WI: No large scale Kriegsmarine?

[Jukra]

Now, I'm sure this question has been asked a million times before, but...

WI no large scale investment in Kriegsmarine during German re-armament?

Rationale behind this decision could take roots in Adolf's mind, where he can consider naval officers to be wussies pampering communists and being a disappointment during the Great War. Or something else, maybe a naval officer insulting him or something.

Nevertheless, he has sycophants rationalizing this decision. Not rebuilding Kriegsmarine minimizes antagonizing Great Britain. After all, if Germany wants to challenge Great Britain it would have to build an enormous balanced fleet or a massive U-boat arm with it's own risks of bringing the US to the war.

And even if large scale Kriegsmarine could be built it could only have effect against Britain in a long war and Germany cannot win a long war.

Large Kriegsmarine would also mean use of high amount of resources to naval rearmament at a time when every Reichmark, ingot of steel and highly capable individual is needed for Luftwaffe and Heer.

So, new rationale for German Navy is to produce a coastal defense force for North Sea, limited raider capabilities / showing the flag for oceans and a fleet capable in co-operation with Air Force defending the flank of Heer during Drang Nach osten.

U-boats are only to be purchased in amounts and models good for training and the Baltic, basically Type II.

Historically Germany used some 1550 000 000 RM's to build CA's, BC's and CVL's. Let's have Germany build some CA's or equivalents and more powerful light forces so it's basically about 1 000 000 000 RM's for extra spending pre-war. Where could this be used? Would UK be less alarmed with less powerful German Navy?

 

[The Byronic Hero]

I think Continental issues would still alarm the UK.

 

[tomo pauk]

Good idea. IMO - there are two ways with fleets in 20th century: either go all-out to compete with big guys, or keep it small. Germany has more urgent priorities than challenging UK, let alone US, with France just across the border and actual goals laying in the East.
So I'd do up to CA, with destroyers, escorts, torpdoboote and U-boats as per OTL.

 

[NHBL]

I think the Panzerschiffes stay; they are pre-Hitler. They are also important politically. A follow-on design could be an improved version, but optimized for coastal waters and the Baltic rather than incredible endurance. Arm it 6 or possibly 9 11" guns in three gun turrets, but with serious provisions for upgunning them to twin 15" turrets. Heavy armor, including heavy deck armor and underwater protection, and it's great for serious coast defense. I'd guess ~15,000 tons, short range. Think oversized Sverige class--big enough to swat anything cruiser sized that comes near, with guns big enough that a battleship won't find it a walkover, yet able to hide among the inlets and archipelagos. They might be a bit too big, but Hitler liked BIG. Build them relatively slowly until/unless things start getting messy.

U-Boats: Keep R&D going, but only build a few of each class. Also, keep design studies current; naval architecture is a skill you do not want to lose.

 

[Riain]

Without the 2 capital ships Germany built by 1940 the invasion of Norway would have been impossible and the RN wouldn't have lost at least 1 carrier to the guns of S&G. The RN would be able to deploy its capital ships on offensive tasks rather than marking the KM, so the Med would be a little better and likely more ships would be available for the Pacific in late 1941.

 

[Jukra]

Without the 2 capital ships Germany built by 1940 the invasion of Norway would have been impossible and the RN wouldn't have lost at least 1 carrier to the guns of S&G. The RN would be able to deploy its capital ships on offensive tasks rather than marking the KM, so the Med would be a little better and likely more ships would be available for the Pacific in late 1941.

Yes, there's definitely downsides for this, especially for German Allies. On the other hand, these problems only truly surface after war has been drawn out for so long Germany is going to lose anyway, as the war was lost on 7 December 1941.

Without strong German fleet the German strategy in the north might be different altogether, as there would be no Kriegsmarine lobbying for bases. Maybe a strong German commitment for Norwegian neutrality as it would serve German interests best?

 

[Riain]

Yes, there's definitely downsides for this, especially for German Allies. On the other hand, these problems only truly surface after war has been drawn out for so long Germany is going to lose anyway, as the war was lost on 7 December 1941.

Without strong German fleet the German strategy in the north might be different altogether, as there would be no Kriegsmarine lobbying for bases. Maybe a strong German commitment for Norwegian neutrality as it would serve German interests best?

The Luftwaffe flew Condors from Norway to search the sea west of Britain, Norway was quite useful for the uboat campaign.

 

[Zheng He]

Without the 2 capital ships Germany built by 1940 the invasion of Norway would have been impossible and the RN wouldn't have lost at least 1 carrier to the guns of S&G. The RN would be able to deploy its capital ships on offensive tasks rather than marking the KM, so the Med would be a little better and likely more ships would be available for the Pacific in late 1941.

That's the rub isn't it? For as much as we like to criticize the big German ships (primarily the Twins and B & T), those ships (particularly TIRPITZ) along with a few of the others are arguably the most effective example of fleet in being in history.

 

[Jukra]

The Luftwaffe flew Condors from Norway to search the sea west of Britain, Norway was quite useful for the uboat campaign.

Yes, useful for the naval campaign, but with no strong Kriegsmarine there is not such a large need for those bases.

That's the rub isn't it? For as much as we like to criticize the big German ships (primarily the Twins and B & T), those ships (particularly TIRPITZ) along with a few of the others are arguably the most effective example of fleet in being in history.

But was the effort, effectively conquest of Norway, which is hard to say whether it was plus or minus, and fleet in being worth of one billion Reichmarks, enough to buy 10 000 ME-109E's or 3000 JU-88's or whatever fancy useful stuff such as trucks and synthetic oil facilities ready for 1939-1941, when Germany had it's only chance of bringing the war to a favourable conclusion. Not to mention that naval forces gulp large amount of oil themselves...

Most important thing Kriegsmarine achieved was, that Britain decided to convoy it's naval traffic. This situation can be reached with far smaller investment in naval forces than OTL.

As for wartime itself, investments in naval warfare after the war started was basically resuffling deck chairs of Bismarck, as units ordered in 1939 largely came to operational use in 1942 and after, if never. The war was lost for Germany already by then.

So, I admit my argument primarily lies on what is useful for Germany between 1939 and end of the 1941. Whatever happens afterwards is basically not in my opinion important as it can only delay the inevitable. But even then the huge effort invested in U-boats was basically a waste which could have been arguably used for better purposes in order to bring atomic fire on Germany. Germany constructed total of 1154 U-boats and had to find high capacity personnel for them.

 

[Jukra]

I think Continental issues would still alarm the UK.

Yes, naturally, but would UK lay more dormant in this case? Even a delay of a few months in alarmism could be of large use for Germany. If we assume somewhat similar timeline to ours, say, an alarmism at level of Munich comes in after occupation of Czechoslovakia...

I think the Panzerschiffes stay; they are pre-Hitler. They are also important politically. A follow-on design could be an improved version, but optimized for coastal waters and the Baltic rather than incredible endurance. Arm it 6 or possibly 9 11" guns in three gun turrets, but with serious provisions for upgunning them to twin 15" turrets. Heavy armor, including heavy deck armor and underwater protection, and it's great for serious coast defense. I'd guess ~15,000 tons, short range. Think oversized Sverige class--big enough to swat anything cruiser sized that comes near, with guns big enough that a battleship won't find it a walkover, yet able to hide among the inlets and archipelagos. They might be a bit too big, but Hitler liked BIG. Build them relatively slowly until/unless things start getting messy.

Yes, basically a Baltic battleship capable of operating in co-operation with light forces and mines. Endurance can be low. Sounds good.

U-Boats: Keep R&D going, but only build a few of each class. Also, keep design studies current; naval architecture is a skill you do not want to lose.

Sensible route.

 

[NHBL]

Something went wonky with the quotes; I made the remark about keeping U-Boat R&D going.

For raiders, the original 3 long endurance Panzereschiffes are great. If the Baltic Battleships are 2 turret models, they'll be hard to distinguish from the Panzerschiffe.

Remember, the old Imprial Russian Navy's battleships are won out, lightly armed, and have 12" guns--but they have 12 12" guns each, and they are VERY good 12" guns. Excellent accuracy was achieved with them in World War I; those ships are a threat that must be honored.

 

[Ian_W]

Without the 2 capital ships Germany built by 1940 the invasion of Norway would have been impossible and the RN wouldn't have lost at least 1 carrier to the guns of S&G. The RN would be able to deploy its capital ships on offensive tasks rather than marking the KM, so the Med would be a little better and likely more ships would be available for the Pacific in late 1941.

With no u-boat campaign, Norway isnt particularly important.

 

[Riain]

With no u-boat campaign, Norway isnt particularly important.

Without the ubiat campaign how will Germany keep Britain busy?

Also Germany grabbed Norway so Britain couldn't grab it, having Britain in Norway would be harmful to Germany.

 

[Anchises]

Assuming that the German fleet isn't able to pull of the Invasion of Norway:

If Britain invades to cut off the iron ore supply from Sweden than this might have BIG repercussions for the "PR" war.

It would be much easier to paint Great Britain as an Imperialist warmonger trying to "keep Germany down" if they invade a Neutral. "We did it in the BeNeLux states you did it in Norway."

Personally I don't think that Britain would invade but if they do it would probably hurt and help Germany at the same time.
-------------------------
With such a weak fleet Germany would probably try to make peace after the Fall of France. And Great Britain might be more inclined to accept it if the Germans are willing to make concessions regarding France and the BeNeLux states.

Britain is secure because the Germans can't invade and the Nazis of 1940 are seen as treaty breaching warmongers but not (yet) as genocidal maniacs.

 

[Clandango]

It seems extremely dangerous for them to not expand their navy. Part of the reason to invade Norway was to get a long coast so the Germans didn't end up in their ports again. While I know that U-Boats are mentoined in the first post as not being expanded, I think that that would be the way in which Hitler would see possibilities. Entirely new sorts of people would be promoted and trained, with greater loyalty to the Furher than the Admirals might have been. Perhaps more importantly was being able to move lots of people around. Otherwise you have it like in the invasion of Denmark, where the Germans seized Danish ferries to bring troops to Copenhagen. Though that might have just been because they were available. I also have to wonder as to what all the raw materials used for building ships would have gone to. While building up a merchant marine would have been decent for the economy (though the Germans might just use trains for a lot of their imports) I see these ships being seized or sank when wore broke out, especially assuming there is no navy around to protect them.

 

[Jukra]

Assuming that the German fleet isn't able to pull of the Invasion of Norway:

If Britain invades to cut off the iron ore supply from Sweden than this might have BIG repercussions for the "PR" war.

It would be much easier to paint Great Britain as an Imperialist warmonger trying to "keep Germany down" if they invade a Neutral. "We did it in the BeNeLux states you did it in Norway."

Personally I don't think that Britain would invade but if they do it would probably hurt and help Germany at the same time.

It's also an issue of timeframe. Without Norway Germany cannot reach oceans easily, sure, but a naval campaign to strangle Britain will take a lot of time, years, and Germany cannot win such a long war anyway. With the British in Norway they would have to invade next neural, Sweden, in order to cut iron ore transport fully. With conquest of France Swedish iron ore loses the strategic significance it had anyway.

With such a weak fleet Germany would probably try to make peace after the Fall of France. And Great Britain might be more inclined to accept it if the Germans are willing to make concessions regarding France and the BeNeLux states.

Britain is secure because the Germans can't invade and the Nazis of 1940 are seen as treaty breaching warmongers but not (yet) as genocidal maniacs.

Of course Germany would still have the various small craft to harass British coastal traffic, and the resources used to build large ships and ramp up submarine production would have been used somewhere. Maybe a strategic bombing arm? Anti-shipping capabilities for Luftwaffe? These might have repercussions for a campaign against UK too.

Without the ubiat campaign how will Germany keep Britain busy?

Even with AMC's and small number of submarines and some anti-shipping air strikes Britain would most probably keep up with convoy system which would impact their transport capabilities severely. Not building large surface ships pre-war and subs during the war would free large resources for something else.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There is only 2 ways to knock Britain out of the war

1. Invasion – and OTL this ‘could not come by sea’ – leading to an occupation or a political agreement
   
   
2. Blockade – this has to be ramped up quickly and effectively to work and has to involve various methods – U-Boats, Raiders, LRMP and Mining – in order to bring Britain to a political
   

Given that 1 is virtually impossible even more so given this proposed POD that leaves only 2.

However with a reduction in the KM this means a smaller ‘tribe’ or pool from which to recruit the crews for any U-Boat/raider fleet and this would impact any expansion of the U-Boat fleet so this POD also impacts 2.

Germany cannot expand her fleet of U-Boats pre war beyond an agreed limit (such as for example a number not exceeding 45% of the Tonnage of British Subs as laid out in the OTL Anglo German Naval Treaty) as this would be a red rag to certain elements in Whitehall as such an expansion has but one potential target!

So without BBs, CAs, CLs a large part of a potential blockading force is missing and with only a realistic force of 40-50 U-Boats and a number of converted raiders – so this POD alone makes the potential blockade of Britain much less effective than OTL

So while this does release resources that Germany can use elsewhere – it does free up an incalculable amount of resources on the Allies side through less of a need for their own Modern Fast Battleships and reduced potential disruption to trade

For example with only the 3 Panzerschiffe and no twins or Bismarck and Tirpitz building the existing 1939 British and French Fleets are far better off in opposing the KM surface fleet with their large numbers of Cruisers, Aux Cruisers and 5 Battle Cruisers – whereas the inclusion of the Twins reduces this superiority to just 5 Battle Cruisers.

 

[anotherlurker]

With more British ships in the Med from day one onwards Italy might think twicea bout entering the war on the German side, which is a net positive for Germany as they wont have to bother with North Africa or the Balkans.

But the British wont like it if the Germans dont actually go ahead and build the 35 % balanced fleet after the agreement, they'll probably think the Germans will go straight for cruisers or submarines only using the agreement to score foreign policy points and to fool the doves in Britain, you might end up with an early war.

 

[Jukra]

There is only 2 ways to knock Britain out of the war

1. Invasion – and OTL this ‘could not come by sea’ – leading to an occupation or a political agreement
   
   
2. Blockade – this has to be ramped up quickly and effectively to work and has to involve various methods – U-Boats, Raiders, LRMP and Mining – in order to bring Britain to a political

Given that 1 is virtually impossible even more so given this proposed POD that leaves only 2.

Number three is Britain which blinks.

Number two takes too much time. Even with historical Kriegsmarine Britain was not effectively blockaded by 7 Dec 1941, after which everything was just reshuffling the deck chairs of Tirpitz. However, potentially without the waste KM historically was for German war aims they might possibly, maybe, perhaps, knock out Soviet Union out of the war after which there is ample time to consider the British nuisance.

We don't also know if the additional 3000 medium bombers or something else Germany would have been also to buy with pre-war investment on heavy units might have been more effective in blockading Britain than OTL investment in submarines and heavy units.

With more British ships in the Med from day one onwards Italy might think twicea bout entering the war on the German side, which is a net positive for Germany as they wont have to bother with North Africa or the Balkans.

Perhaps, so at least Italy wins!

But the British wont like it if the Germans dont actually go ahead and build the 35 % balanced fleet after the agreement, they'll probably think the Germans will go straight for cruisers or submarines only using the agreement to score foreign policy points and to fool the doves in Britain, you might end up with an early war.

A policy of not investing much in Kriegsmarine would have to take place already in 1934 and the Anglo-German naval agreement was in 1935. In fact, Hitler could even play a peacemaker in trying to hold a naval conference in order to reduce naval arms race... As for RN, their intelligence would see the construction pattern.

 

[Driftless]

One piece that enhanced the impact of the fleet-in-being aspect of the surface Kriegsmarine was the absolute neutering of the French fleet in 1940. That was a two-fer for the Germans: not only did they take out a powerful naval force without loss, but it also significantly stretched the coverage requirements for the British. Did the Germans really expect that drastic outcome in their building plans?