KRIEGSMARINE CENTRAL - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

Jemiba said:
Would like to repeat the question, I think, I asked already in the thread about German carrier projects:
Is there a plausible answer, why the Islands sometimes are on the „standard“ (starboard) side and sometimes on port ? For the conversion into a carrier of the Europa, we even have both versions.
In the episode of Drachinifel about the post-WWI development of the aircraft carrier, it was said, that a reason for the position on the starboard side was, that test had shown, that in the case of an abortet landing turning to the left was for most pilots the preferred direction, so the Island was placed on the other side. Maybe the standard direction of rotation of (most) eingines then could have been a reason ?
The only built exceptions IIRC were IJN Akagi und Hiryu, both intended to work in pairs with their half sisters, so that each ship could use a holding pattern to the other side.
Later this technique proved to be of less value, than expected, and it was dropped. Probably wouldn’t have been a reason for the German navy from the start ….
Click to expand...
I do not trust Drach and do not consider him a good source in all areas; he is very obviously biased and tends to leech his information from members in his server, who in turn are the farthest creatures from a logical and neutral observation as one can get (with some exception) - in my personal opinion. This is particularly true for the Kriegsmarine, as it is typically more fun and easy to dunk on the "Wehraboos" due to a complete and utter lack of knowledge for almost all parties involved with that word. Nobody seems inclined to study the KM, so they take myths, falsities, and half-truths that get spread around and parroted as unequivocal fact. There is a strong pro-USN/RN bias. Regardless, even I can admit he has gotten a bit better than simply reading Wikipedia articles.

Aside from Drach, I've done some digging in my various sources and cannot find a concrete or absolute answer. Personally, I consider it a cumulation of factors, including but not limited to the clockwise rotation of piston aircraft. Beachedwhale1945 on Reddit makes interesting points, but seems very committed to being contrarian in what I can only assume to be some sort of chase for the appearance of being higher than others in knowledge. There is, however, a very fine, thin gray line between attempting to dispel what is factually incorrect or misunderstood versus attempting to dispel something you are not even sure of, and with the air so much certainty.

Moving on. Graf Zeppelin being fitted with a starboard island is most likely due to the inexperience of junior naval constructor Wilhelm Hadeler, to whom the overwhelmingly difficult task of designing Graf Zeppelin fell to. Starboard islands on carriers were an international standard at the time, and even if the reasons weren't entirely clear to Hadeler (or to anyone in the OKM for that matter) it was what everyone else did (to include the British and Japanese), so why not? The 'real' reasons would fall to what the British experienced: a tendency for pilots to jerk left in an aborted landing as the aircraft maneuvered more sharply in that direction as well as the standard configuration of throttle left, stick right further influencing this. Did not expect to see Taylor Anderson, of all people, commenting on a Quora thread. Once the standard was set, everyone simply followed. Additional reasons could be down to the most base of human preferences, including being right-oriented. Not as if I can actually prove that, of course, but it's a thought.

Simply put, at this time, I am not sure. There is likely a source out there for carrier aviation which details exactly why starboard islands take preference over port-sided ones. All I can give you is a logical and thoughtful answer.
 
Last edited:
lukasgrul said:
I don´t think that they are good enough to go on Shipbucket and also there are lot of things that weren´t in blueprints and I made them up.
Click to expand...
I think you're stuff is good as it is now, but you still have room for improvement. I hope to see it one day. Keep at it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I ever got around to posting it here, but I did make a second version of my Derfflinger Rebuild.

1715137634550.png
1715234061775.png
(Top: New; Bottom: Old)
Physical changes include:
- Lengthened hull on the aft to 217,75 meters on the waterline
- Removed catapult and associated aircraft handling equipment on the aft
- Removed 7th centreline twin 10,5cm AA gun
- Moving the aft rangefinder in the vacant AA gun place
- Moving the funnel closer to the bridge superstructure
- Putting the ship's boats aft of the funnel on the aft superstructure
- Putting the aft pair of AA directors on the aft superstructure


Full changes in the link to Tzoli's page.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom