WesWorld

[Just a post on where I see Germany developing and what I would do with the German Navy.]

WesWorld Germany – Intentions

Fleet Concept
The rebuilt German fleet is intended to protect the German coasts from invasion or attack and to contest with an enemy, as much as possible, for the control of the Baltic or the North Sea. As Germany has no overseas possessions, expeditionary forces or detached squadrons such as the WWI Pacific Squadron are not needed. This concept will likely put a premium on cruisers and destroyers, and under Cleito treaty limitations tonnage may well be transferred from other categories (especially CDS and aircraft carriers) to the cruiser and destroyer categories. Mines and coastal submarines, if allowed by treaty, would also be quite desireable.

Armament
I intend, as much as possible, to use historical German weapon sizes. In other words, for a medium AA cannon, the German navy will use 37mm weapons instead of 40mm, 150mm instead of 6 inch, etc. An initial list:
8mm
13mm
15mm
20mm
30mm
37mm
50mm
55mm
88mm
105mm
128mm
150mm
170mm
203mm
210mm
240mm
283mm (nominally 280mm, but really 283mm)
305mm
350mm
380mm
406mm
420mm
450mm torpedoes (probably superseded by short versions of the 500mm torps for
S-boats and aircraft)
500mm torpedoes
533mm torpedos (probably superseded by the 600mm torps for most purposes)
600mm torpedoes
If it were acceptable to others, I might regun the ships laid down in the 1920s that are armed with 130mm guns with 128mm weapons, just because the German Navy has never used a 130mm weapon, while it did use 128mm weapons starting in 1934.
Cannon barrel lengths will be relatively long, see the various WWII German guns for examples (150mm/60 on CLs, 203mm/60 on CAs, 283mm/55s on light BBs, 380mm/52s on BBs). Projectiles will vary somewhat from history, as there are a LOT more heavyweight shells in use than in historic times (see the French 380mm/40 and Russian 381mm/52 for some examples). Projectiles larger than the 150mm will tend to run a bit heavier than historical, but certainly not 25% heavier than historical.

Dual-purpose weapons – I’m expecting that, given WesWorld’s stronger interest in aircraft and a stronger and at least formerly hostile Scandinavia added to the list of potential adversaries, dual purpose weapons are going to be more interesting to Germany than they were historically. Capital ships will probably be fitted with 150mm LA secondary and dual-purpose 105mm tertiary batteries, but destroyers might be forced by the threat of aircraft in the confined Baltic and North Seas to mount dual-purpose weapons by the late 1920s or early 1930s. Initially, these are likely to be 105mm mounts, since the development of a suitable 128mm mount will take some time.
The 105mm cannon is not an ideal destroyer weapon, lacking stopping power even in the Great War, but the Cleito Treaty’s tonnage limits for destroyers will prevent the use of the 150mm gun used on the GTB-1916 class of ships and the 150mm gun will not be suitable for AA use for a long time. A dual-purpose 128mm gun will probably be the best size available, but such a weapon even in WesWorld is unlikely before the mid-to-late 1930s.

Designs
What designs are built will depend somewhat on what treaty limitations allow. For example, if Germany were to become part of the Cleito Treaty with French limits, the types of vessels built would be different than if Greek limits were her lot in life. With French limits, there would be enough tonnage to build less-than-maximum designs, where the absolute best in quality is not needed to make up for the enforced lack of quantity. With Greek limits, this flexibility is less obvious.
For example, with French limits, capital ship construction might begin again with a class of ships based on SMS Mackensen or DKM Scharnhorst, at least in concept (fast, 280-350mm guns, well armored). Several ships of the type could be built without constraining future construction. With Greek limits, however, this is more difficult, as such a ship would use up a build slot (there are only 4) and enough tonnage that future designs would have to be less than the treaty allows unless only 2 larger ships were built, whereupon some of the allowed tonnage is left on the table. A design that allows 2 ships to be built and still leaves tonnage for 2 maximum BBs will be very light, a battlecruiser on original British lines rather than the more balanced, tougher German lines.

We're ahead of the curve in some cases on dual-purpose weapons. Note, however, that the retention of a heavy anti-surface secondary battery in historical German capital ships can be attributed to an expectation that the ship would find itself confronted with more enemy destroyers and cruisers than its escort can handle. It's not an unreasonable idea for any small navy.

I think the destroyer main gun issue here and historically reflects the treaty environment. I think the historical Versailles treaty specified 5" as the biggest gun for German DD, so that's what they developed, it being a non-metric measure they might not have otherwise. In this case, our treaties specified 13 cm, so again, Germany went straight to that caliber in lieu of any existing gun in the same ball park. The gun was, incidently, licenced from Iberia for expediency's sake.

The capital ship issue won't be an easy one, but it never is for a small navy. Germany will probably be well-served to send technical missions to receptive nations and perhaps start with something not too adventurous. I'm inclined to think that four Mackensens, emphasizing armor and speed, could be suitable for the Baltic, perhaps also four modernized Bayerns - but I think the big 40,000 t ship is the last thing I'd invest in there. However, it's your fleet.

Generally speaking, I think you're on a sound path here.

Quoted

the retention of a heavy anti-surface secondary battery in historical German capital ships can be attributed to an expectation that the ship would find itself confronted with more enemy destroyers and cruisers than its escort can handle. It's not an unreasonable idea for any small navy.

Ergo, the Philippines is following the same line of thinking. All my capital ships have "split" secondaries:
Samal - 10x155mm, 18x100mm
Bohol - 10x155mm, 24x75mm
BB32 (tenative) - 15x155mm, 16x100mm
BB38 (very tenative) - 12x155mm, 20x100mm

It does eat up some space and weight (that BB38 is a monster) but it's practical given the "escort limitation factors" - and, IMHO, the ships look better than they would with DP batteries.

The Luftwaffe also used 12.8cm guns for it's heavy Flak guns, so I'm suspecting that there was some internal bias for that bore size. It's probably that that was about as big as a fixed round could be and still be managed by hand (though the 12.8cm Flak round weighed 108 pounds). All the 130mm guns I can find data on were 2-piece rounds, which slows rate of fire, at least up until the point where the whole loading process is automated.

Versailles didn't specify a destroyer main gun size, but it limited Germany to 800 tons as the maximum size of it's destroyers, so SMALL was good.

Capital ships are, with Greek limits, going to be a problem. A modernized Mackensen couldn't contest an area with a France or a Invincible, while a Bismark-type ship could. If I have French limits, the Mackensen type looks MUCH better, at least for starters, since I can build a couple to get my feet wet before working on big boys. But we shall see what the negotiations result in.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen

Quoted

the retention of a heavy anti-surface secondary battery in historical German capital ships can be attributed to an expectation that the ship would find itself confronted with more enemy destroyers and cruisers than its escort can handle. It's not an unreasonable idea for any small navy.

Ergo, the Philippines is following the same line of thinking. All my capital ships have "split" secondaries:
Samal - 10x155mm, 18x100mm
Bohol - 10x155mm, 24x75mm
BB32 (tenative) - 15x155mm, 16x100mm
BB38 (very tenative) - 12x155mm, 20x100mm

It does eat up some space and weight (that BB38 is a monster) but it's practical given the "escort limitation factors" - and, IMHO, the ships look better than they would with DP batteries.

Agreed, the notional BB31 designs I have drawn up carry 9-12 150mm's and 16-20 105mm's. The 105mm doesn't give up a lot to a 128mm in the AA realm, but the 128mm does give up a fair amount to the 150mm in the AS realm. It's much more an issue in the smaller ships that can't afford the weight than it is in the big boys that can.

The other consideration, I suppose, is what the future looks like: if Germany believes that there's a good likelihood of getting French or no limits in the future, then perhaps smaller capital ships will be favored in the near term.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
[Just a post on where I see Germany developing and what I would do with the German Navy.]

Fleet Concept
The rebuilt German fleet is intended to protect the German coasts from invasion or attack and to contest with an enemy, as much as possible, for the control of the Baltic or the North Sea. As Germany has no overseas possessions, expeditionary forces or detached squadrons such as the WWI Pacific Squadron are not needed. This concept will likely put a premium on cruisers and destroyers, and under Cleito treaty limitations tonnage may well be transferred from other categories (especially CDS and aircraft carriers) to the cruiser and destroyer categories. Mines and coastal submarines, if allowed by treaty, would also be quite desireable.

Those two parts marked bolt don´t seem to fit together very good. Aren´t CDS exactly the type of ship suitable in the Baltic to protect the German shore?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
[Just a post on where I see Germany developing and what I would do with the German Navy.]

Fleet Concept
The rebuilt German fleet is intended to protect the German coasts from invasion or attack and to contest with an enemy, as much as possible, for the control of the Baltic or the North Sea. As Germany has no overseas possessions, expeditionary forces or detached squadrons such as the WWI Pacific Squadron are not needed. This concept will likely put a premium on cruisers and destroyers, and under Cleito treaty limitations tonnage may well be transferred from other categories (especially CDS and aircraft carriers) to the cruiser and destroyer categories. Mines and coastal submarines, if allowed by treaty, would also be quite desireable.

Those two parts marked bold don´t seem to fit together very good. Aren´t CDS exactly the type of ship suitable in the Baltic to protect the German shore?

In my opinion, no, because they're too slow, my coasts are too big, and they cannot carry enough main guns to get hits rapidly with their available firecontrol. A few CDS might be built anyway, to reinforce a location seen as vulnerable, but I'd rather have faster cruisers and destroyers than slow gunboats.

Looking at the Cleito Treaty again, though, it seems I misremembered things: I can't transfer CDS tonnage to anything else. More carrier tonnage can be transferred than I remembered, but no CDS tonnage. So it may be moot anyway.

It is moot, but the class is not to be dis-regarded. There's more to it than the escort cruiser type - you can try monitors, destroyer escorts, and so forth.

Quoted

In my opinion, no, because they're too slow, my coasts are too big

Germany doesn't really have much of a coastline. Denmark has a comparable amount around Jutland.

Quoted

It's probably that that was about as big as a fixed round could be and still be managed by hand

Depends on how fast you want to fire. 100-105mm is a good limit for quick-firing(i.e. none-split). The RN 4.5" complete round was found to be too heavy for sustained manual loading.

Quoted

A modernized Mackensen couldn't contest an area with a France or a Invincible, while a Bismark-type ship could.

Well the France class are in the Med, and are likely to stay there. What's in the French Atlantic Fleet is the two Provence class. But the Atlanteans have just given German BB designers something to think about!

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov

Quoted

A modernized Mackensen couldn't contest an area with a France or a Invincible, while a Bismark-type ship could.

Well the France class are in the Med, and are likely to stay there. What's in the French Atlantic Fleet is the two Provence class. But the Atlanteans have just given German BB designers something to think about!

No kidding!! Yikes that thing is pretty scary.

I chose the France class because it's the heaviest French ship, and while they may be in the Med now, it wouldn't take too long for them to be in the North Sea if that's what was desired of them. Strictly a what-if, nothing more than that implied or intended.

You think Memnons scary now? For a while I toyed with a 3x4 design that sacrificed some armor for firepower.

As for Germany I can't wait to see what designs we see from her in the future!

Given the way the treaty is written and the situation with Germany originally, Germany will be a special case no matter what limits it gets.

Quoted

Depends on how fast you want to fire. 100-105mm is a good limit for quick-firing(i.e. none-split). The RN 4.5" complete round was found to be too heavy for sustained manual loading.

Also consider the size of your sailors. ;-) Experience of the Loyalist Fleet in the Filipino Revolution (San Pablo engagement, specificially) is that the 130mm round, even split, is too heavy for sustained rapid fire by the average Filipino sailor. Skoda-Davao has a rush order for a smaller (still non-fixed) QF/DP weapon, which will result in a 115mm rifle replacing the 130mm. (And the 100mm, considered too close to the 115, will also be phased out in favour of the Japanese 75mm model.)

Another reason for selecting the 115mm calibre was 75(mm)+155(mm)=115(mm). ^_^

Quoted

But the Atlanteans have just given German BB designers something to think about!

They've given everyone something to think about; I can't wait to see what Canis comes up with as a reply. ;-)
*moves up contingency plans for 50,000-ton, 8x460mm battleship*

Quoted

Another reason for selecting the 115mm calibre was 75(mm)+155(mm)=115(mm). ^_^

Hu? 17+155=230.

Shell weight is also the main reason Im keeping the 4.72" gun instead of going with the heavier 5.25"

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
I can't wait to see what Canis comes up with as a reply. ;-)
*moves up contingency plans for 50,000-ton, 8x460mm battleship*

I do believe Canis has two contenders already in the works. Here and here

New BB construction is on hold for now, I think. I'm going to concentrate on refits till later in the 1930's. Maybe by 36 or 37 I'll see about some new BB's.


BTW, possibly looking at eye surgery thanks to scar tissue from my laser procedures messing up my retina in my right eye, so I might be a bit slow posting since I'm working on only one main gun director right now. The other is horribly blurry.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

Another reason for selecting the 115mm calibre was 75(mm)+155(mm)=115(mm). ^_^

Huh? 17+155=230.

I think Swampy forgot to include the "/2" in his equation: 75mm + 155mm / 2 = 115mm.

Quoted

Shell weight is also the main reason Im keeping the 4.72" gun instead of going with the heavier 5.25"

I'm thinking my plan to use the 105mm as a dual-purpose mount on smaller ships is sounding pretty good right now.

Quoted

BTW, possibly looking at eye surgery thanks to scar tissue from my laser procedures messing up my retina in my right eye, so I might be a bit slow posting since I'm working on only one main gun director right now. The other is horribly blurry.

That's not good news. But if surgery's what is needed, good luck with it.

J