Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

[RF]

You are correct - but the parasitic nature of the USSR didn't prevent it from being a superpower.

Your comment on Germany could be controversial in the context of not acknowledging the mass murder of millions of Jews, both German and non-German. Given the relative population sizes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia these genocides are roughly equal on a pro-rata basis.

[alecsandros]

You are correct - but the parasitic nature of the USSR didn't prevent it from being a superpower.

Your comment on Germany could be controversial in the context of not acknowledging the mass murder of millions of Jews, both German and non-German. Given the relative population sizes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia these genocides are roughly equal on a pro-rata basis.

... I doubt those genocide percentages would be even remotelycomparable.

... USSR did not 'become" a superpower - it was kept on perfussions by USA and UK in order to escape from what was perceived as a greater threat - Nazi Germany.

[Steve-M]

What if Germany obtained better results in 1918, and more favorable peace conditions, including keeping a part of the HSF.

I have to agree with RF; I can't really see much value in the old HSF in the context of WWII, particularly the Bayerns. The last thing the Germans needed was a slow warpig to fight in the line of battle, which is all the Bayerns could ever be, even with upgraded machinery. The BCs could be more interesting, but in the end they'd have to consume a lot of resources to rebuild these things to something resembling WWII standards. At that point, you'd still be left with 25+ year old ships that are undergunned by WWII standards for capital ships, and probably not as fast or well protected as the Twins.

[alecsandros]

What if Germany obtained better results in 1918, and more favorable peace conditions, including keeping a part of the HSF.

I have to agree with RF; I can't really see much value in the old HSF in the context of WWII, particularly the Bayerns. The last thing the Germans needed was a slow warpig to fight in the line of battle, which is all the Bayerns could ever be, even with upgraded machinery. The BCs could be more interesting, but in the end they'd have to consume a lot of resources to rebuild these things to something resembling WWII standards. At that point, you'd still be left with 25+ year old ships that are undergunned by WWII standards for capital ships, and probably not as fast or well protected as the Twins.

... Old but still good. Look at Repulse, REnown, the 4 Queen Elizabeths... They proved worthy of WW2 (modernised of course).

[Steve-M]

Old but still good.

The problem is good isn't good enough when you're fighting an asymmetric war. Tonnage and resources utilized to modernize WWI era ships is tonnage and resources you don't have to construct warships built specifically to the purpose.

Look at Repulse, REnown, the 4 Queen Elizabeths... They proved worthy of WW2 (modernised of course).

They proved worthy, but they were also better starting points for modernization in the first place. After all, the British didn't spend much effort trying to modernize the R class battleships, which was a closer analog for the Bayerns.

[alecsandros]

Old but still good.

The problem is good isn't good enough when you're fighting an asymmetric war. Tonnage and resources utilized to modernize WWI era ships is tonnage and resources you don't have to construct warships built specifically to the purpose.

Look at Repulse, REnown, the 4 Queen Elizabeths... They proved worthy of WW2 (modernised of course).

They proved worthy, but they were also better starting points for modernization in the first place. After all, the British didn't spend much effort trying to modernize the R class battleships, which was a closer analog for the Bayerns.

... It's easier to modernise then to build from scratch.
... The Bayerns were a response to Queen Elizabeth, and were more powerfull ships. Why compare them to R class ?

[Steve-M]

It's easier to modernise then to build from scratch.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're starting with, and what you're looking to achieve. Moreover, some things aren't terribly economical to add in after the fact, i.e. an integral TDS. No viable amount of modernization would turn Bayern into Bismarck, or even a ~25 knot version of it. It could have still been a powerful warship, but not the one Germany needed to overcome the odds.

The Bayerns were a response to Queen Elizabeth, and were more powerfull ships. Why compare them to R class ?

Because as powerful as the Bayerns were, they weren't fast battleships.

[Steve-M]

double post...

[RF]

It's easier to modernise then to build from scratch.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're starting with, and what you're looking to achieve.

This has to be the key point.

In WW2 the North Atlantic was the vital theatre for the KM rather than the North Sea. The HSF was very short ranged, not designed for long Atlantic campaigns - one reason why in WW1 it was so easy for the RN to blockade Germany and render the HSF effectively useless.

[alecsandros]

It's easier to modernise then to build from scratch.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're starting with, and what you're looking to achieve. Moreover, some things aren't terribly economical to add in after the fact, i.e. an integral TDS. No viable amount of modernization would turn Bayern into Bismarck, or even a ~25 knot version of it. It could have still been a powerful warship, but not the one Germany needed to overcome the odds.

The Bayerns were a response to Queen Elizabeth, and were more powerfull ships. Why compare them to R class ?

Because as powerful as the Bayerns were, they weren't fast battleships.

... THE KGM could not rival the RN,
Building from scratch took them 5 years for 2 Bismarcks and 4 years for 2 Scharnhorsts.

With unlimited resources, it's obviously better to build from scratch, but those resources were NOT unlimited.

Rebuilding 2 Bayerns and several battlecruisers would make them roughly comparable to 2 QEs and Repulse/Renown/Hood.

That force would tie down the entire home fleet + Mediteranean fleet.

Any sortie, especialy in the early war, would be very hard to counter. Look at the exploits of Graf Spee and Scheer.
Similar undertakings, confined to Iceland area, by , say , Vond der Tann and Derfflinger (28kts, 10.000miles ships) would create chaos.

It wouldn't be reqired, in teh end, to engage Royal Navy battleships. Simply keeping 5 MORE capital ships as fleet in being would paralyse the Arctic trade and would potentialy turn the war, as no more supplies could be sent to Arhanghelsk.

[RF]

Its not just a case of how many ships can be built or rebuilt, bases are needed for them outside Germany and the Baltic. The ports in Norway and western Biscay made the KM surface ships a much more potent threat (along of course with U-boats).

Another issue which falls outside of any HSF considerations is the development of carriers and a naval air arm - here a prior allowance would be very helpful.

[RF]

RE-thinking the premise of this thread one could wonder what would have happened in WW1 if the USA had remained neutral in 1917 - without the USA and with Russia dropping out I can well imagine the scenario in which in the fall of 1918 both sides are unable to continue fighting and a ceasefire/negotiated peace is the end result.

Such an outcome would lead to Germany keeping the HSF but at an agreed level. The Allied trump card being the blockade on Germany coupled with political collapse in Germany but there is no knockout blow.

The scenario then becomes realistic, particulary if Germany is needed as an ally against the USSR.

[Steve-M]

Building from scratch took them 5 years for 2 Bismarcks and 4 years for 2 Scharnhorsts.
With unlimited resources, it's obviously better to build from scratch, but those resources were NOT unlimited.

Resources weren't unlimited, but under your scenario, Germany would have more of the most important one: time. It's also not a stretch to suppose that under much more lenient terms, the German economic situation would have been better (if nothing else, the old HSF units could be sold to lesser powers to help fund new construction). Taken together, Germany doesn't have to settle for 10,000 ton nominal Panzerschiffe in the late 20's/early 30's, but could build 15-20,000 ton units that would contribute to their capital ship tonnage. Add in Bismarck and 15" armed versions of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and you're at your 1.75 : 5 ratio without needing to rebuild anything from the HSF.

[alecsandros]

... The main resource, which AFAIK, was not improvable or modifiable in a reasonable amount of time, was dockyard space to build additional capital ships. Launching 5 more capital ships pre-requires having 5 more dockyar-spaces for them, which AFAIK did not exist anywhere in GErmany.

I guess anyone would choose 5 more Bismarcks over 2 Bayerns and 3 WW1 battlecruisers, but those Bismack's ain't going to teleport themselves in Kiel , already built.

Going back to the initial idea, retaining those capital ships, albeit old, would give the possibility of continous raiding in the North Atlantic, from 1939. That would mean continous task-forces set up by Royal Navy to engage the raiders, continous heavuy escort for the convoys and far more stress.
In time, IF some of those ships would survive to, say, late 1941, they could form a blockade in Norway, along with the historical ships (Tirpitz, Lutzow, Prinz Eugen, Hipper, etc), that would be nearly imossible to breach, without de-committing from the other theatres of action (Mediteranean, Indian and Pacific Ocean).

It could also imply potential less losses in the early war, as the raiders wouldn't be obliged to work alone. There would be sufficient hulls afloat to mount double-sorties. Scheer could exit with Graf Spee. Von der Tann with Derfflinger.

There would be little use for the Bayerns in raiding, but they would become very interesting assets if moved to Norway - blocking Arctic convoy paths.

[alecsandros]

An example would be the following:
Ship/standard tonnage/comparison with existing WW1-to-WW2 reconstructed capital ships / proposed improvements

Bayern/32000 tons / Queen Elizabeth / machinery up to 24kts, range up to 12000km at 15kts, fire control suite, AAA systems, torpedo defense.
Baden / idem

Von der Tann / 26000 tons / Andrea Doria / range up to 15000km at 15kts, fire control suite, AAA systems, torpedo defense.

Derfflinger / 27000 tons / Kongo / machinery up to 28kts, range up to 15000km at 15kts, fire control suite, AAA systems, torpedo defense.

Hindemburg - idem


---

TOTAL = about 145.000 tons of capital ships, and 48 main guns. Adding Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, (and cancelling Graf Zeppelin), total capital ship tonnage goes to 205.000 tons (as reported by Germany), compared to Britain 660.000 tons (of which 535000 tons battleships and battlecruisers).
Once the 1937 Anglo-German treaty comes into place, The British will start work on the 5 KGV's , and the Germans on the 2 Bismarcks,
taking the total tonnage to 830.000 tons for the British (of which 700.000 BBs and BCs) and 275000 for the Germans.