The MINIMUM German surface fleet for World War II

We're constantly seeing wanks for the German navy for World War II.
I'd like to look at it from a different angle: What is the minimum reasonable fleet for the Third Reich?
Here's my take on it:
Panzerschiff: 2, or perhaps all three. Major powers have real navies, and this was the best that they could do under the treaties. They are politically necessary as a "We are a real Great Power" statement. The old predreadnoughts are mostly worn out, and something is needed to fill the captital ship role in diplomacy.

The Twins: Once again, real Great Powers have battleships. Building them at a slower pace so that they could be armed with twin 15's might be a good idea. They should be able to contest the Baltic, with its old Soviet relics, easily enough. The pair of them is no real threat to anyone else, although they are formidable raiders. Use less cutting edge machinery, though--ships that don't run are useless.

Bismarcks--eventually, but take your time. You can't afford too much in the way of a surface fleet, and the 15" twins are sufficiently impressive battleships for now. They can wait until the land and air rearmament is complete and you can afford the luxury.

Carriers: Forget it. The most important battles will be fought under land based air, they are expensive, and you need to keep replacing planes. Get Japanese advisors and start long range plans so that you aren't completely baffled when you control the continent and need to think about them.

Cruisers: A steady building program to replace the Great War relics is needed. Exactly what is needed is debatable, but certainly a few heavy cruisers will keep an enemy honest when it comes to running convoys around. Now every convoy needs a solid escort. That will also keep enemy convoy raiders honest. These ships can be risked more than the battleships. They're also good for shore bombardment in areas where hostile navies can't go--like the Baltic.

2-3 CA's for showing the flag and secondary roles. CL's for all their usual purposes.

Destroyers: You need them. How many, I don't know, but you will lose some, so you need to keep a decent supply.

U-Boats: This is a surface ship thread.
 

marathag

Banned
The idea is to make yourself a threat, for the other Navies to spend more to counter, but not so to hurt diplomatic relations. Stay friendly with the Brits.

Build improved PBs in place of the Hippers.

In place of the Twins, do a slightly larger Mogami style hybrid cruiser/carrier, with 11" triple turrets forward.

Do the Bismarck for prestige, but try to keep her closer to Treaty limits. All or Nothing Armor will help, maybe even 14" guns in triple turrets
 

thaddeus

Donor
The idea is to make yourself a threat, for the other Navies to spend more to counter, but not so to hurt diplomatic relations. Stay friendly with the Brits.

Build improved PBs in place of the Hippers.

In place of the Twins, do a slightly larger Mogami style hybrid cruiser/carrier, with 11" triple turrets forward.

Do the Bismarck for prestige, but try to keep her closer to Treaty limits. All or Nothing Armor will help, maybe even 14" guns in triple turrets
that is an interesting mix.

that Mogami/Tone classes of ships with seaplanes would be better than the historical (stillborn) carrier and Hipper-class
 
The idea is to make yourself a threat, for the other Navies to spend more to counter, but not so to hurt diplomatic relations. Stay friendly with the Brits.

Build improved PBs in place of the Hippers.


In place of the Twins, do a slightly larger Mogami style hybrid cruiser/carrier, with 11" triple turrets forward.

Do the Bismarck for prestige, but try to keep her closer to Treaty limits. All or Nothing Armor will help, maybe even 14" guns in triple turrets
These two are mutually exclusive, the reason for the AGNA was to stop the Germans from building more PBs, doing what the Brits don't want will make

The Scharnhorsts carried the same amount of float planes as a Mogami OTL, why change the armament lay out?

Bismarck was 4000 tons below the treaty limit OTL, and designing triple 35cm turrets will take significantly longer than twin 38cm
 
Britain says a BIG thank you as ut no longer has to invest so much in the navy as it no longer has to devote so much into protecting it's shipping lanes. Britain invests more into the RAF and army abd France wouldn't fall.
 
Britain says a BIG thank you as ut no longer has to invest so much in the navy as it no longer has to devote so much into protecting it's shipping lanes. Britain invests more into the RAF and army abd France wouldn't fall.
Even if British do not make KGV and Rodney class I’m sure they can handle German battleships with ease

german surface fleet was LESS than bare minimum as it is , hell it can’t even handle the French fleet ! Anything less you might as well just have a well armed coast guard and leave the coastal defence to luftwaffe and shore batteries
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
Bismarck was 4000 tons below the treaty limit OTL, and designing triple 35cm turrets will take significantly longer than twin 38cm
She was over 40,000 tons standard, and close to 50,000 loaded.

The Hybrid cruiser, so you can land aircraft at speed, and not need the dragnet and crane at slow speed. Catapults for launching
 
She was over 40,000 tons standard, and close to 50,000 loaded.

The Hybrid cruiser, so you can land aircraft at speed, and not need the dragnet and crane at slow speed. Catapults for launching
And the limit was 45,000 tons standard, she was 41,000, hence 4,000 tons under the limit

In exchange for reducing your firepower by 33%, creating a blindspot if you are running away, which the conops of the twins makes quite likely, adding a huge fire hazard and making a political fight with the Luftwaffe, you get say 25 planes, for a ship meant for use in either the North Sea, coverable by land based air, or the North Atlantic, where there will be a lot of time they aren't useable. Brilliant Idea

Edit: To the OP's point there is not much you can cut

Cutting GF and PS to a single small carrier as a learning ship is doable, no carriers is probably unacceptable politically

Need the Twins and B&T for prestige reasons, the French and Italains have 4 modern BB, so Germany needs that

PB are built under Weimar and thus free, and needed for Norway, need 3 of the CAs (2 for Norway, 1 for Russia) out of 5, but again the CL are crap so you need the CA for flag showing in general assuming no war

The CLs are needed for Norway, as are basically all the DD ready prior to them, and the DD are useful in all the Kleinkrieg, ditto the auxiliaries and small fry

Basically don't lay down GZ and PS, sub a CVL based on CA machinery but somewhat bigger/slower, avoid starting the H class BB and M class/Spahkreuzer cruisers, maybe you can skip a CA or two. So not much to cut
 
Last edited:
The IJN's experience with battlecarriers should be more than enough proof that they're a bad idea.
Eh this is one of those situations that looks worse than it was. Due to the design of the ships you basically could not increase the elevation of the last turret of the six, which meant that in longer range engagements it was dead weight and one of the two had already lost turret #5 to an accident. So converting them into battlecarriers was not as bad as it appeared, as it avoided the need to repair one ship and on the other only cost effectively 1 turret of 5. It was also very quick and the ships airwings were to be 50% scouts, to free up more carrier aircraft for fighters and bombers, with the idea that the bombers would be used rarely
 

marathag

Banned
And the limit was 45,000 tons standard, she was 41,000, hence 4,000 tons under the limit
Laid down in 1936, before the escalator clause with the Japanese not joining in 1937 was triggered.
Since Bismarck wasn't redesigned, she was going to be well overweight from 35k and over the 14"from the start.
 

marathag

Banned
The IJN's experience with battlecarriers should be more than enough proof that they're a bad idea.
Mogami was a bad luck ship from the start, so keep that in mind

For the IJN in 1944, it was making lemonade from a Lemon.

For the KM in the late 1930s, you get better scouting ability in those pre-radar days, and can launch and recover at speed, something not easy to do with the dragnet recovery for regular seaplane recovery
Plus, it might get them thinking about aerial torpedoes, to get strike capability past the range of 11" guns
 
Even if British do not make KGV and Rodney class I’m sure they can handle German battleships with ease

german surface fleet was LESS than bare minimum as it is , hell it can’t even handle the French fleet ! Anything less you might as well just have a well armed coast guard and leave the coastal defence to luftwaffe and shore batteries
Na they would still make the KGVs if Germany builds battleships. Unless they want multiple HMS Hood incidents.
 
Laid down in 1936, before the escalator clause with the Japanese not joining in 1937 was triggered.
Since Bismarck wasn't redesigned, she was going to be well overweight from 35k and over the 14"from the start.
And Article 25 of the 2LNT included the right to depart if any power authorized a ship greater than the limits, Littorio and Vittorio Veneto were 41,000 tons and 381mm armed and started construction in 1934, once they weren't cancelled Bismarck is legal even before the escalator clause redefined things
 

Garrison

Donor
We're constantly seeing wanks for the German navy for World War II.
I'd like to look at it from a different angle: What is the minimum reasonable fleet for the Third Reich?
Here's my take on it:
Panzerschiff: 2, or perhaps all three. Major powers have real navies, and this was the best that they could do under the treaties. They are politically necessary as a "We are a real Great Power" statement. The old predreadnoughts are mostly worn out, and something is needed to fill the captital ship role in diplomacy.

The Twins: Once again, real Great Powers have battleships. Building them at a slower pace so that they could be armed with twin 15's might be a good idea. They should be able to contest the Baltic, with its old Soviet relics, easily enough. The pair of them is no real threat to anyone else, although they are formidable raiders. Use less cutting edge machinery, though--ships that don't run are useless.

Bismarcks--eventually, but take your time. You can't afford too much in the way of a surface fleet, and the 15" twins are sufficiently impressive battleships for now. They can wait until the land and air rearmament is complete and you can afford the luxury.

Carriers: Forget it. The most important battles will be fought under land based air, they are expensive, and you need to keep replacing planes. Get Japanese advisors and start long range plans so that you aren't completely baffled when you control the continent and need to think about them.

Cruisers: A steady building program to replace the Great War relics is needed. Exactly what is needed is debatable, but certainly a few heavy cruisers will keep an enemy honest when it comes to running convoys around. Now every convoy needs a solid escort. That will also keep enemy convoy raiders honest. These ships can be risked more than the battleships. They're also good for shore bombardment in areas where hostile navies can't go--like the Baltic.

2-3 CA's for showing the flag and secondary roles. CL's for all their usual purposes.

Destroyers: You need them. How many, I don't know, but you will lose some, so you need to keep a decent supply.

U-Boats: This is a surface ship thread.
Okay so this might be slightly less wasteful than OTL but is it going to make one bit of strategic difference to the conduct of the war? Will it somehow make Operational Sealion possible? Or help the Ostheer to reach Moscow? Because those are the only two things that are going to meaningfully change the course of the war.
 
Bismarck was 4000 tons below the treaty limit OTL, and designing triple 35cm turrets will take significantly longer than twin 38cm
Which treaty are you referring to? The WNT and its 35,000 ton limit? In which case they are about six or seven thousand tons over the limit, and if you are referring to the escalator clause which allowed ships of up to 45,000 tons then the ships were laid down a year before that clause took effect.
 

marathag

Banned
In any case, get some Goodwill from the UK in sticking with a 35,000 ton/ 14" design in the late '30s
Act reasonable, stay on their good side for as long as possible
OTL Bismarck failed on its first voyage, so save resources and not try for an 'Ultimate' battleship that no matter how powerful, wasn't good enough to hold off what Royal Navy could bring to the party, in single combat.

Make a 14" Fast Battleship, with plenty of AAA.
Oh, and four shafts.
Maybe that could live past the first combat sortie.
 
Okay so this might be slightly less wasteful than OTL but is it going to make one bit of strategic difference to the conduct of the war? Will it somehow make Operational Sealion possible? Or help the Ostheer to reach Moscow? Because those are the only two things that are going to meaningfully change the course of the war.
Nothing much short of divine intervention is going to meaningfully change the war. By taking on GB and the USSR at the same time, not talking the US , Germany was doomed. Are we supposed to avoid all discussion of WW2 because its ending as all but inevitable?
 

marathag

Banned
Nothing much short of divine intervention is going to meaningfully change the war. By taking on GB and the USSR at the same time, not talking the US , Germany was doomed. Are we supposed to avoid all discussion of WW2 because its ending as all but inevitable?
It's not the Destination, but the voyage there.
 
Top