Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No real German Navy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No real German Navy

    If the Germans had stopped all major ship and U-boat construction 1st September 1939, and simply had a navy capable enough for an invasion of Norway and for coastal defence and minesweeping, would enough assets have been freed up to make the capture of Moscow far more likely?

    Would Britain have been able to build up its assets quicker so that any ground war, eg a successful N Africa campaign, been accomplished that much sooner? Would the convoys to Archangel have brought more kit to the Soviets to make a further substantial difference, especially in 1941?

    Essentially, would cutting back on the navy helped or hindered the Nazi attempted conquest of the Soviet Union in 41.

    A continuation from the previous thread I started here, but turning the premise on its head .
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • #2
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    If the Germans had stopped all major ship and U-boat construction 1st September 1939, and simply had a navy capable enough for an invasion of Norway and for coastal defence and minesweeping, would enough assets have been freed up to make the capture of Moscow far more likely?

    Would Britain have been able to build up its assets quicker so that any ground war, eg a successful N Africa campaign, been accomplished that much sooner? Would the convoys to Archangel have brought more kit to the Soviets to make a further substantial difference, especially in 1941?

    Essentially, would cutting back on the navy helped or hindered the Nazi attempted conquest of the Soviet Union in 41.

    A continuation from the previous thread I started here, but turning the premise on its head .
    An interesting thought Nick, mind you assuming that they would have concentrated on destroyers, in that case I do believe they lost a number of the afore said in their Norway invasion would that therefore have made them even worse off? I don't know, lets see how this thread turns out! Cheers, lcm1
    'By Horse by Tram'.


    I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
    " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

    Comment


    • #3
      This might end up transferred to Alternate Timelines but for what it's worth .... and if I assume the Nazi hierarchy put the resources to practical use ....

      Doctrine rather than resources dictate that the war goes pretty much as per the OT up until 'Barbarossa'. British gain up to that point is relatively small as the KGV class battleships will probably still get built, at least up to 'Duke of York', since there are other threats than Germany to take into consideration. Battle of Britain still takes place, only it lasts longer and each side takes heavier losses. In North Africa and the Med air power is the key so on to 'Barbarossa' ..... The Germans still have the same problem, logistics! Extra weaponry just puts a greater strain on the supply teams. That said, a few hundred extra tanks and a thousand extra aircraft would make it easier to rip the heart out of the Red Army in those opening few weeks of the campaign, opening up the possibility of a greater dent in Soviet morale. Makes the fall of Moscow more likely but it seems improbable that the overall course of the war would be changed significantly.

      Incidentally, isn't this somewhat similar a proposition to the game thread we're playing through on the Alternate Timelines section?
      Signing out.

      Comment


      • #4
        I dunno. Capital plant being what it was in 1939-41 I don't see much material gain for the Germans. Dry docks used for ship and submarine construction cannot be converted into tank factories. Reserved skill trades such as welders, boiler makers, pipe fitters could be shifted to other jobs but how much capacity is there in the aircraft and motor industries to absob these tradesmen. Pipe fitters and boiler makers don't really have a job in an aircraft or tank/truck plant.

        The only measurabl gain may be in the stockpile of strategic materials being available for other uses but these cannot be "withdrawn" until the capital plant and skilled tradesmen are available.

        Then there is logistics. If the rail lines cannot manage to supply the motor/mech forces in front of Moscow in the OTL, adding more kit gains the Germans little to nothing.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Purist View Post
          I dunno. Capital plant being what it was in 1939-41 I don't see much material gain for the Germans. Dry docks used for ship and submarine construction cannot be converted into tank factories. Reserved skill trades such as welders, boiler makers, pipe fitters could be shifted to other jobs but how much capacity is there in the aircraft and motor industries to absob these tradesmen. Pipe fitters and boiler makers don't really have a job in an aircraft or tank/truck plant.
          My interpretation is that decisions were made early in the Nazi period of rule. Once S&G are launched it's probably too late.

          Then there is logistics. If the rail lines cannot manage to supply the motor/mech forces in front of Moscow in the OTL, adding more kit gains the Germans little to nothing.
          Agreed. Hence my proviso regarding extra damage to the Red Army early in the campaign. Even being able to pull the net around the pockets a little tighter would make a difference to the campaign's end in 1941. Whether it makes a difference to the war as a whole is highly questionable.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            Essentially, would cutting back on the navy helped or hindered the Nazi attempted conquest of the Soviet Union in 41.
            Hi Nick

            Well simply it would have helped, but only by the merest %. No way near enough to have influenced the outcome of Barbarossa in any meaningful way.

            Regards
            "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

            "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

            Comment


            • #7
              The Kreigsmarine started the war in the east two days before the start of Barbarossa by mining the approaches to the shipping lanes carrying iron ore from the nothern Scandanavian countries.

              Over the course of the next few months they swept the Baltic of enemy surface and subsurface units.

              While the majority of the battles were fought by smaller units (destroyers and smaller) the ability of the Germans to call up large and well handled units proved important in several instances.

              The Red Navy did attempt, several times, even in the early part of the war to cut the line between Germany and Sweden. It is unlikely that a strictly coastal force could have held off the Soviets. Certainly it would have been a near run thing and given planners fits.

              A Red navy able to supply forces along the Baltic by sea, conduct sea lift (both assaults and withdrawls) may have significantly changed the complextion of the campain in along the coast.
              Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't believe it would have, unless it would change the delayed start of Barbarossa or the weather

                Comment


                • #9
                  The big problem is fuel - all those extra tanks and trucks take fuel. So they'll go further to begin with then grind to a bigger halt quicker as they wait for stocks to be replenished.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The big problem in the push to Moscow wasn't lack of resources, it was a lack of civil engineering capacity. What the Germans needed were bulldozers, dump trucks, and mechanized construction engineers who could rebuild the rail and road system fast enough to keep up with the advance.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                      The big problem is fuel - all those extra tanks and trucks take fuel. So they'll go further to begin with then grind to a bigger halt quicker as they wait for stocks to be replenished.
                      Yes but those KM ships also use fuel, it can be said that those tanks could get that ordinarily would have been allocated to the KM.

                      Just look at say the Bismarck for example, she from the time she was first put to sea and to her sinking must have burnt through 10's of thousands of tonnes of fuel oil. The KM burnt hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fuel during 1939 to 1945.

                      Now consider that millions of tonnes in tanks and trucks.

                      Also consider the overall cost and steel that otherwise could have been spent alsewhere, that was consumed by the KM such in the Battleships, Armoured Ships, Aircraft Carriers and Heavy Cruisers.

                      According to some figures they cost collectively.

                      1.549.9 Billion Reichmarks, but also consumed 358,841 tonnes of steel.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        The big problem in the push to Moscow wasn't lack of resources, it was a lack of civil engineering capacity. What the Germans needed were bulldozers, dump trucks, and mechanized construction engineers who could rebuild the rail and road system fast enough to keep up with the advance.
                        Exactly, the Germans were very slow to rebuild damaged infrastructure and to build a dual rail lines in the occupied Soviet Union.

                        Even though the German engineers were good at their job, thay lacked man power and equipment, this basic failure was primarily due to the fact that the Germans had no long term plans for occupied territories in the east.

                        Essentially the Germans plan of failure in the east was caused by a failure to plan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Roddoss72
                          Yes but those KM ships also use fuel, it can be said that those tanks could get that ordinarily would have been allocated to the KM...<snip>...
                          Yes but many of the KM ships and all the U-boats used diesel engines,... not gasoline. The amount of bunker fuel used in the remaining surface vessels was not that large in comparison to the more than 4 million tons of fuel per month required by the army (5.2 million tons per month for the entire armed forces). Diesel production was somewhat limited in Germany and change over is not easy, so there are no real savings there.

                          Not building the ships would allow more resources to be stockpiled for later use once capital plant expands but by then it is too late. You also need to look at the time line involved. The first Deutchland heavy cruiser was started in 1929 while Tirpitz was only launched in early 1941. In those 12 years you are not saving that much per annum but you are leaving facilities and manpower idle.
                          The Purist

                          Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                            Yes but many of the KM ships and all the U-boats used diesel engines,... not gasoline. The amount of bunker fuel used in the remaining surface vessels was not that large in comparison to the more than 4 million tons of fuel per month required by the army (5.2 million tons per month for the entire armed forces). Diesel production was somewhat limited in Germany and change over is not easy, so there are no real savings there.

                            Not building the ships would allow more resources to be stockpiled for later use once capital plant expands but by then it is too late. You also need to look at the time line involved. The first Deutchland heavy cruiser was started in 1929 while Tirpitz was only launched in early 1941. In those 12 years you are not saving that much per annum but you are leaving facilities and manpower idle.
                            On the fuel, maybe that is correct, but i would bet my last dollar the Army would have loved to get that diesel in running other machines not running on petrol.

                            As for the cost alone, that equates to plenty of fighters, tanks, rifles, ammo and the like, i bet the other services would have love to have an additional 1.5 Billion Reichmarks to spend on war materiel, and again i bet the Army in particular would love to have an extra 350,000 tonnes of steel to produce tanks, SPG, tank destroyers, artillery pieces etc.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi

                              With NO German capital ships to worry about then the British Fleets in the Med and the Pacific could have been significantly increased from the outset almost.

                              Thus more potential trouble for Italian supplies routed across to NA from Italy, whilst Japanese plans may have to be adapted to counter a stronger British Fleet (inc A/C's) presence in Singapore and Indian Oceans as a whole.

                              Regards
                              "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                              "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X