KRIEGSMARINE CENTRAL - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

Erich Groener
Click to expand...
I have read that there are some disagreements on 48cm guns, the closet that Krupp actually designed was the 45cm and 50cm gun, none built but they have a data sheet showed twin and triple turret designs, i still haven't found any document related to that sheet yet on invenio (perhaps not yet digitalized).
 
Pocket battleships of the Deutschland type, although formally called battleships, in fact did not have the required balancing for a battleship. In fact, they were heavy cruisers with 11" artillery of the main caliber. (Weaker than the previous battleships). Scharnhorst-class battleships had the same drawback. Unbalanced firepower and security. The weakness of the main caliber (the shells weighed only 330 kg) and caused the death of Scharnhorst in the last battle. And here are Bismarck and Tirpitz, my respects. A powerful weapon. The British felt it well for themselves. According to some sources, the Tirpitz-type battleship is one of the three strongest battleships in the world: Yamato, Iowa, Tirpitz. But this is not accurate. And the strongest does not mean the best.
 
alexi said:
I have read that there are some disagreements on 48cm guns, the closet that Krupp actually designed was the 45cm and 50cm gun, none built but they have a data sheet showed twin and triple turret designs, i still haven't found any document related to that sheet yet on invenio (perhaps not yet digitalized).
Click to expand...
I cannot seem to find any mention of a 48cm gun either. Not in RM6, nor in the NavTechEU for H-class, nor in any other source regarding this type with the sole exception of, naturally, Groner. One has to wonder what Groner saw in his archival visits to spur him to write that down.
For now it would appear the 48cm is simply yet another KM cryptid.
@Tzoli
 
alexi said:
the closet that Krupp actually designed was the 45cm and 50cm gun, none built but they have a data sheet showed twin and triple turret designs
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, some time ago I've reread this document (it's at the bottom of this thread's first page, if anyone's curious), and... guns' caliber is not stated there. The figures "450 [mm]" and "500 [mm]" are listed as "Vorderwand", i.e., turret front armor, not gun caliber.

Although, these guns' calibers may be close to 45/50cm. If we look at shell weights and muzzle velocities listed in document:
1) The first gun fires 1330 kg shell at 880 mps. According to Navweaps.com, it's rather close to WW1 18-inch guns: US 18"/48 Mark 1 — 1315 kg at 823 mps, British 18"/45 Mark II (1921 version) — 1323 kg at 808 mps, Japanese 460mm/50 from Number 13 BCs — 1360 kg with unknown MV.
So, this one can be 450/457mm piece... or, maybe, a 420mm one with very heavy shell (for comparison — German 406mm ammo weighted 1030 kg).

2) The second gun fires 1825 kg shell at the same 880 mps. Here the only comparable examples are Japanese ones*: 48cm/45 5th Year Type experimental gun — 1550 kg at 800 mps or 1652 kg at 780 mps depending on shell used, and 51cm/45 Type 98 — 1900 ÷ 2000 kg AP and 1858 kg HE shell, MV unknown. Also, we have Wargaming's estimated ballistics for 48cm/45 gun (found here, in Russian only): 1730 kg at 810 mps (not that WG is good source, but it's better than nothing).
So, this one can be something in 48-51cm range. Maybe even the mysterious 48cm from H-42/43, or 50.8cm from H-44.

But this thing above is just my wild speculation. In the end, I think that the 48/50.8cm guns from H-42/43/44-class battleships are NOT related to that document, and were no more than suggestions, like, "hey, let's give our battleship the biggest freaking guns on the Wild West!"

* 53cm/52 Gerät 36 not included in comparison 'cause it's obviously much more powerful: 2200 kg shell at 820 mps.
 
Hello all.

Another wall of text of mine incoming, relatively soon. When? Soon.

This time it will be about the O-class Schlachtschiffe. This particular disgorging of information (I prefer to call it a "persuasive essay") is primarily meant to delve into the particulars of the design and perhaps clear the air surrounding what is, by all accounts, a poorly understood or generally misunderstood design not altogether unlike large cruisers of other nations with the grand exceptions being her particular intended employment and choice of armament, neither of which are a "bad" thing. I imagine it may spark some debate, though; it's a pretty controversial ship, at least in the groups I tend to frequent.

There is a lot to rake up and smash together, so if anyone has any interest in helping to provide some interesting information (perhaps from RM6, the bane of my existence - translating in hard!) I wouldn't be opposed to including it before posting. Whenever I do that, of course.

I'm angling for January. Shortly following that will be the joke Hansadampfer CVE thing I made for funsies several months ago. Pray for the members of Sonderkommando Hansa, everyone.

Thanks all,
- Sarc.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all.

Another wall of text of mine incoming, relatively soon. When? Soon.

This time it will be about the O-class Schlachtschiffe. This particular disgorging of information (I prefer to call it a "persuasive essay") is primarily meant to delve into the particulars of the design and perhaps clear the air surrounding what is, by all accounts, a poorly understood or generally misunderstood design not altogether unlike large cruisers of other nations with the grand exceptions being her particular intended employment and choice of armament, neither of which are a "bad" thing. I imagine it may spark some debate, though; it's a pretty controversial ship, at least in the groups I tend to frequent.

There is a lot to rake up and smash together, so if anyone has any interest in helping to provide some interesting information (perhaps from RM6, the bane of my existence - translating in hard!) I wouldn't be opposed to including it before posting. Whenever I do that, of course.

I'm angling for January. Shortly following that will be the joke Hansadampfer CVE thing I made for funsies several months ago. Pray for the members of Sonderkommando Hansa, everyone.

Thanks all,
- Sarc.
Click to expand...
Cannot wait to read about it!
 
Hello all, popping back in real quick.

I don't usually ask questions - prefer to do as much as I can alone without bothering anybody - but I'm genuinely stumped on this one. Frequently encountering sources that state varying armor thicknesses for the O-class. Primarily the belt and deck armor. So far it appears to either be 190mm belt/90mm upper belt with 30mm weather deck and 60mm armored deck or 180mm belt/80mm upper belt with 50mm weather deck and 60mm (diesel section) - 80mm (steam section) armored deck.
The latter can be solidly confirmed to have been for the 1939 approved plan (RM6/83 supports it, at least, as do a couple of secondary sources), but the former is weird. Groner lists the 190/90-30/60 as does a Russian drawing and Axis and Neutral Battleships by Garzke and Dulin (1985), but otherwise the vast majority of newer works seem to agree that it was 180/80-50/60-80. Still, while Groner is known to have made mistakes, it seems unlikely that he just pulled such values out of nowhere. Perhaps he confused the 30mm Zitadelle value for the Oberdeck and assumed 60mm was for the entirety of the Panzerdeck? That doesn't do much to explain adding 10mm to both the belt and upper belt, though. The Russian-source image I have even goes so far as to show that the class was getting a Boschung for the entirety of its 76 meter citadel, which is not true (it was only aft). I also saw in RM6 that there was a neu and alt version of the O-class, which leads me to wonder.

If anyone has any clarifying information, it would be greatly appreciated. Where does this 190mm/90mm-30mm/60mm version take its place in the design history of the O-class, if it does at all? Is it connected to the alt (lighter, 33.8 kn) plan? (What, specifically, are the alt and neu plans?) Perhaps it's for the October 1941 modifications? (Tl;dr replaced single 2cm with Flakvierling, added additional 2x3 fixed TT amidships in hull.)

This is my only "big confusion" so far, and it would be a big help to have it solved.

Sources I've so far combed through.
- Original plans
- RM6 (/83 in particular)
- Obscure O-class armor scheme image from unknown Russian source
- Garzke and Dulin, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II (1985)
- Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 (revised edition)
- Siegfried Breyer, Marine-Arsenal Special Band 006: Die Panzerung der Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945
- M.J. Whitley, German Capital Ships of World War Two (1989)
- Erich Groner, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 (1982)
(Listed only are the most important sources. Some general sources, such as Conway's, were also looked at but generally disregarded).

Thanks again,
Sarc.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all, popping back in real quick.

I don't usually ask questions - prefer to do as much as I can alone without bothering anybody - but I'm genuinely stumped on this one. Frequently encountering sources that state varying armor thicknesses for the O-class. Primarily the belt and deck armor. So far it appears to either be 190mm belt/90mm upper belt with 30mm weather deck and 60mm armored deck or 180mm belt/80mm upper belt with 50mm weather deck and 60mm (diesel section) - 80mm (steam section) armored deck.
The latter can be solidly confirmed to have been for the 1939 approved plan (RM6/83 supports it, at least, as do a couple of secondary sources), but the former is weird. Groner lists the 190/90-30/60 as does a Russian drawing and Axis and Neutral Battleships by Garzke and Dulin (1985), but otherwise the vast majority of newer works seem to agree that it was 180/80-50/60-80. Still, while Groner is known to have made mistakes, it seems unlikely that he just pulled such values out of nowhere. Perhaps he confused the 30mm Zitadelle value for the Oberdeck and assumed 60mm was for the entirety of the Panzerdeck? That doesn't do much to explain adding 10mm to both the belt and upper belt, though. The Russian-source image I have even goes so far as to show that the class was getting a Boschung for the entirety of its 76 meter citadel, which is not true (it was only aft). I also saw in RM6 that there was a neu and alt version of the O-class, which leads me to wonder.

If anyone has any clarifying information, it would be greatly appreciated. Where does this 190mm/90mm-30mm/60mm version take its place in the design history of the O-class, if it does at all? Is it connected to the alt (lighter, 33.8 kn) plan? (What, specifically, are the alt and neu plans?) Perhaps it's for the October 1941 modifications? (Tl;dr replaced single 2cm with Flakvierling, added additional 2x3 fixed TT amidships in hull.)

This is my only "big confusion" so far, and it would be a big help to have it solved.

Sources I've so far combed through.
- Original plans
- RM6 (/83 in particular)
- Obscure O-class armor scheme image from unknown Russian source
- Garzke and Dulin, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II (1985)
- Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 (revised edition)
- Siegfried Breyer, Marine-Arsenal Special Band 006: Die Panzerung der Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945
- M.J. Whitley, German Capital Ships of World War Two (1989)
- Erich Groner, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 (1982)
(Listed only are the most important sources. Some general sources, such as Conway's, were also looked at but generally disregarded).

Thanks again,
Sarc.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I can only make you even more confused:

file.png

Supposedly, it's this drawing from NARA:
 
I was wondering why the name Hennig (bottom right of image) sounded familiar. It's because Oberbaurat (Senior building officer) Hennig also provided information (such as an approximate weight statement) for the O and H-class in NavTechEU - the one about the projected German battleships - which can be found in the share drive.
I strongly believe Mr. Hennig provided this information to the United States Government primarily from memory, an example being the weight statement I just mentioned. There are some obvious errors, but I think his notes on the design history are at least useful.
 
Do you know anything about redesigned Graf Zeppelin that is in this chart?
 

Attachments

  • german_aircraft_carrier_projects_table_by_ijn_yamato_bb17_dghdxiy-414w-2x.jpg
    german_aircraft_carrier_projects_table_by_ijn_yamato_bb17_dghdxiy-414w-2x.jpg
    85.2 KB · Views: 160
lukasgrul said:
Do you know anything about redesigned Graf Zeppelin that is in this chart?
Click to expand...
I believe that is Flugzeugtrager C/D, which were intended to have diesel to provide them additional range after it was realized the initial range estimates for Graf Zeppelin's steam system were way too high. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that this is a resdesign for GZ that could best be applied for GZ carriers after FZT B, though I would see no problem in providing B with diesel power given the delays in her construction compared to GZ.
 
Small update.

I am in the process of writing up some stuff about Kreuzer M, having somewhat moved on from the O-class project at the moment. (I think I have done pretty much all that I can with it for now, at least until I can get home.) It's an analysis similar in nature to that of the O project: a stand-up, if flawed (what displacement-limited cruiser isn't, though?), light cruiser project, doomed to cancellation with the outbreak of the war. The torturous design process may have not turned a lump of coal into a diamond, but it did make a pretty gem given the circumstances.
At the end of that one, there will be some what-if stuff revolving around what I think might have improved the design, including many, many V12Z 42/58 engines. If my guesstimates ring true, that's gonna be a lot of shaft horsepower. In any event, I will need to be home for that. Guess we'll see when we get there.

Current splurge order:
1. O-class (Mid-Jan)
2. M-class (Late Jan)
3. Hansdampfer "thing" (Early Feb, probably)

Not hard dates. We'll see how it goes.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all, popping back in real quick.

I don't usually ask questions - prefer to do as much as I can alone without bothering anybody - but I'm genuinely stumped on this one. Frequently encountering sources that state varying armor thicknesses for the O-class. Primarily the belt and deck armor. So far it appears to either be 190mm belt/90mm upper belt with 30mm weather deck and 60mm armored deck or 180mm belt/80mm upper belt with 50mm weather deck and 60mm (diesel section) - 80mm (steam section) armored deck.
The latter can be solidly confirmed to have been for the 1939 approved plan (RM6/83 supports it, at least, as do a couple of secondary sources), but the former is weird. Groner lists the 190/90-30/60 as does a Russian drawing and Axis and Neutral Battleships by Garzke and Dulin (1985), but otherwise the vast majority of newer works seem to agree that it was 180/80-50/60-80. Still, while Groner is known to have made mistakes, it seems unlikely that he just pulled such values out of nowhere. Perhaps he confused the 30mm Zitadelle value for the Oberdeck and assumed 60mm was for the entirety of the Panzerdeck? That doesn't do much to explain adding 10mm to both the belt and upper belt, though. The Russian-source image I have even goes so far as to show that the class was getting a Boschung for the entirety of its 76 meter citadel, which is not true (it was only aft). I also saw in RM6 that there was a neu and alt version of the O-class, which leads me to wonder.

If anyone has any clarifying information, it would be greatly appreciated. Where does this 190mm/90mm-30mm/60mm version take its place in the design history of the O-class, if it does at all? Is it connected to the alt (lighter, 33.8 kn) plan? (What, specifically, are the alt and neu plans?) Perhaps it's for the October 1941 modifications? (Tl;dr replaced single 2cm with Flakvierling, added additional 2x3 fixed TT amidships in hull.)

This is my only "big confusion" so far, and it would be a big help to have it solved.

Sources I've so far combed through.
- Original plans
- RM6 (/83 in particular)
- Obscure O-class armor scheme image from unknown Russian source
- Garzke and Dulin, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II (1985)
- Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 (revised edition)
- Siegfried Breyer, Marine-Arsenal Special Band 006: Die Panzerung der Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945
- M.J. Whitley, German Capital Ships of World War Two (1989)
- Erich Groner, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 (1982)
(Listed only are the most important sources. Some general sources, such as Conway's, were also looked at but generally disregarded).

Thanks again,
Sarc.
Click to expand...
1704483343442.png 1704483331704.png
1704483357861.png
This uses 3 of the text sources you listed, but also wunderwaffe.narod.ru, so maybe it can help.
 
YourChair said:
View attachment 715883View attachment 715882
View attachment 715884
This uses 3 of the text sources you listed, but also wunderwaffe.narod.ru, so maybe it can help.
Click to expand...
The 'unknown Russian source' I mentioned is in reference to the first image you posted. I wonder if there was ever a plan to incorporate a slope. Maybe somewhere there was, but it's only aft in the final designs.
It is getting to the point where I'm almost only going to trust primary sources, because the variation in the other types is extreme beyond comprehension and it is becoming quite annoying. In some areas the armor values match, but in others they vary between a few different values.
 
Do you have drawings of the L class designs? Especially the L-20 Alpha?
 
Yep!
Do you have drawings of the other variants as well?
 
@Tzoli @drwells42
I believe I downloaded L-class plans at some point before deployment 8 months ago. I'd have to whip out my laptop, which I do not have on me right now, so see for sure...I'm at least rather positive I do.

Give me a day or two and I'll see what I can get to you.
 
That will be great. I thought I had too drawings of the L class but only one old lower quality line drawing which was made decades ago. The GK Series I had downloaded from the The Dreadnought Project page.
 
Although they are not original German archive material, many years ago I made copies from a book about German First World War Capital ship projects…
“Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe 1915-1918”
by Friedrich Forstmeir and Siegfried Breyer.
 

Attachments

  • German WW1 Battleship Designs.pdf
    14.4 MB · Views: 324
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
That will be great. I thought I had too drawings of the L class but only one old lower quality line drawing which was made decades ago. The GK Series I had downloaded from the The Dreadnought Project page.
Click to expand...
I checked my laptop today. While I did download a bunch of new and good plans, I don't have anything more than what's already been provided for the L20s here already, very unfortunately.
 
Hello all,

For those of you not in this particular naval circle, I'm rather excited to share that someone has made a 3D model of my "Modernized Derfflinger" under the name "Ludwig von Reuter". It's missing a couple of things, and has some dubious late-war "upgrades", but overall the guy (SSteve_Man) did a wonderful job in modeling the ship. I also spent a lot of time reading and researching Scapa Flow for a Kanmasu game (if you know that word, you know what I mean), so I'm a pretty big fan of the choice of name for her.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/197noep
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/197noep/german_tier_10_cruiser_proposal_cause_wg_forgot/


O-class and M-class things are all pretty much typed up, but need a lot of polish. I'll see what I can do before the end of the month.

Thanks all,
- Sarc.
 
So again they just stole my drawing to use as a basis of their own design....
 
Tzoli said:
So again they just stole my drawing to use as a basis of their own design....
Click to expand...
It would appear that way.
I prefer to see the silver lining in it though - and I have spread the link to your drawing around in the comments quite a bit.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all,

For those of you not in this particular naval circle, I'm rather excited to share that someone has made a 3D model of my "Modernized Derfflinger" under the name "Ludwig von Reuter". It's missing a couple of things, and has some dubious late-war "upgrades", but overall the guy (SSteve_Man) did a wonderful job in modeling the ship. I also spent a lot of time reading and researching Scapa Flow for a Kanmasu game (if you know that word, you know what I mean), so I'm a pretty big fan of the choice of name for her.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/197noep
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/197noep/german_tier_10_cruiser_proposal_cause_wg_forgot/

Click to expand...
Many years ago, my friend Michael made a comparable drawing of an updated Mackensen. I was doing something very similar for an Ersatz Yorck, though mine will someday be a scale model.

DRW
 
drwells42 said:
Many years ago, my friend Michael made a comparable drawing of an updated Mackensen. I was doing something very similar for an Ersatz Yorck, though mine will someday be a scale model.

DRW
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind seeing it, if you have it around still. (The Mackensen and the E.Y., I mean, if you don't mind.)
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
I wouldn't mind seeing it, if you have it around still. (The Mackensen and the E.Y., I mean, if you don't mind.)
Click to expand...
This is what Michael sent me long ago. I've been using it for ideas on my E.Y. My E.Y model will retain its casemate guns, though.

DRW
 

Attachments

  • SMS_Mackensen_36.jpg
    SMS_Mackensen_36.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 120
Do you have drawings of the later WW1 capital ship classes turrets?
 
This is what Michael sent me long ago. I've been using it for ideas on my E.Y. My E.Y model will retain its casemate guns, though.

DRW


Thus isn't so bad. Nicely done.


Do you have drawings of the later WW1 capital ship classes turrets?

I'll check tomorrow, I found a couple turret plans that aren't in the drive. There's also a Warship International that has the 42cm turret dimensions, but it's literally just an upscaled 38cm.
 
Before I forget. This is a picture of H-40 Armor, which came in two variants. The right armor scheme provides more overall armor, especially deck armor, and appears to be caused by an acknowledgement of the role of aircraft.

ibb.co

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
 
Last edited:
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Before I forget. This is a picture of H-40 Armor, which came in two variants. The right armor scheme provides more overall armor, especially deck armor, and appears to be caused by an acknowledgement of the role of aircraft.

ibb.co

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
Click to expand...
Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom