Atlantik bomber kreuzer

[_Del_]

The time frame is coherent with operation "Seelöwe", hence the possibility of supporting amphibious operations. Commerce raiding is also a possibility.

Whether designed to the purpose or not, I imagine being able to generate medium bomber flights at sea would add an interesting dynamic to the Battle of the North Atlantic. Even unarmed, the bombers would be a welcome extension to the Condor flights -- telegraphing convoy locations to wolfpacks, and surface groups' locations to the other commerce raiders allowing Kriegsmarine to better avoid pitched battles vs capital ships.

 

[Parasitkaffee]

Hello Together Here are ALL informations I Found about the Atlantikbomber Kreuzer and Großer Atlantikbomber Kreuzer

Thats All what Exist in The Marinearchiv Freiburg .

Good job, still I have one question. I thought I saw a third design dating 1940 from a convoy cruiser on the site of the Bundesarchiv, but I can't find it back. Are you familiar with such a design? Im not sure while I accidentally push a button and it disappeared, Ron

I don't have these yet

My man how get me these is in Holly days

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

I found it back, this must be the right link: https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/f18f91c5-fb91-46fd-b319-a287f8e41b94/

Its classified in the topic Sonstige Schwere Kreuzer and described as a convoy destroyer dated 1940. RM 25/8787 Freiburg. If anyone can make photographs of the drawings, it would be very nice. Ron

 

[Wurger]

Roodbaard1958! wrote:

Its classified in the topic Sonstige Schwere Kreuzer and described as a convoy destroyer dated 1940

Could this convoy destroyer be the "Handelszerstörer" depicted and described by Siegfried Breyer?

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

Roodbaard1958! wrote:

Its classified in the topic Sonstige Schwere Kreuzer and described as a convoy destroyer dated 1940

Could this convoy destroyer be the "Handelszerstörer" depicted and described by Siegfried Breyer?

Possible,which publication of Siegfried Breyer you refer to, he wrote quite a lot, thx Ron

 

[Wurger]

Roodbaard1958! wrote:

Its classified in the topic Sonstige Schwere Kreuzer and described as a convoy destroyer dated 1940

Could this convoy destroyer be the "Handelszerstörer" depicted and described by Siegfried Breyer?

Possible,which publication of Siegfried Breyer you refer to, he wrote quite a lot, thx Ron

"Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1921-1997".

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

Erich Gröner mentions in his German warships 1815-1945 vol. 1 the P-class armoured ships but also M-class light cruisers. In addition to the latter class he mentioned a 8.000 Atlantic cruiser designed 1935 and after solely for the cruiser war. The M-class was a failure with the M and N laid down in 1938 but in 1939 stopped, so there is a possibility that this design was an improved M-class. I really hope somebody is able to photograph this design and publish in on this website

 

[Parasitkaffee]

The problem for me is is the money.


I can't go to the Archive in Freiburg and take pictures because I live about 600km away from it.


So I have to call a "Recherchedienstleister" ho did that for me and that cost money.

(for my set of H class Battleship plans for example I paid about 350 euro)

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

For me the distance is comparable. That was a small fortune for the plans! That is not enjoyable anymore. In the Netherlands you can order digitized documents against a reasonable price, sometimes even for nothing, Drawings are always problem due to the format. Although there are exceptions. On the website of the National Archive at The Hague you can download drawings of Dutch navy ships while the former town archive of Vlissingen offered the possibility to download drawings of navy and merchant ships for free. In the near future the Zeeuws Archief will take over the latter drawings on her website

 

[Wurger]

Try living more than 1600 kms away, and expecting to pay a lot since taking your own photos isn`t, to my knowledge, allowed. They have to learn a lot from, for instance, some british archives.

 

[Parasitkaffee]

Try living more than 1600 kms away, and expecting to pay a lot since taking your own photos isn`t, to my knowledge, allowed. They have to learn a lot from, for instance, some british archives.

Taking your own pictures is free but you have to know whare the plans you are looking for are and you have to pre register yourself 3 days before your visit

 

[Kugelblitz]

"Something else I find absolutely bonkers is the shape of the armour belt which seems to taper at each end. "

Maybe meant to depict a turtle armour deck? Though not depicted in end on views.

 

[airman]

i don't know if Atlantik Bomber Kreuzer are referred to projects of hybrid - cruisers known as Grossflugzeugkreuzer

 

[Tzoli]

These are more like CAV or aviation cruisers similar to the Japanese Tone and rebuilt Mogami. They were launched by catapults (as thedrawign seems to indicate whatever it was possible to launch such large aircrafts from shipboard catapults...) not by their own power from a flight deck

 

[awhalen61]

So, the good news is that when I ran this through SpringSharp, the program itself did not gain sentience to beat me up.

Just putting in the size of the ship gave me 17.8k tons normal displacement-to knock it down to 7200t normal I had to give it a magical hull coefficient of .222.

The bad news: shockingly, this design wouldn't work. Not on that displacement. Unless you want no crew space, a metacentric height of zero, and the minor issue of having 189% of your ship below the water at all times.

German Engineering at its finest!

Spoiler: Springsharp report

Grosser Atlantik Bomber Krueuzer, Germany Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
6,516 t light; 6,946 t standard; 7,200 t normal; 7,403 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
656.18 ft / 600.39 ft x 72.18 ft x 26.25 ft (normal load)
200.00 m / 183.00 m x 22.00 m x 8.00 m

Armament:
12 - 7.99" / 203 mm guns (9 mounts), 255.24lbs / 115.78kg shells, 1940 Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
on centreline ends, majority forward
Main guns limited to end-on fire
8 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns in single mounts, 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,360 lbs / 1,524 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Hydraulic drive, 4 shafts, 120,985 shp / 90,255 Kw = 38.00 kts
Range 5,500nm at 9.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 457 tons

Complement:
390 - 508

Cost:
£6.202 million / $24.809 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 420 tons, 5.8 %
Machinery: 3,235 tons, 44.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,861 tons, 39.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 684 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
-68 lbs / -31 Kg = -0.3 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or NaN torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 0.52
Metacentric height 0.1 ft / 0.0 m
Roll period: 84.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.222
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.32 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 64.20 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.97 ft / 8.22 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m (17.16 ft / 5.23 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.16 ft / 5.23 m
- Stern: 17.16 ft / 5.23 m
- Average freeboard: 18.81 ft / 5.73 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 189.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): -213.0 %
Waterplane Area: -26,751 Square feet or -2,485 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 73 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 199 lbs/sq ft or 971 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.32
- Longitudinal: 1.56
- Overall: 1.34
Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor

 

[alexi]

Jesus christ, Atlantik Bomber Kreuzer is like someone in KM department got seriously drunk by putting a motor boat, make it bigger slap with guns, catapult on blueprints and call it a day.

Typical German Nazi engineering, lol.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Germany - Atlantikbomber-Kreuzer - Shipbucket

 

[Jemiba]

An idea about the origin of those drawings was put forward on the German Forum Marinearchiv.
Regularly some young officers were ordered for courses of studies about naval architecture. And
those students were set tasks as exercises in shipbuilding.
As in that post ( https://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php/topic,34452.msg390555.html#msg390555 ,
you may have to register) said, the ship itself actually may have been powered not by Diesel, but by Jumo
aircraft engines ! That could have been an attempt to avoid the need for the problem of storing two different
kind of fuels. certainly an innovative way, though we don't know, how it may have been accepted by the prof ...
Must say, I like this interpretation, as it explains the weird layout, the obvious errors, the well done drawing
(" ... and you'll do a construction drawing in Indian ink, that'll be assessed separately !"), as well as the fact, that
this "project" found its way into the archives after the war, as the poster in that forum (ufo, if you'll read this:
Danke !) says: After the war, the drawers of a design office were emptied out into a basket, so that real designs
and projects were mixed up with students exercises. Some naval designers probably had a second job as profs.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Some naval designers probably had a second job as profs.

Indeed, D. K. Brown lamented the destruction of decades worth of student design projects when the RCNC naval architecture school moved from naval control at Greenwich to civilian control at UCL.

 

[szukający]

Interesting way of propulsion and control. Looking at the drawings (a lot of cranes) and checking various patents, it reminds a bit of aircrafts recovery systems for ships - (Espacenet) KRAFFT & WEICHARDT ; HERMANN HEIN DR ING. Maybe the author was somehow connected with them ? / By the way (at the moment) there is also on Invenio - RM 25_8784 - Flugzeugkreuzer (1-200) - 1940 - in - 1.2.9.3 Sonstige Flugzeugträger. / It's a pity they didn't give other drawings of aircraft carriers (or catapult ships; seen anyone a Plans of Westfalen with equipment?).

 

[NinjaGamer_5]

There's also a design for an inflatable airfield apparently...

View attachment 635834

Soooooo planes would basically be landing on a gigantic pool floaty? that do seem very safe or efficient. All you have to do is make a giant needle and poke a hole into it and it would be disabled.

 

[NinjaGamer_5]

Please notice that floating landing strip were regularly used for transatlantic crossing by German mail planes in the 30's (regular but not as intense as today obviously).
They used floating refuelling station made out of cargo with with all the proper arrangements to retrieve plane at sea, refuel them before launching them back to complete their crossing.
The drawing appears to be only a military version of the concept.

Blohm & Voss Ha 139 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I already can see the Ha 139 considering it’s life choices.

 

[Dilandu]

Soooooo planes would basically be landing on a gigantic pool floaty? that do seem very safe or efficient. All you have to do is make a giant needle and poke a hole into it and it would be disabled.

Try to calculate how long it would took for the sufficient amount of air to escape of float THIS size. Especially considering that it was supposed to be sectioned, of course.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Er... Germans suggested building a specialized ship for one-way bomber operations?...

I never doubted that Nazi were rater dumb, but this is get to the point of being totally ridiculous...

Hey! The Germans love ridiculously complex, expensive, and unworkable engineering projects. The more insane one is, the more likely it will get funded!

An armed version of the seaplane tender Bussard would have made more sense. There are several more of this sort of vessel available from the beginning of the war into about 1942 when the last were completed. Most survived the war.

While it could carry only three large seaplanes, there's nothing to stop from using it as a floating base for several more. That is, three go with the ship, several more fly out to it one-way for refueling and arming. You then launch the planes for say a raid on the US.

 

[NinjaGamer_5]

Try to calculate how long it would took for the sufficient amount of air to escape of float THIS size. Especially considering that it was supposed to be sectioned, of course.

It probably would take an eternity to deflate.

 

[Deleted member 4286]

Very interesting pictures on the HA 139 structure construction

 

[dan_inbox]

While it could carry only three large seaplanes, there's nothing to stop from using it as a floating base for several more. That is, three go with the ship, several more fly out to it one-way for refueling and arming. You then launch the planes for say a raid on the US.

Yay! Someone invents again the Navy-for-fair-weather-only.
Very useful, especially across the North Atlantic.

Note that, obviously impractical & irrealistic as the concept is, it took quite a few more years for the USN to see the light and finally cancel Seamaster and Seadart...

 

[athpilot]

Yay! Someone invents again the Navy-for-fair-weather-only.
Very useful, especially across the North Atlantic.

Note that, obviously impractical & irrealistic as the concept is, it took quite a few more years for the USN to see the light and finally cancel Seamaster and Seadart...

And moreover it has nothing to do with "Atlantik Bomberkreuzer" which was discussed and presented on the first potsts in this thread!

 

[Jemiba]

Some more information, that were posted in the already mentioned Forum-Marinearchiv:
This design probably was submitted in 1940 by the "Arbeitsgemeinsschaft Leichtmetallbau" (consortium light metal construction).
So the earlier assumption, that it was done as kind of student research project is regarded there as less likely now.
A design for a light cruiser with a very similar layout, but without those extensive aircraft facilities, was found by a member there and posted here https://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php/topic,34452.msg390555.html#msg390555

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yay! Someone invents again the Navy-for-fair-weather-only.
Very useful, especially across the North Atlantic.

Note that, obviously impractical & irrealistic as the concept is, it took quite a few more years for the USN to see the light and finally cancel Seamaster and Seadart...

It has been said that the most difficult military position to take is an entrenched bureaucracy...

 

[Scott Kenny]

It has been said that the most difficult military position to take is an entrenched bureaucracy...

The only effective pre-battle prep is a nasty sickly season to clear out the deadwood...