaporense wrote:...If Germany drops, 23.4% of their war production into the Navy like UK, instead of 8.8%, their production would be 2.153.000 tons between 1941-44. So the Axis total would increase to 3.201.000 tons, or 64% of Allied production.
Not really. As pointed out they first need to build the yards in particular the slips. These can't be built just anywhere. Especially for battleships deep harbors are needed. Once you have the yards and slips you can start on the ships but if you are talking battleships and carriers if said increase occurs in 41 you aren't going to see any additional tonage at least in capital ships by 44.

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”