"Pocket Battleship" a misnomer?

[decaro]

Just bought the inexpensive "Ultimate Illustrated History of World War II" and actually learned a thing or two that I never quite grapsed before.

For example, German Panzerschiffe (armored ships) that the Brits called "Pocket Battleships" were actually heavy cruisers that were built to out-gun or out-run any other capital ship. However, in practice these ships were slow to fire and their engines unreliable.

Apparently this all goes back to the "treaty" cruisers built under the Washington and other naval treaties that limited heavy crusiers to 8 in. guns and 10,000 tons of displacement, but the Axis powers always cheated on these specs, which may explain why IJN ships do so well against the Allies early in the war.

BTW, to avoid problems in pronunciation, the Allies gave Japanese planes "reporting names": boys' names for fighters (i.e., Oscar) and girls' names for bombers (Betty, Kate, Nell, etc).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Just bought the inexpensive "Ultimate Illustrated History of World War II" and actually learned a thing or two that I never quite grapsed before.

For example, German Panzerschiffe (armored ships) that the Brits called "Pocket Battleships" were actually heavy cruisers that were built to out-gun or out-run any other capital ship. However, in practice these ships were slow to fire and their engines unreliable.

Apparently this all goes back to the "treaty" cruisers built under the Washington and other naval treaties that limited heavy crusiers to 8 in. guns and 10,000 tons of displacement, but the Axis powers always cheated on these specs, which may explain why IJN ships do so well against the Allies early in the war.

BTW, to avoid problems in pronunciation, the Allies gave Japanese planes "reporting names": boys' names for fighters (i.e., Oscar) and girls' names for bombers (Betty, Kate, Nell, etc).

Warspite1

They were seen at the time, as an ingenious way of making use of the 10,000 ton restriction imposed on the German navy. From memory, this has nothing to do with "Treaty" cruisers, which were limited to 8-inch guns (Graf Spee and co had 11-inchers). By setting a 10,000 ton restriction on German ships, the Allies thought the Germans unlikely to build anything more than a coastal battleship type.

However, the "faster than any stronger ship and stronger than any faster ship" was soon rendered obsolete by the new fast battleships beginning with the Dunkerque-class.

The engines seemed to work perfectly well in Graf Spee and Admiral Scheer - but they did need regular overhauls and was the main reason that Graf Spee was heading back to Germany when Ludendorff disobeyed orders and went after the British cruiser squadron off the River Plate - whoops.

[Tiornu]

Warship International is planning an in-depth look at the Deutschlands in the near future.
My understanding about the diesels is that the navy disregarded input from MAN about the foundations they required. This caused some problems, though I think there's been some over-emphasis on the subject.
The best design history on the class is probably that in MJ Whitley's German Capital Ships of World War Two.
The Deutschlands (those still extant) were rerated as heavy cruisers in 1940. Their design gestated around a coherent mission and strategy, which cannot be said about any of Germany's larger warships completed after them.

[YankeeAirRat]

It wasn't the Washington Treaty that limited the Germans to heavy ships no larger then 10k tons was the Versailles Treaty. It limited the Germans to 6 battleships at no more then 10k tons. So the Germans got very enterprising with trying to make the first set of thier newest surface ships try and fit with in the rules of the treaty. They tried to build something inbetween a Heavy Cruiser and a Battlecruiser. When these ships showed up, it lead to some panics in the fleets of France, US, and the UK. That in turn lead to discussions about the next series of cruisers/battleships to run against these ships. In the end though, when the war came they were totally outclassed by the ships that the rest of the world was building as the threat of war started to come in the later 1930s.

I would also note that in the Kreigsmarine there was a serious amount of infighting tween the U-boat guys and the Surface guys. So between the two sides the German's Plan Z never amounted to what they had planned to do. I would note that nearly all of the surface ships the German's built had serious issues. Things like nearly all of the Bismarck class of AA guns had seriously limited field of fire (some articles that I have read said a few spots really only had 15 degrees of fields), to the German Destroyers weren't fast enough to compete against even the WW1 four stackers that were leased to Brits during the war and they were extremely "wet" ships for ops in the North Atlantic, to even Adm Hipper class of CA's though speedy the guns power in plunging fire wasn't very good. On a whole the Kriegsmarine surface fleet wasn't ready for war according to a few artcles and books that I have read

[Tiornu]

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?

[fuelli]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?

That was not by design. By the time the Bismarck was outfitted with her 10,5cm DP gun the SK-C/37 mount was not available in sufficient numbers. Therefore the older SK-C/33 mount was used for the four forward mounts. It was planned to replace them later on. Somehow the Royal Navy interfered with that plans...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: fuelli

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?

That was not by design. By the time the Bismarck was outfitted with her 10,5cm DP gun the SK-C/37 mount was not available in sufficient numbers. Therefore the older SK-C/33 mount was used for the four forward mounts. It was planned to replace them later on. Somehow the Royal Navy interfered with that plans...

IIRC this is how it went... it was necessity rather than design...


BTW, the big caliber AA guns Bismarck had were of almost no use against RN Swordfish biplanes... [;)]


Also the same could be said for almost any other navy (except USN) in those early war years - the AA guns, directors and fire control were not very useful...


Leo "Apollo11"

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: fuelli

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

One thing that has mystified about Bismarck, they put the fore and aft 10.5cm DP guns in different mounts, which meant one director could not coordinate fire from the fare and aft guns. Duh...?

That was not by design. By the time the Bismarck was outfitted with her 10,5cm DP gun the SK-C/37 mount was not available in sufficient numbers. Therefore the older SK-C/33 mount was used for the four forward mounts. It was planned to replace them later on. Somehow the Royal Navy interfered with that plans...

IIRC this is how it went... it was necessity rather than design...

Also the same could be said for almost any other navy (except USN) in those early war years - the AA guns, directors and fire control were not very useful...


Leo "Apollo11"

Warspite1

Exactly - it wasn't a "duh" moment. All ships designs are a compromise at the best of times. But in the thirties this was doubly so due to treaty restrictions (which some observed more than others) and/or industrial capacity etc. E.g. the British chose the 5.25-inch DP gun for the Dido-class AA cruisers. Two problems: this were the gun also chosen for the KGV secondary armament and there were not enough to go around due to industrial limitations. Some Didos received all five, some four and two had a completely different gun! The gun was not even the best AA gun available either, but the alternative was too small for a cruiser engaged in surface to surface action.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

However, the "faster than any stronger ship and stronger than any faster ship" was soon rendered obsolete by the new fast battleships beginning with the Dunkerque-class.

Even more fundementally.....the hysteria created by the "faster than any stronger ship" bugaboo ended up being burst by the simple logic that a more simple (and less expensive) solution to such a vessel was a superior number of 'inferior' ships. Ultimately Graf Spee was defeated not by any ship "designed" to defeat her....but by three weaker cruisers built for general purposes.

All in all though.....Deutchland was an innovative vessel which created a big political splash. The Germans themselves however were the first to realize the shelf life of the class had expired once the world recovered from it's shock....they canceled the remainder of the class in favor of building larger more capable ships.

[Tiornu]

I think we can all agree that the Bismarck design did not include incompatible gun mounts, but that doesn't change the Duh factor. The Germans could have fitted her entirely with the older mount, or they could have replaced the older mounts when new ones became available. They didn't. Compared with Bismarck, how did Tirpitz do when confronted with torpedo bombers? Of course, it's not possible to dissect the causes, as Tirpitz was better prepared for combat (in materiel and personnel) than Bismarck.
Deutschland was not really outdated, in my opinion, until someone got the brilliant idea of fighting a war against the world's largest navy. Facing only the French, Deutschland was a reasonable option even after Dunkerque appeared. France's cruiser fleet could not compare with Britain's, not to mention carrier aviation.

[Nikademus]

what do you see as the "ideal" German built commerce raiding type cruiser?

[Tiornu]

I guess it depends on the date. The proliferation of radio and airplanes (not to mention potential enemy warships) would make genuine warships a lesser choice for raiding. Historically, this option was caput by mid-1941. That leaves AMC-expendables as the only option. Otherise, though, long-range super-cruisers are good. They could also serve as mini-battleships in a Baltic command of the sea scenario, which I continue to see as a promising line of KM development. Forget Atlantic battleships and concentrate on an ability to dominate the Baltic and move amphibs all the way into the Gulf of Finland.

[Nikademus]

There was a guy who was arguing that between the Graf Spee's armor belt + it's torpedo bulkhead that it was assured of protecting the vitals even against 8 inch fire unless at very close range. I have to admit i was puzzled by this use of combination in order to forward a point of near invulnerability (to major damage at least as he put it)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Facing only the French, Deutschland was a reasonable option even after Dunkerque appeared. France's cruiser fleet could not compare with Britain's, not to mention carrier aviation.

Warspite1

Yes but was a war against France that did not involve the UK remotely likely then? Even if there was a repeat of 1870 then its unlikely there would be the need for a naval war.

Deutschland was not really outdated, in my opinion, until someone got the brilliant idea of fighting a war against the world's largest navy.

I agree, none of the surface ships of the Kriegsmarine did much to write home about but Admiral Scheer was relatively successful and Graf Spee could have got home after her initial raiding operation had her captain not disobeyed orders and sought battle with Harwood's cruisers.

[PresterJohn001]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

what do you see as the "ideal" German built commerce raiding type cruiser?

u-boats.
[:'(]

[Nikademus]

heh...not according to Clay Blair. [:'(]

[Tiornu]

Yes but was a war against France that did not involve the UK remotely likely then?

That's a question I was thinking of addressing, but I decided it's way too complex to deal with her in a forum. The German navy was quite embarrassed with its conduct during the FP War (basically it had to skulk about trying to avoid the French), and the leadership undoubtedly wanted a better option for the next time. The pocket battleships would have endangered French traffic and drawn the attention of French cruisers that otherwise would have been preying on German traffic. This was not a decisive front, but it was something worth pursuing.

[JeffroK]

"Pocket Battleship"

Was this a press or politicians comment that stuck.

[YankeeAirRat]

Press designation that sort of stuck through out history. Sort of like "Flying Fortress" was the name some press reporter had given to the Boeing Model 299 when it showed up for the first time over at Boeing Field in the 1930's

[bradfordkay]

At the time, Jane's had them listed as "Armoured Ships", while the Scharnhorst class was listed as Battleships.