H-44 The Queen of the sea?

[lwd]

Construction of Yamato, Iowa, etc was not prompted by WWII. They emerged from the arms race that began with the failure of the Second London Conference.

But didn't the events/diplomatic positions that prompted this also lead to WWII? IE if a war wasn't likely in the short run would the conference have failed?

[Tiornu]

I dont understand the vilification I am recieveing for asking this question.

I'm sorry if it seems that way. Certainly no one is vilifying you, but we're having some fun at the fantastical nature of H-44. If it makes you feel any better, there is another design that dwarfs even H-44, a Japanese proposal that displaced (from memory) 500,000 metric tons. At least one person actually thought it might lie in the realm of the possible (the guy who drew it up, c1917 I think). Its main battery consisted of mere 41cm guns, but there were about a hundred of them.
It's hard (for me) to discuss such things seriously because there is such a distinct disconnect between these things and the policies of the navies they "represent." Battleships don't emerge from a vacuum, but they come as extensions of national goals and resources. For me, this is what makes them worth a serious discussion, so when I see something that isn't anchored to reality in this way, I have trouble seeing it as a serious consideration. H-44 makes a fine point of discussion regarding design theory, but she was never an expression of German military strength.

[lwd]

I dont understand the vilification I am recieveing for asking this question. I mean, I posted it in the 'Hypothetical' section of this forum. If you have a problem with it why not just not reply?

I think if any country would build something like this it would have been Germany. Probaly more as Hitler's official Yahct then anything else.

I wouldn't call it vilifying. Take a look at some of the exchanges Karl and I have had and you'll see that that the response to you has been pretty mild. (And for the most part Karl and I have both stayed within bounds). However if you (or I) say something on this board that some else thinks is silly you'll probably here about it. There's also a bit of history on this board with things like the H-44. Essentially Germany would have had to make tremendous infrastructure improvements to build and operate these ships. Furthermore the KM records are apparently pretty clear that these were just paper design exercises. Then there is the gun size thing. US test of 18" guns had lead them to believe that the point of diminishing returns had been reached and the 16" gun was a good place to stop. Now that may have changed if they'd gotten a good look at the Yamatos. 20" guns would have had sever overpressure problems for instance. On the other hand the Germans had a really nice 16" gun. I think some of the earlier H designs used it and may have been conceived of as real vessels. (Those more knowledgeable on this will probably clarify, amplify, and/or correct me now.)

[Tiornu]

But didn't the events/diplomatic positions that prompted this also lead to WWII? IE if a war wasn't likely in the short run would the conference have failed?

Both the war and the ships resulted from those policies, absolutely. The conference failed because the Japanese had decided they couldn't achieve their goals peacefully.

[RF]

It will rule the seas. As long as there is fuel for her because I believe a 120,000 ton 25+ knot beast must be a fuel hog.

Best regards.

The question is really of how it can deal with air attack. If it can then it would rule the seas, but I think from the experience of the Germans in WW2 that you would need more than one.

The sort of scenario really would be of what would have happened if Rheinubung had been H-44 and Bismarck, instead of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen....

[RF]

[

On the other hand the Germans had a really nice 16" gun. I think some of the earlier H designs used it and may have been conceived of as real vessels. (Those more knowledgeable on this will probably clarify, amplify, and/or correct me now.)

Interesting comment.

Is there any particular reason why this 16 inch gun was not used in Bismarck instead of the 15 inch?

[Tiornu]

The Germans couldn't fit even the 15in gun into a 35,000-ton displacement. How would they manage with a 16in gun? The process of selecting the 38cm model is described in Whitley. I don't know when the 16in became available.
H-41 was the last version prepared with an expectation of contruction.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Take a look at some of the exchanges Karl and I have had and you'll see that that the response to you has been pretty mild. (And for the most part Karl and I have both stayed within bounds).

Of course, because you are not as polite and popular as I am... and because you are usually wrong...

... Just kidding. It´s fun to discuss all this stuff! My problem is that now I´m in the middle of a pile of work and cannot follow Friedman´s Battleships or Willmot´s Leyte Gulf so I choose a more serious literature: I´m reading a novel about vampires!

Best regards.

[RF]

Obviously its well staked......

[Terje Langoy]

I dont understand the vilification I am recieveing for asking this question. I mean, I posted it in the 'Hypothetical' section of this forum. If you have a problem with it why not just not reply?

I would refer to the Japanese naval author Akira Yoshimura upon the question whether H-44 would be the Queen of the Sea. On the inside of the bookjacket of his work, "Battleship Musashi", he open with the words:

"...Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, said that the three great follies of the world were the great wall of China, the pyramids and battleship Musashi..."

As we know, battleship Musashi was the largest of them all. She was sadly also the Queen of a giant but fruitless investment. Her size and firepower could make a difference if World War Two saw another Battle of Tsushima. It never did. Yamamoto was aware of the great potential within carrier-based warfare, he exploited this with partial success against US battleships at Pearl, and so forth he would also see the demise of the Musashi long before it took place. Size would not do the trick against numbers.

If we scale things even further up with the H-44, we still face a pretty basic achilles-heel: She is a ship - she floats and therefore can also sink. H-44 is as vulnerable as anything with a hull and gunfire is most certainly not the only measure that can be applied against such a behemoth. But since you posted this as a hypothetical scenario and therefore allow elemental things to be conveniently overlooked, she can of course be a match made in heaven each time. The pending factor of this scenario is however not the H-44 but the response to her. We can safely conclude that H-44 never would be intercepted by a veteran battlecruiser and a brand new KGV-class in the Denmark Strait.

Ultimately, I think H-44 never can be anything but the Queen of a hypothetical scenario. At best, I wind up with the idea of a coastal monitor on steroids.

[RF]

Reading the above post I have two thoughts.

One, what if H-44 had been conceived earlier, say in 1936. Theoretically (I say this knowing of the problems in construction and secrecy) it could have been available for Rheinubung or any other naval operation in early WW2 before naval air power had demonstrated its true capabilities. What if H-44 had escaped into the North Atlantic and started attacking battleship escorted convoys, with no naval air power to intervene?

The other thought I had was the proposition of building the H-44 as an aircraft carrier.

[Tiornu]

It doesn't matter when the ship was conceived. It can't function on a raiding mission or as an aircraft carrier while it is stuck in the mud.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Such a ship could not be raider because of logistics. It could had worked in a "decisive battle" doctrine, very good for the Japanese thinking. Maybe Raeder had in mind something alike to the "decisive battle" without the means to ever achieve it.

[Tiornu]

Holger Herwig (Politics of Frustration, p 189) is explicit that both Hitler and Raeder believed in "the overriding importance of a single decisive naval engagement," though differing in the details. I just happened to read that last week.

[Terje Langoy]

What if H-44 had been conceived earlier, say in 1936. Theoretically (I say this knowing of the problems in construction and secrecy) it could have been available for Rheinubung or any other naval operation in early WW2 before naval air power had demonstrated its true capabilities. What if H-44 had escaped into the North Atlantic and started attacking battleship escorted convoys, with no naval air power to intervene?

This proposal adresses my previously mentioned point head on, Robert. If we ignore obstructions such as logistic, budget, harbour facilities etc. and allow H-44 operate on the high seas then obviously we must also realize that the British would respond to the situation. We can't alter navy A and expect navy B to "...carry on business as usual".

Karl mentioned the logistics, Richard adressed her size and so I would adress the price tag on this super-sized chunk of steel which I think would have been utterly ridiculous. Not only the cost to construct her but also the continuous expenses to keep her operative. At the end of the day someone has to pay for the party and as we know, more here means less somewhere else.