I'm not so sure the A.G.N.A. ought to hold the description "problem" rather than solution to the Versailles restrictions - be it of a political nature or an armaments issue. The catalyst to war was the recapture of stripped territory, the polish corridor. If anything the Second World War definitely fits the unoffical title "the great backlash" more than anything. And I would consider it a tough demand to expect the Seekriegsleitung to plan for a Kriegsmarine vs the world. Perhaps a bit unresonable too, don't you agree?
Why not rephrase the question into this: was the Second World War inevitable?
As the Graf Spee incident clearly demonstrated the Deutchland class were not at all super weapons. Well armed and good range in the cruiser role, aye, but few in numbers and lacking of a logistic structure to really make good on their use. Indeed, the Dunkerque class had the Germans veering back towards traditional designs, succumbing to what Richard Worth would refer to as a Mahanian sort of mindset. Me thinks rather than looking at what the Deutchland class may accomplish in the war years, let's keep in mind what will be risked by continue building them. They were after all the reason A.G.N.A.came into being in the first place
I hold the belief that rather than changing the appearance of the Kriegsmarine, which seems to me evolving on a very natural and adequate, robust path, that one may achieve more by changing strategies and dispositions. Call me fanboy of Raeders thoughts. Cruiser warfare on the high seas until utterly defeated. Cerberus was a big mistake
Anyhooo ... This thread was about larger guns on a ship overrun in the dark night off North Cape in late 1943. And my input on that particular matter was a simple question: what would happen if Scharnhorst comes back empty handed?
Last nail in the coffin that is large surface ships operations or will she be given even more leash?