Germany 1922 - what would you do?

[JWintjes]

Imagine your are at the helm of the Reichsmarine in 1922. The reputation of the navy, which was at an all-time low in 1920 (virtually non-existent), has been slowly rebuilding, the last modern cruisers are long gone as are any prospects of using material from the last cruiser building program.

So you start anew.

The question I have been pondering with a colleague is would it have been better to try to negotiate with the Allied commission to trade predread tonnage for more cruiser tonnage? Or try to get an increase in destroyer and torpedo boat tonnage?

It is interesting to note that the Reichsmarine's tactical thinking showed little change from WW1 and before. Was that inevitable? The Reichsmarine's war games usually worked around convoy escort scenarios - would large units have been necessary for that?

What do you think?

Jorit

[Werner]

What would happen if the Weimar Republic repudiated the naval clauses in the Versailles treaty while simultaneously ordering a five year freeze on construction and requesting a seat at the Washington Treaty?

In 1922, I don't think any of the Allies would be willing to restart WW.I on the basis of an inaction on the part of Germany. It is only a piece of paper, and Germany, after all, just publicly stated she would do less than allowed.

I think the Washington treaty might just have offered her something like 1.0 to 1.5 (hundred thousand tonnes) and status as a player on the world scene.

Five German Strassbourg size ships might make an interesting fleet.

[JWintjes]

What would happen if the Weimar Republic repudiated the naval clauses in the Versailles treaty while simultaneously ordering a five year freeze on construction and requesting a seat at the Washington Treaty?

French invasion of the Rhineland, with the Reichswehr having little in the way of opposing it apart from waging a guerilla war; which you don't want to do in densely populated areas against French colonial troops...

Simultaneously Polish invasion of Pommerania, again with little opposition.

In 1922, I don't think any of the Allies would be willing to restart WW.I on the basis of an inaction on the part of Germany. It is only a piece of paper, and Germany, after all, just publicly stated she would do less than allowed.

Actually, we were thinking of trading predread tonnage for cruiser/destroyer tonnage. Simply building less was refused by the Allied commission in 1919/20 (the Reichsregierung had tried to sell the navy in order to get more manpower for the army)

I think the Washington treaty might just have offered her something like 1.0 to 1.5 (hundred thousand tonnes) and status as a player on the world scene.

Five German Strassbourg size ships might make an interesting fleet.

I agree, but I think that would have been impossible from a political point of view.

Jorit

[Jefgte]

Hmmm...
Jef at the helm of the ReichMarine in 1922...


Well, I built a Navy to protect German Coast & a Squadron abble to engage Russian & French BB.

Torpedoboots
Coastal Battleships (in place of the 8 old predreadnoughts)
Torpedo Cruisers

A Baltic Squadron.



Jef

[JWintjes]

Hmmm...
Jef at the helm of the ReichMarine in 1922...


Well, I built a Navy to protect German Coast & a Squadron abble to engage Russian & French BB.

Torpedoboots
Coastal Battleships (in place of the 8 old predreadnoughts)
Torpedo Cruisers

A Baltic Squadron.

Jef

Torpedo Cruiser sounds interesting - would that simply be a cruiser with a heavy torpedo armament or a dedicated torpedo carrier?

Jorit

[Timmy C]

Torpedo Cruiser sounds interesting - would that simply be a cruiser with a heavy torpedo armament or a dedicated torpedo carrier?

Jorit

Oh no...not a European Kita/Kuma! TWCLs...oh those things are annoying.

[JWintjes]

Torpedo Cruiser sounds interesting - would that simply be a cruiser with a heavy torpedo armament or a dedicated torpedo carrier?

Jorit

Oh no...not a European Kita/Kuma! TWCLs...oh those things are annoying.

Timmy,

would you go to the blackboard please and write a hundred times "Life is not like Navy Field", please.



Jorit

[JWintjes]

A little more seriously, though - in 1922 rebuilding the fleet around a core of Panzerschiffe is out of the question simply for monetary reasons.

Which was one of the reasons why the idea of trading predread tonnage for cruiser tonnage came up in the first place. Actually, I find the idea of a torpedo cruiser very interesting; I'm wondering though how that would actually work - most of the late-WW1 cruiser hulls are not exactly geared for high speed.

Perhaps based on Brummer/Bremse or the 1916 Fleet cruiser?

Jorit

[Timmy C]

Oh just you see...there'll be n00b Kriegsmarine captains launching torps left and right just to try to hit that one UK DD on the horizon while 3 KM CAs are about to pulverize it, resulting in mass carnage because the captains were too impatient and sink their own CAs...


Ok ok, I'll stop


Edit: Well, naturally you would have a Panzerschiff hull, take all the guns off, and put torp launchers in the AA slots! Voila, an instant TWCA (ooo CA armour) and increased speed because of the absence of turrets' weight! Perfect for rushing to the front of the line and dropping its load before running back.

[Werner]

Obviously navy policy cannot be considered except in the context of the larger situation in Europe.

A five year moratorium would give the government some financial breathing space. A realistic Washington Treaty quota would set the basis for future construction.

How to do it without antagonizing the neighbors is a subtlety of foreign politics.

The Panzerschiffe is a political instrument of minor military value, as was proven. It would be better to work toward a balanced navy which meets the goals and policies of the Republic.

The first step requires the elimination of the Versailles Treaty displacement and size limitations. This must be accomplished through diplomacy however possible. Within these limits, Germany cannot even protect herself. A reasonable person would see a place for Germany at the Washington treaty would have a "civilizing" effect.

[Seasick]

I would order all Sailors to go to Munich and look for anyone named Adolf Hitler and dispatch him.

[Guest]

Several thoughts:

1. The role of cruiser in the new German navy must be clearly identified before it makes sense to consider what to trade in return for more cruiser tonnage. In 1923 it was not clear what role German cruisers would play. The first German postwar cruisers were almost rehash of wartime scout cruisers, which would have no realistic role in any serious conflict against France.

2. Pre-dreadnought tonnage is Germany's last remaining thread to a quasi-capital ship navy. The pre-dreadnoughts are the only ones allowed to be replaced with 11" 10000 ton new constructions when they are 25 years old. If Germany trades those away in return for more 5500 ton cruiser tonnage, it is by no means clear Germany could get the 10000 ton slots back.

Torpedo cruisers are a fine idea as long as no thinking is done. What would torpedo cruisers do? Against Polish Navy the Germans would not be that desperate. Against the French the German torpedo ships would be blasted out of water by true battleships of the Marine Nationale long before they reach torpedo range. We are not talking about long lances, remember.


In 1923 Germany's best bet would not be to create a navy that can play a realistic role in a war against a major power. The best bet would be to create a navy of diverse sample ships that allows Germany to preserve some semblance of expertise in every category of ships to make some effort at practicing for every catagory of naval warfare so that when political wind in Europe changes and German are once more in a position to build a credible navy, she would retain the expertise to do so.

[Jefgte]

When I speak about Torpedo cruiser, I think about a Squadron cruiser, not a raider

Here is the Russian 1916 project.



I prefer submerged TT - Torpedoes of Kuma class are too esposed to enemy fire.

Here is the Torpedo cruiser made in the Topic Weimar Navy

Weimar, Germany Torpedo cruiser laid down 1930

Displacement:
5 803 t light; 6 000 t standard; 6 633 t normal; 7 139 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
539.07 ft / 531.50 ft x 55.77 ft x 18.92 ft (normal load)
164.31 m / 162.00 m x 17.00 m x 5.77 m

Armament:
6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (2x3 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread (idem to Konigsberg turrets)
12 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 882 lbs / 400 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120
16 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 387.14 ft / 118.00 m 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
Ends: 1.57" / 40 mm 131.23 ft / 40.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
13.12 ft / 4.00 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 112 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.24" / 57 mm, Conning tower: 2.95" / 75 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 48 000 shp / 35 808 Kw = 29.55 kts
Range 6 250nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1 140 tons

Complement:
366 - 477

Cost:
�2.088 million / $8.352 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 110 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 1 627 tons, 24.5 %
- Belts: 749 tons, 11.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 92 tons, 1.4 %
- Armour Deck: 764 tons, 11.5 %
- Conning Tower: 22 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1 455 tons, 21.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2 561 tons, 38.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 830 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
6 781 lbs / 3 076 Kg = 65.9 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 3.1 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 13.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.414
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.53 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 6.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.92 ft / 1.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25.26 ft / 7.70 m
- Forecastle (19 %): 19.36 ft / 5.90 m
- Mid (0 %): 16.08 ft / 4.90 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 16.08 ft / 4.90 m
- Stern: 16.08 ft / 4.90 m
- Average freeboard: 16.84 ft / 5.13 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 149.3 %
Waterplane Area: 18 406 Square feet or 1 710 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 121 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 426 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.37
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

The 4x4 submerged torpedo tubes are near the amunition hold

Top view

IIII are the quad submerged TT

----------IIII------------IIII------
--------6--B----F-----B--6--------
----------IIII------------IIII------

This cruiser is designed with similar look as the Panzerschiff & operate in the Baltic Squadron

Jef

[JWintjes]

Chuck,

Several thoughts:

1. The role of cruiser in the new German navy must be clearly identified before it makes sense to consider what to trade in return for more cruiser tonnage. In 1923 it was not clear what role German cruisers would play. The first German postwar cruisers were almost rehash of wartime scout cruisers, which would have no realistic role in any serious conflict against France.

Good point in principle, just two remarks.

One, for the Reichsmarine command, the role of the cruisers was pretty clear - concentrated on the North Sea, trying to keeping sea lanes from Scandinavia and England open in the face of a superior French force in case of a war.

One could, of course, wonder whether this was actually a realistic proposition.

And two, only the Emden was based on the last fleet cruiser designs. The next cruisers were totally new designs, with a long-range capability mainly built into them to allow for long training cruises.

2. Pre-dreadnought tonnage is Germany's last remaining thread to a quasi-capital ship navy. The pre-dreadnoughts are the only ones allowed to be replaced with 11" 10000 ton new constructions when they are 25 years old. If Germany trades those away in return for more 5500 ton cruiser tonnage, it is by no means clear Germany could get the 10000 ton slots back.

Indeed - but that's the whole point here; would Germany be better served without capital ships in the short run? German policy is working towards rescinding Versailles, so a capital ship might be in the offing anyway at some point in the future - why not try to concentrate on that?

Torpedo cruisers are a fine idea as long as no thinking is done. What would torpedo cruisers do? Against Polish Navy the Germans would not be that desperate. Against the French the German torpedo ships would be blasted out of water by true battleships of the Marine Nationale long before they reach torpedo range. We are not talking about long lances, remember.

Good point indeed.

In 1923 Germany's best bet would not be to create a navy that can play a realistic role in a war against a major power. The best bet would be to create a navy of diverse sample ships that allows Germany to preserve some semblance of expertise in every category of ships to make some effort at practicing for every catagory of naval warfare so that when political wind in Europe changes and German are once more in a position to build a credible navy, she would retain the expertise to do so.

Well, the question is whether that would serve the needs at hand well - as there are guarding the coast, protection of SLOCs to Scandinavia and East Prussia and the like. That is difficult to do with a navy of prototypes.

What we haven't discussed yet is getting more destroyer tonnage - the M�we designs were, for their size, quite capable platforms; another flotilla of them might have been more useful than a Panzerschiff.

Jorit

[Jefgte]

I agree globaly with this view.

Torpedoboats are certainly the best choice for 1922.

Later, 1928-30 the choice could change to cruisers & Panzerschiffs to replace old Pre-Dreadnoughts


The Baltic Squadron Project begin in 1929 - OK


Jef

[richter111]

I would have secretly rearmed with U boats, coastal defense ships and destroyers, anything else at that time was a waste of money,

but then again I have the ability to know now what they did not know then-

Battleships were a dinosaur, carriers were the next step. But as a German thinking how effective my forces were in WWI, I would have pushed U boat tech. to the limits.

Just my $1.380

Ric

[chuck]

Germany was not allowed to build even a single Uboat under the terms of Versaille. With Allied control commission still running around, secret rearmament on the scale of building hidden ships would be a impressive trick.

[chuck]

When I speak about Torpedo cruiser, I think about a Squadron cruiser, not a raider

Here is the Russian 1916 project.

......

I prefer submerged TT - Torpedoes of Kuma class are too esposed to enemy fire.

Here is the Torpedo cruiser made in the Topic Weimar Navy

Kuma works because she is only known to the enemy as a normal gun cruiser, her torpedo nature is completely unknown to the enemy, and her torpedos can launch from such a long range away that the enemy could not possibly be alerted to what she really is now, and what she is up to. If her nature is generally known, she would not work. Torpedos are still such slow weapons that American battlefleet would have an hour in which to take evasive action from the minute Kuma's long lances are launched. This is why the fact that Kuma is a emergency, short-notice conversion from a well known normal cruiser is a indispensible part of her operating role. The Russian ship, judging from her abnormally light armament and somewhat unsual layout, must cause a suspicion from the start. So she can not be all that effective.

[JWintjes]

Germany was not allowed to build even a single Uboat under the terms of Versaille. With Allied control commission still running around, secret rearmament on the scale of building hidden ships would be a impressive trick.

Indeed - while a certain amount of design work could probably be hidden from the Allied commission and some preliminary steps towards construction could be undertaken, actually building them would probably have been impossible.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

When I speak about Torpedo cruiser, I think about a Squadron cruiser, not a raider

Here is the Russian 1916 project.

......

I prefer submerged TT - Torpedoes of Kuma class are too esposed to enemy fire.

Here is the Torpedo cruiser made in the Topic Weimar Navy

Kuma works because she is only known to the enemy as a normal gun cruiser, her torpedo nature is completely unknown to the enemy, and her torpedos can launch from such a long range away that the enemy could not possibly be alerted to what she really is now, and what she is up to. If her nature is generally known, she would not work. Torpedos are still such slow weapons that American battlefleet would have an hour in which to take evasive action from the minute Kuma's long lances are launched. This is why the fact that Kuma is a emergency, short-notice conversion from a well known normal cruiser is a indispensible part of her operating role. The Russian ship, judging from her abnormally light armament and somewhat unsual layout, must cause a suspicion from the start. So she can not be all that effective.

I think the main problem would probably be that in a cruiser design, which would have to fall below the 6.000 tons limit, you would have to weaken all the other combat assets considerably.

On the other hand torpedos did feature prominently in the surface warfare doctrines of the Reichsmarine (which is one of the reasons why they didn't remove the torpedos in the old Braunschweigs entirely). So a Emden with an increased torpedo armament might have been an idea not too whacky for the Reichsmarine.

Jorit