Prince Eugane v AGS

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby RF » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:14 pm

The RN had 15 battleships and battlecruisers as at 1 September 1939 and around the same number of heavy cruisers.

Under the strict criteria identified the KM was entitled to construct 5 and one quarter Bismarks and the same number of Hipper class cruisers.

They actually had four battleships either newly built or under construction, with three Hipper class cruisers. Another two of the Hippers were started but never completed.

The three ''pocket battleships'' effectively make up the difference to the Treaty limit.

On carriers the RN had ten, the KM started two but neither was completed.

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement could have been updated to cater for extra ''pocket battleships'' instead of the Hippers, taking tonnage from battleships, heavy cruisers and carriers. We know that the Treaty could be revised because it was done in respect of submarines, where the 35& limit was raised to 100%.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Iranon
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Iranon » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:33 pm

One important difference was that the RN was very concerned about the pocket battleships, but considered submarines to be obsolescent. Hitler was ecstatic about the agreement because he considered it a building block towards an Anglo-German alliance. "We can technically still do the very thing you wanted to curtail, be more careful next time. Neener, neener" would not be an appropriate reaction.

As with many things regarding the UK, Hitler was rather naive... the British weren't hoping for a rearmed Germany as a potential ally, they were after damage control. The Treaty of Versailles restrictions were mostly dead in their eyes, they wanted a hard limit on naval rearmament that Germany agreed to.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:40 pm

KM didn't care too much about treaty obligations , but Hitler did. In most respects he was a bigger problem for KM rearmamewnt than the RN was.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

jabeque
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby jabeque » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:11 am

Hi all

Pocket battleships were super-heavy cruisers more stronger than heavy cruisers and more faster than "capital ships" (except battlecruisers)

Pocket battleships were not a option after Dunkerque construction.

Without speed advantage about new battleships, The concept lost its purpose.

They were technically "capital ships" according treaties. Consequently more "pocket battleships" were less battleships.

With the Anglo-german agreement, Germany could build five fast cruisers without limited the battleships quota.

Also, those fast cruisers were more useful in some scenarios. For example, Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper were able to sail at high speed with the fast battleships.

The “Pocket battleship” concept was continued in “0” and “P” class but they were big and very fast ships outside of treaties system.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:09 am

jabeque wrote:Hi all

Pocket battleships were super-heavy cruisers more stronger than heavy cruisers and more faster than "capital ships" (except battlecruisers)

Pocket battleships were not a option after Dunkerque construction.

Without speed advantage about new battleships, The concept lost its purpose.

They were technically "capital ships" according treaties. Consequently more "pocket battleships" were less battleships.

With the Anglo-german agreement, Germany could build five fast cruisers without limited the battleships quota.

Also, those fast cruisers were more useful in some scenarios. For example, Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper were able to sail at high speed with the fast battleships.

The “Pocket battleship” concept was continued in “0” and “P” class but they were big and very fast ships outside of treaties system.


Sounds good but the value of the PBS was ultra long range surface raiding- supporting wolf pact operations against convoys. Raeder hoped these raiders could force the allies to spread their forces thin, so as to open up possibilities at home waters. He argued that in WW-I terms- it would be like combining the effects of Spee squadron in 1914 off Falklands [Each raider sank 10 enemy MV and required 10 allied warships to hunt down ] with Scheer's battle cruiser raid against convoy in 1918 off Norway. To that end diesels with enormous advantage in fuel efficiency, were seen as a must.

Historically in the late 1920s these PBS had slow top speeds of 26 knots deep & 28.5 knots standard. However plans were made in the 1930s to improve the hull form to allow speeds up to 30 knots. Certainly follow on designs would feature 'Transom sterns' to increase top speeds to over 31 knots, thus rivaling speeds of most cruisers in the 1940s.

The Hipper class cruisers could only manage 4-5000nm range allowing them to operate just south of the GIUK gap.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

jabeque
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby jabeque » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:23 pm

Paul L wrote:
jabeque wrote:Hi all

Pocket battleships were super-heavy cruisers more stronger than heavy cruisers and more faster than "capital ships" (except battlecruisers)

Pocket battleships were not a option after Dunkerque construction.

Without speed advantage over new battleships, The concept lost its purpose.

They were technically "capital ships" according treaties. Consequently more "pocket battleships" were less battleships.

With the Anglo-german agreement, Germany could build five fast cruisers without limited the battleships quota.

Also, those fast cruisers were more useful in some scenarios. For example, Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper were able to sail at high speed with the fast battleships.

The “Pocket battleship” concept was continued in “0” and “P” class but they were big and very fast ships outside of treaties system.


Sounds good but the value of the PBS was ultra long range surface raiding- supporting wolf pact operations against convoys. Raeder hoped these raiders could force the allies to spread their forces thin, so as to open up possibilities at home waters. He argued that in WW-I terms- it would be like combining the effects of Spee squadron in 1914 off Falklands [Each raider sank 10 enemy MV and required 10 allied warships to hunt down ] with Scheer's battle cruiser raid against convoy in 1918 off Norway. To that end diesels with enormous advantage in fuel efficiency, were seen as a must.

Historically in the late 1920s these PBS had slow top speeds of 26 knots deep & 28.5 knots standard. However plans were made in the 1930s to improve the hull form to allow speeds up to 30 knots. Certainly follow on designs would feature 'Transom sterns' to increase top speeds to over 31 knots, thus rivaling speeds of most cruisers in the 1940s.

The Hipper class cruisers could only manage 4-5000nm range allowing them to operate just south of the GIUK gap.


The system of treaties was decisive in the construction plans of all nations. Even in the Nazi Germany that violated them from the beginning.

Pocket battleships did not have space in the treaties system because building "super-cruisers" classified as "capital ships" was a bad investment.

Even the French did not repeat the Dunkerque class. This was a "political" class. Within the treaties, were "mandatory" build the maximum. That is, battleships of 35,000.The Richelieu class could do all the Dunkeque class missions. On the contrary no.

Modernizing ships was also severely limited within the treaties system. And Germany did not leave the system until 1939.

In my opinion, there are many reasons not to build or modernize pocket battleships. In order of importance:

1. The treaties system
2. Shipbuilding in progress.
3. Vibration problems of diesel engines that would aggravate at higher speeds if the engines were not changed.
4. Cost of rebuilding

Only when Hitler denounced the treaties system, did it make sense to retake the concept. But in 1939 it was late. And given the exponential cost of speed, obtaining a substantial advantage over fast battleships, was at the cost of making a very weak and costly vessel.

In that sense the Alaska class had a similar problem. Its cost / utility ratio against the Iowa was very poor.

Regards

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:39 pm

jabeque wrote:
Paul L wrote:
jabeque wrote:Hi all

Pocket battleships were super-heavy cruisers more stronger than heavy cruisers and more faster than "capital ships" (except battlecruisers)

Pocket battleships were not a option after Dunkerque construction.
Regards


The above only works with Hitler in charge and his flawed '4 year plan' to fast track German imperialist expansion. Germany had no business making treaty with its enemy and negotiating away what few advantages it might have. The only reason was to deceive and leverage advantage accordingly.

The original KM building plan was to build 6-8 improved Panzerschiffe by 1938 , but Hitler blocked this to suit his anti British strategy. Your so called 'ship building plan in progress'' was an abortion forced on Raeder in the mid 1930s to salvage as much of "Reichsmarine Umbauplan 1932" as possible.

The diesel vibration problems were solved in the late 1930s with refits to diesel engine mountings @ 5 million RM each which was the price of a Mineboot.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby RF » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:46 am

Iranon wrote:
As with many things regarding the UK, Hitler was rather naive... the British weren't hoping for a rearmed Germany as a potential ally, they were after damage control. The Treaty of Versailles restrictions were mostly dead in their eyes, they wanted a hard limit on naval rearmament that Germany agreed to.


Don't overlook the fact that the British Foreign Office viewed a stronger Germany as a bulwark against communism and the USSR, a major factor in the appeasement policy.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby RF » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:48 am

Paul L wrote:KM didn't care too much about treaty obligations , but Hitler did. In most respects he was a bigger problem for KM rearmamewnt than the RN was.


Don't forget that the Z Plan was pushed for by Hitler.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3985
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby alecsandros » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:01 am

jabeque wrote:1. The treaties system
2. Shipbuilding in progress.
3. Vibration problems of diesel engines that would aggravate at higher speeds if the engines were not changed.
4. Cost of rebuilding

Only when Hitler denounced the treaties system, did it make sense to retake the concept. But in 1939 it was late. And given the exponential cost of speed, obtaining a substantial advantage over fast battleships, was at the cost of making a very weak and costly vessel.

It's true that, bound by a treaty, KGM couldn't expand on her Panzerchiffe. The good thing to do woudl have been to produce (or start producing at least) 4 new Panzerchiffes in 1933/4 (designated heavy cruisers with 6 x 8" guns), and complete them by 1937/8 with the same specifications as Graf Spee had (similar to what the Japanese did with the "406mm" guns of Yamato).

The Panzerchiffes offered substantial advantages over the Hipper class (long range, devastating armament that could destroy any contemporary 8" heavy cruiser before the heavy cruiser entered effective own gun range, far more reliable machinery, etc). This was the reason why Graf SPee, Scheer, Lutzow produced so many difficulties for the Admiralty: at any given time, there were a large number of convoys in the Atlantic , and only some of them coudl be given battleships for protection, and only a few hunter-killer groups could be given fast battleships at any given time .

jabeque
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby jabeque » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:26 am

International politics were too unstable. Hitler's plans were constantly changing. Scharnhorst and Genisenau were initially "pocket battleships" and were modified after the construction of the Dunkerque class.

The reason was that Dunkerque was a superior warship over "pocket battleships "

The mistake is to think that Hitler and Raeder knew (or should know) what would be the (naval) war.

Raeder made long-term plans. If they had guessed what the (naval) war would be, they would not have started it.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:26 pm

RF wrote:
Paul L wrote:KM didn't care too much about treaty obligations , but Hitler did. In most respects he was a bigger problem for KM rearmamewnt than the RN was.


Don't forget that the Z Plan was pushed for by Hitler.


Z-PLAN was too little to late and seems Hitler's way of smoothing over with Raeder after Hitler's betrayal of the service branches.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:28 pm

jabeque wrote:International politics were too unstable. Hitler's plans were constantly changing. Scharnhorst and Genisenau were initially "pocket battleships" and were modified after the construction of the Dunkerque class.

The reason was that Dunkerque was a superior warship over "pocket battleships "

The mistake is to think that Hitler and Raeder knew (or should know) what would be the (naval) war.

Raeder made long-term plans. If they had guessed what the (naval) war would be, they would not have started it.



Hitler assured the service branches there would be no big European war until the mid to late 1940s.Rearmament plans were 15 years based on an early 1930s start. No one was ready for war that Hitler started in 1939.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3985
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby alecsandros » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:24 am

jabeque wrote:The mistake is to think that Hitler and Raeder knew (or should know) what would be the (naval) war.

Raeder made long-term plans. If they had guessed what the (naval) war would be, they would not have started it.

Lack of experience aside,
it was painfully clear that the Kriegsmarine could only wage a hit-and-run type of war, with commerce raiding (with surface ships) and Uboat war at it's core.

In that regard, the employment of long range heavily armed pocket battleships, equipped with reconnaissance planes and surface-search radars, was ideal , and could cause considerable disruption among enemy sea routes. The exploits of Admiral Scheer show quite explicitly how usefull such a ship was in the war.
The existence of Dunkerque didn't change much, as Dunkerque was a short range ship, and there were only 2 built. 2 units was hopelessly insufficient to cope with Atlantic warfare.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Prince Eugane v AGS

Postby Paul L » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:04 pm

alecsandros wrote:
jabeque wrote:The mistake is to think that Hitler and Raeder knew (or should know) what would be the (naval) war.

Raeder made long-term plans. If they had guessed what the (naval) war would be, they would not have started it.

Lack of experience aside,
it was painfully clear that the Kriegsmarine could only wage a hit-and-run type of war, with commerce raiding (with surface ships) and Uboat war at it's core.

In that regard, the employment of long range heavily armed pocket battleships, equipped with reconnaissance planes and surface-search radars, was ideal , and could cause considerable disruption among enemy sea routes. The exploits of Admiral Scheer show quite explicitly how usefull such a ship was in the war.
The existence of Dunkerque didn't change much, as Dunkerque was a short range ship, and there were only 2 built. 2 units was hopelessly insufficient to cope with Atlantic warfare.


Agreed!
In the wake of NAZI power grab in the early 1930s, existing programs remained in effect, but were re-examined. The only thing all the factions could agree on was the war would be on the backs of the U-Boat fleet/ campaign. All efforts production efforts should be to maximise U-BOAT production. I recall Rossler reported plans to build 90 U-Boats plus another 90 once the war began, but Kaptain Doenitz demanded 300 U-Boat fleet!

Kaptain Heye suggested building a dozen big Panzerschiffe to run interference on enemy convoy escorts, to make it easier for U-Boats wolf pack to attack. Admiral Carls took it one step further arguing the U-BOAT fleet with Heye Panzerschiffe should be part of battle groups centered on an aircraft carriers and flotillas of Zerstroers to orchestrate these U-Boat wolf packs.

No where is there any mention of battle ships until Admiral Raeder steps in insisting on balanced "Tirpitz" fleet. It would appear Hitler stepped in at that point putting an end by demanding the KM be nothing more than a coastal defence fleet able to control the Baltic and sortie into the North Sea. In a desperate attempt to salvage "Reichsmarine Umbauplan 1932", he persuaded Hitler a small anti French fleet could be useful at that time.
"Eine mal is kein mal"


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest