Germany 1922 - what would you do?

[Laurence Batchelor]

Time to join the party here I suppose.

I think my course of action would be simple and logical.
I would assess the needs and objectives of my fleet.

Firstly as most of my foreign possessions have been confiscated I shall not be thinking of a fleet to protect my trade to and from those possessions.
Therefore my need for 'normal' cruisers would be deminished.

Secondly I would recognise that I have limited tonnage to work with dictated by Treaty and an economy and populace which is not in good shape.
To this end I would scrap whatever warships was left to me after 1918.
This would provide a little work for my scrapyards.
This in turn would mean I need to build modern vessels to replace what I'm scrapping.
This provides a small boost to my industry and economy which is still largely in place as WWI hasn't really ravaged the soils of my country.
Though of course large scale disarmament and rationalisation has already taken place in my heavy engineering sectors.

So then how to determine what to build?
As already touched on I don't have a scattering of small territory's across the globe as I had back in 1914 to protect.
What I really need to do is to re-establish a strong coastal navy to safeguard my Northern coasts from Scandavian, Russian, Dutch and French interests.

I think then small coastal battleships would be a wise idea to base my fleet around.
Low on range, but big on firepower and armour for a slugging match.
I should also pursue a very strong torpedo destroyer force as taking on those powers in the confined waters of the Baltic say would suit a well delivered spread of torpedoes well.

Thats a start for my new Navy at least.

[bengtsson]

A hard question. I assume we don't get to command the German Navy of 1922 with the aid of hindsight?

I agree with Laurence on the need to get rid of all that old junk they were left with after the war. Like Jacky Fisher, "if it can't fight and can't run away scrap IT"!

War threats in 1922 were pretty darned low, like 1 on a scale of 1-10. So, we are left with what to do with the little money we have and the terms of the treaty meant to see to it that we are helpless as a navy. No good choices in other words.

I would plan, do studies, design experiments for new mines and torpedos. Look very hard at Sub design and hope for the end of the treaty. Build DDs as the best bet for the short term. They can lay mines, torpedo surface ships and protect coastal shipping. Use these Destroyers to train officers and Petty Officers for the future. You have to consider that no war is likely for more than a decade or two.

A fast minelayer cruiser type like Bremse and Brummer may be as large a ship as I would build. Until U-boats are allowed, you can't look to a real effective navy. WWI showed you you can't outbuild the United Kingdom. The focus is on coast defence unless or until political situation in Europe changes.

Like the army did, keep it small, save money and train the elite of the nation to take over the Navy when treaty limits are gone.

So, I'de keep a modern DD program going, design alot of sub types and put two Modern fast minelayer cruisers in the water.

Not much else the Germans could do at that time

Bob B.

[JWintjes]

Time to join the party here I suppose.

I think my course of action would be simple and logical.
I would assess the needs and objectives of my fleet.

Firstly as most of my foreign possessions have been confiscated I shall not be thinking of a fleet to protect my trade to and from those possessions.
Therefore my need for 'normal' cruisers would be deminished.

Reichsmarine command thought cruisers to be essential for guaranteeing the trade routes to Scandinavia in the event of a war, and I think they were right in that. The close blockade of WW1 had had an enormous impact on German naval planning, and most of the war games in the 1921-1928 period centred on convoy escort scenarios.

Secondly I would recognise that I have limited tonnage to work with dictated by Treaty and an economy and populace which is not in good shape.
To this end I would scrap whatever warships was left to me after 1918.
This would provide a little work for my scrapyards.
This in turn would mean I need to build modern vessels to replace what I'm scrapping.
This provides a small boost to my industry and economy which is still largely in place as WWI hasn't really ravaged the soils of my country.
Though of course large scale disarmament and rationalisation has already taken place in my heavy engineering sectors.

Won't work - you're not allowed to scrap the navy and start anew, as there are strict rules for replacing old warships. Also, you're not allowed not to have a navy - the government tried exactly that to get more concessions for the army.

What I really need to do is to re-establish a strong coastal navy to safeguard my Northern coasts from Scandavian, Russian, Dutch and French interests.

I think then small coastal battleships would be a wise idea to base my fleet around.
Low on range, but big on firepower and armour for a slugging match.
I should also pursue a very strong torpedo destroyer force as taking on those powers in the confined waters of the Baltic say would suit a well delivered spread of torpedoes well.

Thats a start for my new Navy at least.

Problem: anything beyond 11" is a no-go; while there were plannings for slow monitor-type battleships with up to 15" armament, the commission made it pretty clear that nothing beyond 11" was possible. Same for the cruisers, 6" maximum.

As for the threats, they are essentially twofold: France and Poland, with Russia a very distant possibility. German planning was fixated on a Franco-Polish threat, and in all honesty that wasn't too far from the mark.

What is interesting is that we return again to the destroyers - I wonder whether they ever thought about sacrificing one or two big ships for another flotilla...

Jorit

[JWintjes]

A hard question. I assume we don't get to command the German Navy of 1922 with the aid of hindsight?

I agree with Laurence on the need to get rid of all that old junk they were left with after the war. Like Jacky Fisher, "if it can't fight and can't run away scrap IT"!

War threats in 1922 were pretty darned low, like 1 on a scale of 1-10. So, we are left with what to do with the little money we have and the terms of the treaty meant to see to it that we are helpless as a navy. No good choices in other words.

I would plan, do studies, design experiments for new mines and torpedos. Look very hard at Sub design and hope for the end of the treaty. Build DDs as the best bet for the short term. They can lay mines, torpedo surface ships and protect coastal shipping. Use these Destroyers to train officers and Petty Officers for the future. You have to consider that no war is likely for more than a decade or two.

A fast minelayer cruiser type like Bremse and Brummer may be as large a ship as I would build. Until U-boats are allowed, you can't look to a real effective navy. WWI showed you you can't outbuild the United Kingdom. The focus is on coast defence unless or until political situation in Europe changes.

Like the army did, keep it small, save money and train the elite of the nation to take over the Navy when treaty limits are gone.

So, I'de keep a modern DD program going, design alot of sub types and put two Modern fast minelayer cruisers in the water.

Not much else the Germans could do at that time

Bob B.

Good point about the minelaying cruiser. It's interesting that Brummer/Bremse don't seem to have played any role in the first postwar designs.

As for war threats, here the government and the Reichswehr command differend back in 1922 - they thought war with France to likely in the short term, mainly in context with Germany's inability to fulfil the Treaty obligations.

The problem is, in case of a war against France Germany would have been dependent on foreign import - could one guarantee convoys from Scandinavia with only destroyers?

Mind you, that's not a rhetorical question but one I find increasingly interesting.

Jorit

Jorit

[Werner]

I think it is a necessity to get out from under the Versailles Treaty restrictions and build a few light capital ships to change the equation with France.

I am sure Britain would regard a 20,000 ton battlecruiser with less concern for her well being than a squadron of destroyers or a minelaying cruiser.

[JWintjes]

I think it is a necessity to get out from under the Versailles Treaty restrictions and build a few light capital ships to change the equation with France.

Good point, but how to do that? While the British were quite positive about rescinding certain regulations of the treaty, the French were adamantly opposed to any such action.

I am sure Britain would regard a 20,000 ton battlecruiser with less concern for her well being than a squadron of destroyers or a minelaying cruiser.

Probably. By the way, it's interesting to note that the German wargames of the 1920s actually planned with support through British harbours in the case of a war.

Jorit

[Laurence Batchelor]

Reichsmarine command thought cruisers to be essential for guaranteeing the trade routes to Scandinavia in the event of a war, and I think they were right in that. The close blockade of WW1 had had an enormous impact on German naval planning, and most of the war games in the 1921-1928 period centred on convoy escort scenarios.

and whats wrong for destroyers to do this escort work?
You simply don't need cruisers, which are meant to large enough to be self supporting, with workshops onboard etc.
They are meant to operate over larger distances globally.
With the short distances involved, good weatherly destroyers seem a good idea to me.

Won't work - you're not allowed to scrap the navy and start anew, as there are strict rules for replacing old warships. Also, you're not allowed not to have a navy - the government tried exactly that to get more concessions for the army.

I thought there was a 10 or 20year rule no?
Why don't you just be clever and scrap or scuttle them without replacing them.
As scrapping is not a form of war mongering whos going to kick up a fuss in 1922?

Problem: anything beyond 11" is a no-go; while there were plannings for slow monitor-type battleships with up to 15" armament, the commission made it pretty clear that nothing beyond 11" was possible. Same for the cruisers, 6" maximum.

Easy tiger!
Who said anything about larger calibre than 11" guns!
You need something good at shore bombardment to support your army and something to threaten large enemy cruisers. 8-11" is fine for that.
If a battleship turns up, you run back to harbour and hope your heavy armour equates to good survivability!
Also you use minefields and your torpedo boats to meet that threat.

As for the threats, they are essentially twofold: France and Poland, with Russia a very distant possibility. German planning was fixated on a Franco-Polish threat, and in all honesty that wasn't too far from the mark.

What is interesting is that we return again to the destroyers - I wonder whether they ever thought about sacrificing one or two big ships for another flotilla...

Jorit

It always appears to me post WWI German destroyer development was somehwhat lacking and retarded when compared to the excellent and rapid progress she made in other warships class like E-boats and U-boats for example.

[bengtsson]

I think it is a necessity to get out from under the Versailles Treaty restrictions and build a few light capital ships to change the equation with France.

I am sure Britain would regard a 20,000 ton battlecruiser with less concern for her well being than a squadron of destroyers or a minelaying cruiser.

But Versailles IS in force, and you can't get out of it short of war. So no BCs allowed unless you want to fight France before you even lay the keel.

The Germans did seem pre-occupied with the Scadinavian convoy routes. If Britain is out of the equation, this is a correct assumption to work under. Trade with Scandinavia was Germany's maritime link to the world. War with France would have involved some action in these waters.
Cruisers would be usefull to a degree, but France had heavy ships and you do not. I'de Mine the hell out of the western waters along my convoy routes, scout the fields with aircraft and use the torpedoes and guns on my DDs and minelayer crusiers to hold any gaps that were swept in the fields. Is this a fool proof system to win a maritime war with France? Probably not, but you have to put up a show, even if the Navy you fight is much more powerful than yours. As I said, no good options for the Germans really. You can't just start a war, because you want to build a 20,000 ton Battlecruiser and France won't let you.

Bob B.

[JWintjes]

and whats wrong for destroyers to do this escort work?
You simply don't need cruisers, which are meant to large enough to be self supporting, with workshops onboard etc.
They are meant to operate over larger distances globally.
With the short distances involved, good weatherly destroyers seem a good idea to me.

As I said, that might well be a good point.

I thought there was a 10 or 20year rule no?
Why don't you just be clever and scrap or scuttle them without replacing them.
As scrapping is not a form of war mongering whos going to kick up a fuss in 1922?

15 years for destroyers/torpedo boats, 20 years for cruisers and predreads. So in 1922 you can replace torpedo boats that were launched in 1907, and bigger units launched in 1902.

The problem with scrapping is that, while Germany tried to trade much of her navy for an increase in troop numbers, the Allies didn't allow that.

Easy tiger!
Who said anything about larger calibre than 11" guns!

Ah, sorry, I thought "big on firepower and armour for a slugging match" meant something with a big ka-boom...

It always appears to me post WWI German destroyer development was somehwhat lacking and retarded when compared to the excellent and rapid progress she made in other warships class like E-boats and U-boats for example.

I disagree here - if you look at the development of German torpedo boats you'll find that the Raubvogel/Raubtier classes were quite capable platforms, and that the following torpedo boat classes - apart from those whose design where governed by unrealistic tactical concepts - were very successful.

I'd separate the torpedo-boat development from that of the larger destroyers; they started anew with the destroyers, while the torpedo boats more or less evolved from WW1 constructions (okay, that's a gross simplification, but anyway... ).

Jorit

[Laurence Batchelor]

Well I see German Destroyer development Interwar very lacking.
Did they honestly build a class which in one respect or another proved world leading? I don't see any.
Sorry I'm not familiar with the Raubvogel/Raubtier classes so I can't comment on them.

Whereas I do see innovation in E-boats and U-boats.
I see good torpedo development and innovative thinking with diesel powerplants in capital ships and cruisers and of course the Panzerschiff concept.

You would be allowed to scarp your newer ships.
As I said you need to start thinking in terms of political battering at the League of Nations.
You make it clear you wish to scale down your Navy as the force Versailles has left you with is redundant for your present needs.
You make it clear in naval circles you want a coastal navy, and you let this come out in the written press also.
You may well start with asking for an allowance of a larger standing army, putting forward some fobbed off exucse for "ah we have large borders to patrol" etc
If as you say other powers don't buy this, you back down and ask for an allowance to scrap your ships, but you won't push for more troops.
Politically this scaling down of your demands may actually be bought by others.
They are hardly going to condemn you for acting in such a passive and open way.
It will be seen politically as Germany has accepted her 'new position' in the European order and doesn't not wish to revert to her stragegy she pursued before WWI.

[JWintjes]

Well I see German Destroyer development Interwar very lacking.
Did they honestly build a class which in one respect or another proved world leading? I don't see any.
Sorry I'm not familiar with the Raubvogel/Raubtier classes so I can't comment on them.

They were a linear development from the last wartime torpedo boats. That destroyer developments was lacking was a direct result of the tonnage limits imposed on the German navy - with 800 tons max for destroyers there is not that much you can do.

It is interesting to see that the German torpedo boats of later years (apart from the first two series, that is), in contrast to the destroyers were immensely popular and highly capable.

Whereas I do see innovation in E-boats and U-boats.
I see good torpedo development and innovative thinking with diesel powerplants in capital ships and cruisers and of course the Panzerschiff concept.

Actually, use of diesel engines in capital ships wasn't that innovative as it was simply a continuation of designs from WW1.

You would be allowed to scarp your newer ships.
As I said you need to start thinking in terms of political battering at the League of Nations.

Of which you are not a member in 1922.

You make it clear you wish to scale down your Navy as the force Versailles has left you with is redundant for your present needs.

Which will be answered by the Allies with something like "we had this discussion in 1919 and our answer is still the same".

You make it clear in naval circles you want a coastal navy, and you let this come out in the written press also.

Might actually work, though - as you don't actually want a coastal navy (neither the Reichsmarine command nor the governement wanted a coastal navy) it might be difficult to hide what you're actually doing.

You may well start with asking for an allowance of a larger standing army, putting forward some fobbed off exucse for "ah we have large borders to patrol" etc

Well, the French will probably say "we'll patrol your borders for you"...

Seriously, that's the 1919 discussion, and it wouldn't work in any way.

If as you say other powers don't buy this, you back down and ask for an allowance to scrap your ships, but you won't push for more troops.
Politically this scaling down of your demands may actually be bought by others.
They are hardly going to condemn you for acting in such a passive and open way.

Ah, but you don't know the French...

Jorit

[Laurence Batchelor]

I do know the French! only too well
We fought them often no? both politically & in armed conflict.
Our naval and political policy through history is of course closely tied to each other.
Surely they are appeased somewhat by getting Alsace Lorraine and your paying those 1000s of millions?

Actually, use of diesel engines in capital ships wasn't that innovative as it was simply a continuation of designs from WW1.

Compared to other maritime powers its certainly innovative.

'League of Nations - Of which you are not a member in 1922.

Can you not present a delegation though?
Win over the British or Americans and the other powers might fall into line?

[JWintjes]

Surely they are appeased somewhat by getting Alsace Lorraine and your paying those 1000s of millions?

Ehm, no?

They wanted the Rhineland....

Compared to other maritime powers its certainly innovative.

Indeed. What I meant to say was that already before the war German ship design tried to incorporate diesel engines for capital ships. The problem back then was that the technology wasn't up to the task. So the Deutschland was more of a development of concepts already there than something totally new.

Can you not present a delegation though?

You can - but you are neither allowed to vote nor to speak.

Win over the British or Americans and the other powers might fall into line?

The British were never the problem - they had agreed to arming the Raubvogel/Raubtier boats with 5in guns. It's the French that produced the problems.

As for the Americans, they weren't members either. Splendid isolation, remember?

Politically speaking you have a nice ballroom full of nice girls - most of them are not exactly opposed to the idea of offering you a dance, and that British lady might even be in for more. But there is also that 800lb gorilla in the centre of the room, with a Phrygian cap and a tricolore. You have to get around that one first.

Jorit

[Laurence Batchelor]

I just can't see how your going to win over the French then.
No matter what course of action you take politically or with the new Navy you lay the foundations for.

Can you not just pursue your new navy strategy and ignore them?

[JWintjes]

I just can't see how your going to win over the French then.
No matter what course of action you take politically or with the new Navy you lay the foundations for.

Well, I could imagine that trading destroyer tonnage for capital ship tonnage might have been acceptable - at least they didn't try that, so we don't know how the French would have reacted.

Same goes for the cruisers. Actually, there was a cruiser proposal for a Washington-type 10.000 ton cruiser (looking like an Emden on steroids) as an alternative replacement for the Braunschweigs, but it was merely a thought experiment, and in all honesty I doubt such a ship would have been acceptable.

However, if you look at the light cruisers, there might have been more potential than in building capital ships. Leipzig (taking her because she was the last light cruiser commissioned by the Weimar Republic) was quite a modern ship for her age, packing a good punch for her size. More of these and a half flotilla of additional torpedo boats?

Can you not just pursue your new navy strategy and ignore them?

Will result in the occupation of the Rhineland, which is crippling for your economy and bad for the population there.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

By the way, thinking of additional destroyers, it's interesting to note that the 200 ton torpedo boats the navy could theoretically field were never built. Somehow they came to the conclusion that such vessels would not be suitable in any way.

One wonders what one could pack into 200tons - a large S-Boat perhaps?

Jorit

[Werner]

France owed a large debt to the USA, too, did it not? She would be in a position to temper French anger.

I would think things like the proclaimation of a Soviet Bavaria and the related turmoil of this period would be very unsettling to the British who were still fighting for the White Russians at the beginning and had very poor relations with Lenin.

Giving the Weimar and leader like Stresemann some "wins" would draw the people to the center (relatively speaking) and marginalize the communists and national socialists.

The extreme demands for retribution and punishing financial conditions were a perfect breeding ground for the extremists. Re-admitting Germany into the family of European nations and allowing her the totems of a respectable (defensive) military would have provided the stability to avoid the rise of nazis.

Germany, after all, would be too busy trying to feed her people; a respectable army and navy could both occupy some of the idle hands and on furlough, assist in the production of crops.

The activities of all sides in 1919-1923 led directly to WW.II. It is hard to imagine a worse outcome than to allow Hitler or the Reds to topple the weak center.

[richter111]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Germany secretly pursue it's sub program by building for other countries?

Besides, the worlds economy was in such shambles that it turned the blind eye to Germany for quite awhile, additionally Hitler was appeased left and right, so (again with hindsight) I would have pushed for more U boats.

Ric

[Laurence Batchelor]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Germany secretly pursue it's sub program by building for other countries?

Yes she built Two U-Boats secretly a 250tonner at Abo in Finland, which was later delivered to the Finnish Navy, and a 500ton boat built in Cadiz, which the Turks took over.

She did this by setting up a Dutch company masterminded by the great armorer of Germany, Gustov Von Krupp.
The Krupp family with its international connections already had the framework to continue the work of the U-Boat engineers and architects.
In 1922 Krupp dispatched the first of 40 German engineers to a Dutch company at the Hague where they found employment drafting U-Boat blueprints.
Krupp managed this business venture to respectability by selling shares in this new company and also by sending submarine blueprints to Japan,
Spain, Turkey, Finland, and Holland.

Before long, a perfectly respectable international business had become a breeding ground and training environment for Germany's ever growing U-Boat engineering and design capability.
German engineers, dockyard experts, and naval officers helped to supervise the submarine construction.
Small groups of men - never more than half-a-dozen at a time - travelled incognito to Spain and Finland.

Before long more foreign orders were received and depsite treaty limitations Germany was able to lead the world in submarine developement through this policy.

[Guest]

It is interesting to see that the German torpedo boats of later years (apart from the first two series, that is), in contrast to the destroyers were immensely popular and highly capable.

The German torpedo boats only took their world leading status because no one else with major naval pretensions and native warship development capability expended any effort on the dying breed. The mini-destroyer style torpedo boat, like most other mini-something style surface warship, were judged inviable and therefore abandoned by all other major naval powers.