How can a "better" Kriegsmarine be built?

[Scott Kenny]

For my 2 cents on Kriegsmarine carriers, they couldn't do it from their post WW1 starting point, but if they had won WW1, they certainly would have had carriers by WW2, assuming WW2 occurred in that scenario which is unlikely.

If Germany hadn't lost WW1, it's unlikely that WW2 would happen. WW2 basically being the completion of the (German) objectives of WW1.

 

[ValiantHeart]

Here is an opinion I just found, quote:

I have been thinking for a way to improve the German auxiliary crusier fleet. I think the most important improvements would be highter speed, equal to a submarine (~18 knots), better observation and a motor torpedo boat.

The highter speed would require hull shape and sponsored power-plants.

Historically, the raiders got one or two floatplanes. Initially I thought about using Fi-156s that could take off and land on the ship itself, but the landing pad would betray the identity of the ship. If floatplanes have to be used, I think a smaller aircraft like the Caspar-Heinkel U.1 would have been more suitable. This was designed for submarines and could be stored in a tube just 7.40 metres (24.3 ft) long with a diameter of 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in). If a ship is fitted with two 8 meter (24 ft) long hangars - one in front and one aft of the central superstructure, a raider could easily carry 6 of these. I think it would be best if they were catapulted straight out of the hangar to the side (some US carriers had this option). The cargo cranes on the fore and aft mast should be able to recover them. This aircraft was very small and light, with a gross weight of just 510 kg (1,124 lb), so easy to handle.

Another improvement would be an LS4 kind of torpedo boat for engaging faster opponents. Historically, only one raider got one and sank ~50,000 BRT with it. MTBs should have been developed earlier with each raider getting one from the start.

I think the above improvements would have probably doubled the effectiveness of the raiders. Keeping in mind that each historical one sank about 100,000 BRT per year, doubling that and putting more raiders at sea from the start would have been an easy way to inflict a lot of damage.

 

[Rule of cool]

If Germany hadn't lost WW1, it's unlikely that WW2 would happen. WW2 basically being the completion of the (German) objectives of WW1.

I read somewhere once, maybe Paul Kennedy Rise and Fall.... that WW1 and WW2 was a single prolonged conflict to decide if there was going to be 2 or 3 Superpowers, Germany being the only country apart from the USA and USSR with the industrial muscle to break into that rarified group.

 

[ValiantHeart]

I'd say replace B&T with another pair of S&G but with 15" guns, upgun S&G as well. Use S&Gs guns on 3 additional PBs. That should give you 4 x 15" S&G and 6 x PBs. If possible skip the Hippers entirely and build another 3 x PBs. War winning? No. But would definitely give the Royal Navy far more heartburn

Sounds interesting. Do you have any opinion for the remaining branches?

 

[Foo Fighter]

If Germany hadn't lost WW1, it's unlikely that WW2 would happen. WW2 basically being the completion of the (German) objectives of WW1.

If WW1 had not been lost and the results not so ruinous, would AH have had even a sniff of power?

There may even have been a broad european group against the SU

That and no WW2 may even have an affect of the OTL USA and how it shaped the OTL power distribution.

 

[Desertfox]

Sounds interesting. Do you have any opinion for the remaining branches?

Subs are probably fine, fix the torpedoes and get improvements in sooner and build more.

Destroyers... bad seakeeping, poor range, and the dumb 150mm guns. Use 6x105mm, focus on seakeeping and range and skip the 150mm ones entirely. Build more.

Light cruisers where entirely useless, but WWI proved they could make good raiders. Like destroyers, focus on 6 x 150mm instead of 9 x 150mm, use weight savings for range, seakeeping, and scouts. Build more and use them for raiding. At least 10.

The Gemran surface fleet was just full of experimental and inefficient ships which served no real purpose. Even good ones like S&G had significant flaws, more efficient use of tonnage would have paid a lot of dividends (but still lost the war).

 

[Ainen]

I'd say replace B&T with another pair of S&G but with 15" guns, upgun S&G as well. Use S&Gs guns on 3 additional PBs. That should give you 4 x 15" S&G and 6 x PBs. If possible skip the Hippers entirely and build another 3 x PBs. War winning? No. But would definitely give the Royal Navy far more heartburn

S&G have no meaningful advantages to repeat them, they're barely cheaper and take same slipways. They're also weak, as arms race accelerates, and, importantly and often missed, they're actually terrible designs (there are mechanical mistakes and huge unplanned overweight).

Additional PBs are only possible at the expense of battleships, as Germany ascends treaty system. They're also meaningless, as their initial purpose is substantially degraded by emergence of Dunkerque class battleships. Keep in mind they aren't just multipurpose raiders, they're raiders with primary task of intercepting french troop convoys, in Mediterranean if necessary.

Same on heavy cruisers; they're a treaty construction. Furthermore, they're connected tied to two Graf Zeppelin class carriers in construction.

Between 1934 and 1938, Germany basically has no need for additional PBs, they're building to wrestle sea superiority from France, rather than for raiding against France (Reichsmarine did) or raiding against UK(plan Z).

Destroyers... bad seakeeping, poor range, and the dumb 150mm guns.

It's impossible to know beforehand without access to Palantir. First KM zerstorers start entering service barely two years before the war. 1936a are laid down barely a year after there's first experience that new ships (1934, not 1936) may have substantial sea keeping problems.

And add context: it's indeed first 4(!!!!) proper destroyers entering service in 1937. Bloody Poland has 2+2(in construction).
Stalin is finishing a dozen of modern destroyers on Baltic per year(and laying down dozens more; plus red navy also has and builds leaders), and France has entire already built navy with two dozens of CTs (5 138; 8 - in construction) and 3 dozen - destroyers.(And also laying down more).

KM is desperately, desperately in need of any qualitive outmatch. Their destroyers are effectively taking on light cruiser function, as available RM light cruisers are few, worn and bad, and stopgap repeats(Nurnberg) are just as few and frankly just as meh.
M class cruisers won't be laid down until 1938, and won't enter service (in theory) until 1941. Narviks exist in context.

 

[Dilandu]

Here is an opinion I just found, quote:

German surface raiders were generally equipped with Arado Ar 231 floatplane, so I don't see the point of using deliberatedly worse machine.

 

[RedLegion]

The question is whether, in addition to naval aviation, the KM could be made more effective. After all, under the conditions of practical control in the Baltic, they were unable to prevent the escape of Polish submarines.

 

[MichiK]

The question is whether, in addition to naval aviation, the KM could be made more effective. After all, under the conditions of practical control in the Baltic, they were unable to prevent the escape of Polish submarines.

Ahh, that's an easy one: Don't start a war while you don't have the ships for!

And even then, those subs were subs, after all. Hard to detect, particularily in noisy, shallow waters with lots of interfering geography. In 1939 all navies were struggling to detect subs that approached your ships, how were they supposed to reliably find ones that stayed away on purpose?

 

[Ainen]

The question is whether, in addition to naval aviation, the KM could be made more effective. After all, under the conditions of practical control in the Baltic, they were unable to prevent the escape of Polish submarines.

The only serious one is finish damn ships you have in high readiness.
Those few ships could've had an outsized effect for a navy, absolutely bound to that stream of new ships entering war from slipways.

Cancelling/slowing down remaining pre-Z ships was a big mistake, and KM probably could've remained effective for a substantially longer amount of time(year) at a very moderate added cost to Germany. This is partially against their WW1 experience, but it's common sense. Loss of Zeppelin and Seydlitz was avoidable.

More broadly, cancelling M class cruisers was a bad decision, but knowing that (they were dismantled early on) is somewhat crystal ball. These could've be mostly built before serious British bombing(ca. late 1941 onwards), and they would've improved heavy unit escort situation by a lot.
For KM, light cruisers (aka, persistent high speed long range escort and scouting) are an absolute dead spot throughout the war, Leipzig and Nürnberg are inadequate, and 1936a are at most a partial ersatz/bluff; and that was known and understood beforehand.

Maybe, potentially, built a 3rd planned Bismarck class battleship as planned, as it isn't terribly weaker than H class and is fully usable against Britain, but can be laid down and expected to produce added fighting strength half a year earlier(1942?).
This is a substantial crystal ball, as first H class is "only" half a year later, barely more expensive and far more promising.

As a technical nitpicking,
Don't overly compromise S&G design by excessive political compromises (Hitler getting reasonable foresight) - matching the French is sufficient.
Maybe try to take less risks with machinery you think to be tested, but which never was tested in warship conditions (reasonable conservatism inside... though not very German). A lot of crystal ball involved, not very likely.

I don't think anything else is reasonable within time constraints given. KM is honestly the most effective navy ow WW2 bang for buck, and arguably one that managed to exploit it's very limited war preparations (out of one of the worst initial dispositions) best.

 

[Rule of cool]

KM is honestly the most effective navy ow WW2 bang for buck, and arguably one that managed to exploit it's very limited war preparations (out of one of the worst initial dispositions) best.

I'm inclined to agree, perhaps there's room for tinkering at the edges, but given it's starting point, political and strategic situation I think its pretty reasonable. I think the big disagreement comes from the surprising conquest of France and the sudden appearance of huge naval options, but it's unreasonable to think planners of 1935 should have been preparing for that.

If WW1 had not been lost and the results not so ruinous, would AH have had even a sniff of power?

There may even have been a broad european group against the SU

That and no WW2 may even have an affect of the OTL USA and how it shaped the OTL power distribution.

The hardest thing about these lines of thought is picking the right historical aspects to extrapolate forward. I find the most obvious themes the least helpful.