Germany's "Weltflotte" & Operation Sphinx

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey & Panzer

Glad you guys hooked up in this thing, your scenarios are making the actual war seem a bit mundane!

Starting U-boats in the Atlantic is a real problem; too strong and they turn things too far toward the Axis, too weak and it becomes an Easter egg hunt for the British and French. I tried doing it a few times myself and was never satisfied with the results.

Regarding the large BBs the USSR had laid down, I remember reading in Hitler's War by Edwin P. Hoyt (a love song for the Fuhrer!) that Germany gave naval specs to the USSR as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. In that book Hoyt also discusses the naval Z-Plan with the original figures including the Hindenburg BBs and the later, much larger scale lists he came up with after the Fall of France, sometimes referred to as his Blue Water Fleet.

Interesting idea about Germany's WW I navy remaining in German possession. They'd have needed to converted from coal burners to oil burners and also they were armed with 12" and 13" guns which would have needed to be replaced with larger calibre of more modern design.

In the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath scenario I had the hypothetical idea that they were stationed along the African colonies which Germany would have retained. In a Z-Plan scenario I think it's safe to assume they'd have been scrapped without modernization and replaced with new ships.

The World War One ships Britain either maintained or modernized were much heavier and were built with 15" and 16" guns toward the end of the Great War:[Rodney-Nelson]-Hood*-[Renown-Repulse]-[barham-Malaya-Queen Elizabeth and Warspite] -- sister ships within brackets; *Hood's sister ship was never completed.

Having their WW I BBs during the 20s and 30s would no doubt have meant better ship design for the Bismarck and Hindenburg classes. I guess that would be represented by the UK and Germany starting out with equal gun laying radar; I think both Italy and France should be a step lower as they lagged in electronics and many, though not all, of their BBs and BCs (FR) were underarmed (12" & 13" guns). If the US is set to enter right away, or possibly start, I'd give it the same gunnery radar as UK and Germany, if it's neutral I'd put it one up so it would be equal upon entering (if it's still one up, with only two BBs it isn't overly significant).

This Thread is developing into a great Think Tank!

[ July 25, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

Besides AA guns the Tirpitz was protected by smoke screens Doenitz actually argued against scrapping the surface fleet (ships that did not require repair) after Raeder resigned, the reason being was that they tied down a reasonable amount of RN war ships to prevent a break out.

[ July 25, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Right, it was mainly a matter of scrapping the ships under construction and placing their guns in shore batteries. Although by 1943 the Kriegsmarine was down to a comparatively small number of functional surface ships.

Those smoke screens must have been really useful, especially when combined with more smoke from deck and magazine fires!

[SeaMonkey]

Man I really like where this concept is going, Germany with its WW1 fleet. Sounds like a new campaign is in the womb. As far as the USSR activation, the only way I can see to make it fair on the East front is allow the Germans a small attacking army group. Currently AGs in "Weltflotte" are configured around HQ, with artillery(rockets), a corps, an army, a tank group, and an air fleet, although this is not written in stone and their are variations. At the beginning of this campaign Germany and Italy are poised to attack France and the Pyrenees have a small avenue of attack also, essentially France is surrounded. Therefore there are not a lot of Axis forces to deal with the Soviet threat; so I'm not particularly worried about them slicing right through. In the vastness of the USSR a German army group will be insignificant. The balancing trick is getting the Soviets potent enough to deal with the Germans after they have subdued the French and by then the US ground and air forces will be coming on line, the ole 2 front dilemma. The Med will be a rough and tumble fight at this point especially if the Brits are using the Suez loop. I,ve already got all the Italian HQs deployed, but I've been thinking I might add some flavor by putting an Italian army group on the USSR border, that is if I choose to activate them(USSR). What do y'all think the timeline will be for the other Axis minors to join? All are on neutral presently. Should I activate them? I kind of wanted to keep turkey isolated for a while. I also have thought of an optional Finnish campaign for the Soviets to train their starting units on, again dependent on activation status. Give me some feedback.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Regarding the Italians, although Mussolini kept volunteering to send things everywhere -- an obsolete fighter squadron to help in the Battle of Britain, infantry with pressed cardboard boots to fight in Russia (true!) -- I think it's best, for starting purposes, to have the Axis see things as North and South. South would be everything bordering the Mediterrannean, which would be the Italian Sphere, while North, the German Sphere, includes everything else. After a few choice conquests Italy can afford research and soon becomes a much more useful partner.

I'm still thinking about the Winter War idea. I think it has good and bad points but it will take a while to sort them out.

The WW I German fleet issue is an interesting situation but it has to be remembered that most of their BBs, aside from having smaller guns than were later considered minimal, also had the old style turret configurations, some had two turrets midship that were unable to fire in all directions while others were configured with all main guns forward, similar to the Rodney and Nelson, both of which had problems when firing full volleys. Rodney, for example, after an intense action was sent to Boston for a refit -- here nine sixteen inch guns firing in unison had loosened every joint and fitting on the ship!

On the other hand, both the German and British WW I BB fleets were very large. I'd imagine they'd have been thought of as relics by the early thirties. The older British ships, for example, were all built either toward the end of the war or in the early twenties; I don't think any of them started out as coal burners. Most of Britain's WW I fleet was scrapped as replacements were built. Greater emphasis was placed on cruisers and the large Battle Line concept was quickly displaced by the naval aviation concept which moved almost overnight from a reconaisance role to independant Task Force status.

I believe Germany would have done the same but on a smaller scale. The lesson wouldn't have been lost that the High Seas Fleet did little more than spend four years sitting in port aside from it's few and far between battles.

To me, Germany's best balance would have been two large carriers (85-100 aircraft), six to eight modern BBs, a U-boat fleet in the Atlantic and supporting cruisers in the Baltic. Presumably, if Raeder had been determined enough, Goering's nonsense could have been sidestepped and an extensive naval aviation arm established. Even without carriers Kriegsmarine fighters would have been useful in the actual war to guarantee protection for German ships in port -- a deficiency I'm certain the navy never thought it would need to worry about.

As mentioned along the way, the greatest advantage to keeping the WW I fleet would have been in researching large ship design between the wars.

[ July 25, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

Germany had some nice ships under construction at the end of WWI. The Ersatz Yorck and Mackensen class BC's could have made 28 knots and carried their 8 main guns Bismarck style. Had they survived the war they would have fell somewhere between the Bismarck and Scharhorst. You can tell the KM used the design as a spring board. With some updating they could have been a force to contend with.

[ July 25, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[Panzer39]

Btw John, do you remember what WWI German class had their guns Rodney style?

[JerseyJohn]

A tough call that I'll need to research. I remember the Germans went through a number of different turret configurations but the last time I saw layouts of them was years ago, probably in Janes Fighting Ships of WW I, a book I regrettably lost two moves ago.

Great Layout! Were those ships being planned as coal or as oil burners? Judging by the 28 knots I'd imagine they'd have used oil. Germany may well have been making plans involving it's Brest-Litovsk Treaty manipulation of Caucasus oil production.

[ July 25, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

If I remember correctly, the BC's were hybrids. I would have to go look in one of my sources though.

[xwormwood]

Panzer39

Try this webpage:

German Hochseeflotte

I think there was no Rodney-Style BB or BC, maybe only a study? :confused:

[ July 25, 2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

Fantastic site, thanks for posting it.

I looked throught the silouhettes and didn't see any that would have had all main guns forward the way Rodney and Nelson were laid out, but it did show the great variety of turret configurations that were used from 1905 through the war itself, including a lot of midship ideas. Probably the main guns forward design was strickly British at the time and Rodney/Nelson were part of a British pattern although I know the French used the idea as well. It was an effort to counter the crossing of the T maneuver.

[xwormwood]

Glad you like it.

I found 2 french BB-Type, maybe the ones you mentioned:

Dunkerque

Richelieu

[ July 25, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

xwormwood

Do you happen to know if any of the 16" guns earmarked for the Hindenburg class were ever made, and if so, where they were encased? I've read vague references to large naval guns having been installed along the Atlantic Wall but that could have meant anything from 8" on up.

I found some infos here:

German 40.6 cm/52 (16") SK C/34 / 42 cm/48 (16.5") SK C/40

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

You're a wealth of information !

Thanks again, there's some great stuff in that site.

On the earlier posting, yes, the Dunkerque had an almost identical turret configuration to the British Rodney class, though it was a much faster vessel with smaller calibre main guns. The French put their emphasis on speed where the British wanted punch. Later both were combined when BBs routinely carried 15" or 16" main guns while attaining 30 knots top speed. The all forward configuration in Rodney and Nelson didn't seem entirely sound when used in full volley broadsides.

Though more conventionally layed out, the Japanese Yamoto class (Yamoto and Musashi) experienced similar problems; firing their 18" broadsides left numerous lesser turrets with minor damage and, in some istances, knocked anti-aircraft guns off their housings!

Getting back to the original point, I'm sure now that I was mistaken about some of the WW I German BBs having the all forward main gun configuration. It's possible that the British or French WW I fleets had at least one BB class with this layout. Rodney and Nelson wouldn't have been built yet but I don't think they were the first to have been designed in that manner.

[xwormwood]

It was my pleasure to dig a bit for you in our el dorado (internet), boldly looking where no man searched before...

[Panzer39]

I think the ship you are really looking for is the French BB Richelieu. She was basically an up sized Dunkerque with 8 15 inch guns all mounted forward

Best BB design would have been the USS Montana 70,000 tons with 12 16 inch guns. The size of the guns was workable but she most likely could not have fit through the Panama Canal. It was laid down but never finished.

[ July 26, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer

I didn't know the U. S. was even considering that sort of behemoth! The Japanese built their own giants on the assumption that the U. S. wouldn't have any capital ships that couldn't move through the Panama Canal, so I guess they at least succeeded in forcing a change in the U. S. ship building policy.

Great Layout and photo of the Richelieu.

xwormwood You're right, except at this point we're closer to Lost in Space than Star Trek.

[ July 27, 2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]