Best possible German coastal defence ship design to replace the pocket battleships?

[von Adler]

Say that Germany decides that a heavily armed coastal defence ship with heavy armour, decent speed and low range is to prefer instead of the OTL Deutschland class pocket battleships. Nominally they need to keep within the 10 000 ton limit of the Versailles traty, but you can cheat and make it up to 15 000 tons like the OTL Deutschlands.

How would you design such ships?

My suggestion:

2x3x30,5cm main artillery (one turret fore, one aft).
2x3x12,8cm dual purpose secondary artillery (superimposed over the main battery akin to the Sverige class forward secondary turret).
6x2x3,7cm AA guns (3 gyrostabilised pits on each side).
18x20mm AA guns (2x4 in raised gyrostabilised pits on the superstructure, 10 loose to be mounted on tripods/cones between the 3,7cm pits and taken in durign harsh weather).

240mm belt armour, 240mm turret armour, 120mm deck armour, 120mm secondaries turret armour.

No torpedo tubes, no floatplanes (it is intended to operate with an escort of destroyers and/or fleet torpedo boats and/or MTBs and within raneg of land-based air).

Speed ~26 knots (smaller ship, smaller machinery), range 5 000km (1/6 of the OTL) - carrying around 600 tons of fuel instead of the OTL 2 750 saves a lot of weight for armour, as does a slightly lower size due to not needing the same bunkerage and engines.

This ship should be superior to a Sverige class and be capable of going toe to toe with a Marat class.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Would the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control allow such a design?

They prevented the Koenigsberg-class from having 7.5” guns, for instance.

 

[CV(N)-6]

2-3-283mm(treaty requirements)
2-3-150mm
4-2-88mm
37 and 20mm guns
25 knots
250mm belt, 130mm deck
Decent TDS, FC
You have something cruisers can run circles around and QE's can keep pace with, so it can't leave the Baltic

 

[anotherlurker]

2-3-283mm(treaty requirements)
2-3-150mm
4-2-88mm
37 and 20mm guns
25 knots
250mm belt, 130mm deck
Decent TDS, FC
You have something cruisers can run circles around and QE's can keep pace with, so it can't leave the Baltic

Where it's not needed as the Finnish navy can deal with the Soviet Baltic Fleet on its own.

It also does not serve the purpose of telling the world that Germany is back in the big boys club as it's not a capital ship.

Sooo.... how many torpedo armed fast attack boats could Germany build in the 20s until people start raising eye brows?

 

[Veiovis]

Where it's not needed as the Finnish navy can deal with the Soviet Baltic Fleet on its own.

1) The Finnisch navy very much cannot "deal with" the baltic fleet on its own

2) What the hell do the Finns have to do with early 1930s germanies naval construction and plans?

It also does not serve the purpose of telling the world that Germany is back in the big boys club as it's not a capital ship.

This is a common sentiment on this board, but I am getting tired of it. People are vastly overestimating the prestige values of "capital ships" and the value of such prestige itself and Hitlers desire of or appreciation for "capital ship prestige". Thats a tripple strike!

Sooo.... how many torpedo armed fast attack boats could Germany build in the 20s until people start raising eye brows?

Germany would run out of both funds and political will long before any serious reaction would follow. Especially considering the low threat presented by such a program.

 

[anotherlurker]

1) The Finnisch navy very much cannot "deal with" the baltic fleet on its own

2) What the hell do the Finns have to do with early 1930s germanies naval construction and plans?

Enough mines to keep the Baltic Fleet stuck around Leningrad, just to show how much of a threat that fleet was.

So why would you need dedicated ships for that theatre?

This is a common sentiment on this board, but I am getting tired of it. People are vastly overestimating the prestige values of "capital ships" and the value of such prestige itself and Hitlers desire of or appreciation for "capital ship prestige". Thats a tripple strike

Everyone loved big ships with big guns, they're a sign of power as well as industrial might. You don't need to ask old Schicklgruber, the navy was appreciated by all parts of society, the rich industrialists got to build that thing, the middle class got to man it and advance in the ranks which were closed in the army and the proletariat got to work in the yard and get paid fo rit.

Germany would run out of both funds and political will long before any serious reaction would follow. Especially considering the low threat presented by such a program.

Might be seen as low threat, and certainly not as flash as a new battleship but useful, lets you keep other ships away from your shores, you can even use them to lay mine fields and conduct commerce raiding at close distance, all without putting your eggs in one outlandishly outdated death trap.

 

[Veiovis]

Enough mines to keep the Baltic Fleet stuck around Leningrad, just to show how much of a threat that fleet was.

So why would you need dedicated ships for that theatre?

Did you misquote? Is this supposed to be an answer to my questions? If yes I have no idea what you just said.

Everyone loved big ships with big guns, they're a sign of power as well as industrial might. You don't need to ask old Schicklgruber, the navy was appreciated by all parts of society, the rich industrialists got to build that thing, the middle class got to man it and advance in the ranks which were closed in the army and the proletariat got to work in the yard and get paid fo rit.

Classical vague descriptions, no proof for anything. tanks,planes or anything other was apparently build not by workers, and industrialists didn't get paid for it? And germany was already seen as phoenix raising and admired by not leftists by say 1936, with terms like "Hitlers wonder" being thrown around. At the same time Germany intervened in Spain and the allies extremly carefully tiptoed around them. The Number of german capital ships at the time was zero,unless you count pre-dreadnoughts.

Oh and the Panzerschiffe being build was subject of heated debatte all along the Republic and opposed by significant parts of the entire eloctorate. Universally beloved,indeed.

 

[von Adler]

2-3-283mm(treaty requirements)
2-3-150mm
4-2-88mm
37 and 20mm guns
25 knots
250mm belt, 130mm deck
Decent TDS, FC
You have something cruisers can run circles around and QE's can keep pace with, so it can't leave the Baltic

Quite right, I had forgotten the 11" requirement in the treaty.

 

[anotherlurker]

Did you misquote? Is this supposed to be an answer to my questions? If yes I have no idea what you just said.

Classical vague descriptions, no proof for anything. tanks,planes or anything other was apparently build not by workers, and industrialists didn't get paid for it? And germany was already seen as phoenix raising and admired by not leftists by say 1936, with terms like "Hitlers wonder" being thrown around. At the same time Germany intervened in Spain and the allies extremly carefully tiptoed around them. The Number of german capital ships at the time was zero,unless you count pre-dreadnoughts.

Oh and the Panzerschiffe being build was subject of heated debatte all along the Republic and opposed by significant parts of the entire eloctorate. Universally beloved,indeed.

You asked what Finland had to do with anything, i used it as an example as to how useful this ship would be in the Baltic, namely not really useful as the existing forces of Germany were more than capable enough to deal with the prospective main enemy there because the Soviet navy was even weaker than the German one.

1936 is out of the scope of this theads issue, this would be mostly Weimar era because the Nazis already knew what they wanted - big treaty breaking ships.

The Panzershiffe were build while the country was reeling from the Great Depression! Having soup kitchens in every town for laid off people tends to change outlooks. In more normal times it's a bit more beloved indeed (which in no way means that other things are not popular as well), pick your favorite newspaper and read the archive, around important dates for the navy such as new ships being commissioned or parliamentary debates about it.

 

[Veiovis]

You asked what Finland had to do with anything, i used it as an example as to how useful this ship would be in the Baltic, namely not really useful as the existing forces of Germany were more than capable enough to deal with the prospective main enemy there because the Soviet navy was even weaker than the German one.

I didn't ask what finland had to do with "anything", I has asked what it had to do with early 1930s german naval construction and planning, and do not consider this question answered at all.

 

[Dilvish]

Let's see.

2x3 283mm main battery.
4x2 150mm secondaries
4x2 105mm DP
A light AA battery standard for the time.
No float planes or torpedoes.
Drop the speed to 23 knots.
Weight savings (compared to the OTL design) go to heavier armor.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Did you misquote? Is this supposed to be an answer to my questions? If yes I have no idea what you just said.



Classical vague descriptions, no proof for anything. tanks,planes or anything other was apparently build not by workers, and industrialists didn't get paid for it? And germany was already seen as phoenix raising and admired by not leftists by say 1936, with terms like "Hitlers wonder" being thrown around. At the same time Germany intervened in Spain and the allies extremly carefully tiptoed around them. The Number of german capital ships at the time was zero,unless you count pre-dreadnoughts.

Oh and the Panzerschiffe being build was subject of heated debatte all along the Republic and opposed by significant parts of the entire eloctorate. Universally beloved,indeed.

A capital ship is big project that take a long time (4-5 years for German ones)
That's a guaranteed paycheck for shipyard workers for 4 years.
That's a guaranteed profit for industrialists in 4 years.

Weimar republic was slow and stupid.
If they were not, they how did Hitler get so many votes instead of some democratic republican party?

 

[tomo pauk]

Nine 240mm guns, eight heavy AA guns, automatic 37mm guns (Army Flak, not the awful Navy design), no torpedoes, 3 aircraft, another 10000-15000 HP engine power vs. historical type.

 

[NoMommsen]

Would the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control allow such a design?

They prevented the Koenigsberg-class from having 7.5” guns, for instance.

Do you have a source on that ?

All I know is that in 1921 when the design of the 'Emden III' was discussed - due to its already designed double-turrets for the 'usual' german 5.9" (15cm)guns - the Paris' ambassador conference desided that the germans are allowed 5.9" guns but on already existing mountings (no double-turrets) only.
The french wanted even reduce the calibre to 4.1" (10.5cm) as this was the calibre of the small cruisers it was supposed to replace.

This restriction was again reaffirmed in 1924/5 when a 5" (12.7cm) armament was intended for the german 'destroyers' of the Predator-class T-Boats.

Of an 7.5" inch armament of or for german ships I've never heard of.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
My suggestion:

2x3x30,5cm main artillery (one turret fore, one aft).
2x3x12,8cm dual purpose secondary artillery (superimposed over the main battery akin to the Sverige class forward secondary turret).
6x2x3,7cm AA guns (3 gyrostabilised pits on each side).
18x20mm AA guns (2x4 in raised gyrostabilised pits on the superstructure, 10 loose to be mounted on tripods/cones between the 3,7cm pits and taken in durign harsh weather).

240mm belt armour, 240mm turret armour, 120mm deck armour, 120mm secondaries turret armour.

No torpedo tubes, no floatplanes (it is intended to operate with an escort of destroyers and/or fleet torpedo boats and/or MTBs and within raneg of land-based air).

Speed ~26 knots (smaller ship, smaller machinery), range 5 000km (1/6 of the OTL) - carrying around 600 tons of fuel instead of the OTL 2 750 saves a lot of weight for armour, as does a slightly lower size due to not needing the same bunkerage and engines.
...

IMHO these are rather ambitious requirements. ... esp if compared to the contemporary designs discussed 1924 :

• Solution A
  • 3 x 2 x 30,5cm (3 turrets 2 rifles each)
  • 200 mm armor max
  • 21 knots
• Solution B
  • 1 x 3 x 35cm (1 turret 3 rifles)
  • 300mm armor max
  • 19 knots
• Solution C
  • 2 x 2 30,5cm (2 turrets 2 rifles each)
  • 180 armor max
  • 24 knots
• some earlier solutions included even
  • 2 x 2 x 38cm turrets
  • no data for me available on the other parameters but most likely even slower than solution B with somewhat lesser armor

(Source "Marien Arsenal volume 6 'PANZERSCHIFF DEUTSCHLAND'", et al in side notes of other texts regarding german rearmament)

Your assumption of 6x30,5cm plus 240mm armor plus 26 knots is ... sry to say but wishfull thinking without reference to then (first half of the twenties) existing or even just though-of technology.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Do you have a source on that ?

The wiki article on the Deutschland class has a reference that states:

For example, the Reichsmarine wanted to equip the Königsberg-class cruisers with 19 cm (7.5 in) guns, instead of the 15 cm (5.9 in) guns mounted on Emden; the NIACC prohibited the larger caliber. See O'Brien, pp. 112–113.

It would seem that the “O’Brien” listed would be
O'Brien, Phillips Payson (2001). Technology and Naval Combat in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. London: Frank Cass. From the wiki page.

That, in turn, would seem to be this book. But, I don’t have a copy of it, so I can’t verify it.

 

[Garrison]

As it turned out the big ships were a waste of resources, but it has to be borne in mind that in the context of when they were planned and commissioned they were meant to be the vanguard of a much larger fleet. The Kriegsmarine was working to build its strength up for a war that wasn't supposed to happen until the mid 1940's. Had they foreseen what would actually happen they might have made different construction decisions, but even then I doubt they would have abandoned the construction of ships that would give them a blue water capability.

 

[NoMommsen]

The wiki article on the Deutschland class has a reference that states:

For example, the Reichsmarine wanted to equip the Königsberg-class cruisers with 19 cm (7.5 in) guns, instead of the 15 cm (5.9 in) guns mounted on Emden; the NIACC prohibited the larger caliber. See O'Brien, pp. 112–113.

It would seem that the “O’Brien” listed would be
O'Brien, Phillips Payson (2001). Technology and Naval Combat in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. London: Frank Cass. From the wiki page.

That, in turn, would seem to be this book. But, I don’t have a copy of it, so I can’t verify it.

I don't have access to that book either but I looked up my german sources on naval things.

You are right in that it seems that the 19cm calibre was actually thought about in the early conceptional design phases of the K-class in 1925.
But not having a design of such a gun at hands being a complete new design of yet unknown/unfamiliar calibre as well as having just made their ... experiences with the NIACC - as desribed above - leading obediantly they skipped the idea rather early, before any member of the NIACC actually get a word of.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

...as well as having just made their ... experiences with the NIACC - as desribed above - leading obediantly they skipped the idea rather early, before any member of the NIACC actually get a word of.

This is an important point for the discussion though. The Weimar government of the early 20s, whilst hardly friendly to France and Britain, was conscious of the views of the erstwhile Entente powers. There was a desire to “rejoin the concert of nations” by enough of those in government in Berlin to make building some “über-Kreuzer” pretty much an impossibility. Cheating on the tonnage would be considered “fair” (and indeed was) but building anything with guns 30.5cm and up is highly unlikely, given the climate.

 

[jsb]

Cheating on the tonnage would be considered “fair” (and indeed was)

Its also not cheating if they have not set what weight to use and no it cant be standard as that's from WNT and later....... so its questionable if they are cheating untill they declair them later at standard wrongly for AGNA as they could just be 10,000t "KM super light" (ie without all moving parts/fitting/etc as that not hull weight....)?