KRIEGSMARINE CENTRAL - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

[lukasgrul]

You should get these uploaded onto Shipbucket!

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.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

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 ….

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.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

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.

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.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I don't think I ever got around to posting it here, but I did make a second version of my Derfflinger Rebuild.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Modernized-Derfflinger-2-1022827051

(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.

 

[AndyKru]

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.

Absolutely agree.

 

[alexi]

Haven't touch on invenio for months, there are a lots of new digitalized documents and files, here's the already know Dutch battlecruiser project, pretty straight forward, for the source is RM 20/1912, it also contains Z-plan schedule boards (the warships construction dates, planned commissions and laid downs etc, i will post them later).
I was going to download whole of them but my third world toaster can't handle it, sorry for the images quality.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Haven't touch on invenio for months, there are a lots of new digitalized documents and files, here's the already know Dutch battlecruiser project, pretty straight forward, for the source is RM 20/1912, it also contains Z-plan schedule boards (the warships construction dates, planned commissions and laid downs etc, i will post them later).
I was going to download whole of them but my third world toaster can't handle it, sorry for the images quality.

Better hide this from Sanglune. Can't have him thinking he can just milk this thread for Dutch plans.

Thank you for posting. I haven't touched Invenio in quite some time either, so perhaps I should go through and see what's become available and catch up on my downloading.

 

[alexi]

And of course, here's the Z-plan boards.

 

[lukasgrul]

Last weekend I finished drawing of Großflugzeugkreuzer AI.

 

[donnyjie]

So... Is this the "480mm gun/shell" from Groener? Just by measuring?
File serial: RM 24/373

 

[Force Lord]

Does anyone know anything substantial about the Kriegsmarine "post-war" ship construction plans that were discussed during 1940, 1941 and later? I only know what Herwig and Weinberg wrote about the 1940 memorandum and the 1941 plans respectively.

 

[alexi]

So... Is this the "480mm gun/shell" from Groener? Just by measuring?
File serial: RM 24/373

There's the possibility, the barbatte diameter of this C34/h is 12500 meters, compare to 53cm/L45 C/36 which around 12800 meters, although my barrel length measurings resulting either 43cm, 45cm and have you try to measure the breech length? my estimates usually around 2000 or less.
If this actually the 48cm gun, the caliber length could be L/48, L/47 or /45 (L/45 giving total gun length of 21735m).

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Does anyone know anything substantial about the Kriegsmarine "post-war" ship construction plans that were discussed during 1940, 1941 and later? I only know what Herwig and Weinberg wrote about the 1940 memorandum and the 1941 plans respectively.

The book Die Deutsche Kreigsmarine-Rustung 1942-1945 likely has the answers.

 

[YourChair]

Does anyone have a list of all the German Panzerschiffe projects after the Deutschlands, preferably with data tables where possible? (I'm looking for hulls that I could slap heavy cruiser guns on.)
Also, more information on the "Handelsstörer" project would be nice:

 

[lukasgrul]

You can get some info on this forum. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/panzerschiff-concept.32244/

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

Does anyone have a list of all the German Panzerschiffe projects after the Deutschlands, preferably with data tables where possible? (I'm looking for hulls that I could slap heavy cruiser guns on.)
Also, more information on the "Handelsstörer" project would be nice:View attachment 730468

I wonder what the source was for this drawing of a commerce raider

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I wonder what the source was for this drawing of a commerce raider

Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1921-1997 by Siegfried Breyer. About an 80-100 USD book. I just purchased it myself.

Does anyone have a list of all the German Panzerschiffe projects after the Deutschlands, preferably with data tables where possible? (I'm looking for hulls that I could slap heavy cruiser guns on.)
Also, more information on the "Handelsstörer" project would be nice:View attachment 730468

In short, the Handelzerstorer projects were an low-priority continuation of Panzerschiff P beginning (and pretty much ending) in 1941. Panzerschiff P was scrapped as a concept in May 1939 due to the inability to reach a satisfactory solution, largely regarding the armor. Instead of continuing the project and using the up-and-coming V12Z 42/58 as some junior naval architects suggested (saving over 1,200t of weight), Panzerschiff P ended still using M9Z engines.
Handelzerstorer would use the V12Z, if memory serves. Presumably the triple 15cm would be the 15cm/55 SK C/28 triple turret design intended for Seydlitz and Lutzow, and was still under construction even as late as 1941. Overall, Handelzerstorer represents a much better continuation of the Deutschland class than the Panzerschiff P (in my opinion). Multiple versions were pitched, but the one posted is certainly my favorite.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I should mention that Handelzerstorer you posted @YourChair is perhaps one of the best for putting the 20.3cm triple on. It's just a very good continuation of Admiral Hipper as a heavy cruiser - more so than something like Hindenburg, methinks. I use her as a tier 10 in my World of Warships German tree I am making.

 

[YourChair]

Thanks for the info!

should mention that Handelzerstorer you posted @YourChair is perhaps one of the best for putting the 20.3cm triple on. It's just a very good continuation of Admiral Hipper as a heavy cruiser - more so than something like Hindenburg, methinks. I use her as a tier 10 in my World of Warships German tree I am making.

I definitely agree with this sentiment -- before I was using a P-class with the 4x3 203 slapped on as the "Tier 10" in a wargame, but this ship would work much better

 

[YourChair]

Does anyone have information of the 1920s-era Reichsmarine projects developed under Treaty of Versailles restrictions? I have limited information on 3 of the ships in this series:
1. Project I/10 Panzerschiff, a development of the Emden

with 4x2 210/45 on 10,000 tons. Some people might know this ship as World of Warship's heavy cruiser Yorck
2. Project II/10 Linienschiff

with 2x2 380/45 (as Bayern; these guns were not allowed by the treaty ad resulted in the rejection of the design), 2x2 150/45, 2x1 88/45 AA, and 2 underwater 500mm torpedo tubes, on 10,000 tons. 124m length, 21.4m beam, 6.8m draft. Engine power: two-shaft mixed-firing (coal and oil) steam turbine, 25,000 hp for 22 knots. Armor: 200mm main belt, 30mm armored deck, 200mm conning tower, and anti-fragmentation shields for the 88mms.
3. Project II/30 Linienschiff

with 3x2 305/50 (as Derfflinger) and 3x1 105/45, as well as 2 underwater 500mm torpedo tubes, on 10,000 tons. 132m length, 22m beam, 6.5m draft. Engine power: three-shaft diesel engine, 24,000 hp for 21 knots. Armor: 200mm main belt, 25mm armored deck, 200mm conning tower, and anti-fragmentation shields for the 105mms.
Apparently this was rejected due to insufficient secondary battery and air defense capabilities, which were improved in future projects.


also, the existence of a Project IV/30 Linienschiff was mentioned. Assumedly, this project would have had the aforementioned improved AA.

Finally, there is Zenker's battlecruiser design, but I don't think that's relevant to this series.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Does anyone have information of the 1920s-era Reichsmarine projects developed under Treaty of Versailles restrictions? I have limited information on 3 of the ships in this series:
1. Project I/10 Panzerschiff, a development of the Emden
View attachment 730539
with 4x2 210/45 on 10,000 tons. Some people might know this ship as World of Warship's heavy cruiser Yorck
2. Project II/10 Linienschiff
View attachment 730538
with 2x2 380/45 (as Bayern; these guns were not allowed by the treaty ad resulted in the rejection of the design), 2x2 150/45, 2x1 88/45 AA, and 2 underwater 500mm torpedo tubes, on 10,000 tons. 124m length, 21.4m beam, 6.8m draft. Engine power: two-shaft mixed-firing (coal and oil) steam turbine, 25,000 hp for 22 knots. Armor: 200mm main belt, 30mm armored deck, 200mm conning tower, and anti-fragmentation shields for the 88mms.
3. Project II/30 Linienschiff
View attachment 730537
with 3x2 305/50 (as Derfflinger) and 3x1 105/45, as well as 2 underwater 500mm torpedo tubes, on 10,000 tons. 132m length, 22m beam, 6.5m draft. Engine power: three-shaft diesel engine, 24,000 hp for 21 knots. Armor: 200mm main belt, 25mm armored deck, 200mm conning tower, and anti-fragmentation shields for the 105mms.
Apparently this was rejected due to insufficient secondary battery and air defense capabilities, which were improved in future projects.


also, the existence of a Project IV/30 Linienschiff was mentioned. Assumedly, this project would have had the aforementioned improved AA.

Finally, there is Zenker's battlecruiser design, but I don't think that's relevant to this series.

That's basically all there is. They were preliminary sketches that served only to depict some very basic ideas. I/M26 is the one chosen for further development, and the rest remain sketches with sparse information.

 

[alexi]

Does anyone have information of the 1920s-era Reichsmarine projects developed under Treaty of Versailles restrictions? I have limited information on 3 of the ships in this series:

There's also I/35 which is a shallow water coastal defense battleship, armed with a single triple 35cm forward, most evidence i can find so far is that Germany somehow acquired a sketch of triple 35.6cm turret from US battleship Idaho (sketch dated 1925, around the same time when Zenker designing these new diesel powered ships), that's probably using as basis for 35cm turret for I/35.

the existence of a Project IV/30 Linienschiff was mentioned. Assumedly, this project would have had the aforementioned improved AA.

IV/30 is depicted to Nelson-class like all forward main guns as well. Anyway just for fun, i built IV/30 in Minecraft years ago (3.5:1 scale) and have to use blender for rendering since my toaster can't handle Minecraft poor optimization.

 

[YourChair]

There's also I/35 which is a shallow water coastal defense battleship, armed with a single triple 35cm forward, most evidence i can find so far is that Germany somehow acquired a sketch of triple 35.6cm turret from US battleship Idaho (sketch dated 1925, around the same time when Zenker designing these new diesel powered ships), that's probably using as basis for 35cm turret for I/35.

IV/30 is depicted to Nelson-class like all forward main guns as well. Anyway just for fun, i built IV/30 in Minecraft years ago (3.5:1 scale) and have to use blender for rendering since my toaster can't handle Minecraft poor optimization.
View attachment 730583

Do you have any further information about these projects (drawings, data, further reading)?
Also, nice build!

 

[Tzoli]

Here:

NavWeaps Forums-Admiral Zenker's warship design's

Miketr: I came across this online (http://www.avalanchepress.com/WeimarFle ... mode=print) and rather than derail Pinafore’s thread I decided to put

www.tapatalk.com

 

[cattalonX]

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Do you have any further information about these projects (drawings, data, further reading)?
Also, nice build!

German Capital Ships of the Second World War (Siegfried Breyer, Miroslaw Skwiot).

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

The Reichsmarine determined that with its 60,000 ton capital ship tonnage, it could either return to form with heavily armed and armored coastal monitor-battleships or attempt to build a faster, but more lightly armed and armored cruiser-esque ship. Consideration for a standard treaty cruiser (I/10) was also given, but ultimately rejected as it was obviously a heavy cruiser and could not be obfuscated like design I/M26 could. Six of these would not be sufficient anyway and would be relatively behind other nations. Diesels, having been planned for use late during WWI, were once again introduced for use. As before, the struggle between the monitors and Panzerschiffe was pretty brief, so the monitor and heavy cruiser sketches were not expanded upon beyond the most basic information.

 

[Jemiba]

It should be remembered, that when the Washington treaty was signed in 1922, and when the designs for the Panzerschiffe were drawn, Germany wasn‘t a signatory of that treaty, but still committed to the treaty of Versailles. And that only allowed for cruisers up to 6,000 ts, but for replacing the pre-Dreadnought battleships with new vessels of 10,000 ts and an armament of up to 11 inch. So not even Entwurf I/10 would have been allowed to be designated as „cruiser“, not to mention the Panzerschiffe, though the latter came as an unpleasant surprise to the Entente powers, which obviously only had thought of monitors or coast defence vessels.

 

[alexi]

Nothing new here, i thought about revisiting RM 6/32 and decide to "translates" the development battleship H and J.

Betrifft: Bewaffnung Schlachtschiffe “H” und “J”
Der Führer hat nachricht, daß England und USA. 12 - 35cm in vier drillings - oder in drei Vierlingstürmen bauen.
Zu don früheren Fragen:
Bitte projekt mit 12 - 35cm und in gleichem schiff unterzubringenden 12 - 38 cm (eventuell nur 10?) zu prüfen.
Fürher würde mit 12 - 38cm dann auf größeres kaliber vorzichten, auch wonn andere nächte auf 40 cm gehen sollten. Geschwindigkeit müßte wohl herunter.
Jm Entwurf gez. Raeder.
Für die richtigkeit:

DeepL translations:

Subject: Armament of battleships “H” and “J”
The Führer has news that England and the USA are building 12 - 35cm in four drills or three quadruple turrets.
To the earlier questions:
Please examine project with 12 - 35cm and 12 - 38 cm (possibly only 10?) to be accommodated in the same ship.
Formerly with 12 - 38cm would then prefer larger caliber, even if other nights should go to 40 cm. Speed would probably have to be reduced.
In draft signed. Raeder.
For the correctness:

F 15.6.40 (commission date?)
G 1.4.40?_____? 1.10.40 (the rest handwriting are the name of shipyard constructors)
H 15.2.42
J 1.6.42

And the second page, showing the planned main guns for H-class (probably?), based on what i get from the first page:
4 - 38 Drillings (three-gun turrets?).
4 - 40,6cm Doppel (two-gun turrets?).
4 - 43 Doppel (two-gun turrets).

 

[YourChair]

"Despite the lack of an aircraft carrier being completed, the Navy continued to pursue plans for additional aircraft carriers well into the war. Initially, these included the aircraft carriers C and D, which were to be laid down in 1941 according to the 1938 financial plan and were to follow the design of the Graf Zeppelin with slight improvements."

Does anyone have any information about these follow-ups to the Graf Zeppelin, and the "slight improvements" that were to be made?

 

[donnyjie]

Formerly with 12 - 38cm would then prefer larger caliber, even if other nights should go to 40 cm. Speed would probably have to be reduced.
In draft signed. Raeder.

This passage also mentioned why the Kriegsmarine didn't prefer triple turrets. They thought it had disadvantages in gunnery.

I guess that's because the Kriegsmarine's 'semi-salvo' is different from the Royal Navy's 'half-salvo' for firing correction, and 6 shots for firing correction is kinda unthrifty of a 4xIII-turret warship.

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

Schlachtschiffe en Schlachtkreuzer 1921-1997 door Siegfried Breyer. Ongeveer een boek van 80-100 USD. Ik heb het zelf net gekocht.

Kortom, de Handelzerstor-projecten waren een voortzetting met lage prioriteit van Panzerschiff P, die begon (en vaker voorkomend) in 1941. Panzerschiff P werd als concept in mei 1939 geschrapt vanwege het onvermogen om tot een ingewikkelde oplossing te komen, grotendeels met betrekking tot het broekje. In plaats van het project voort te zetten en de opkomende V12Z 42/58 te gebruiken, zoals sommige jonge scheepsarchitecten suggereerden (een gewichtsbesparing van meer dan 1.200 ton), aangevuld Panzerschiff P nog steeds met het gebruik van M9Z-motoren.
Handelzerster zou de V12Z gebruiken, als de geheugendienst doet. Vermoedelijk zou de triple 15cm het 15cm/55 SK C/28 triple turret-ontwerp zijn, bedoeld voor Seydlitz en Lutzow, en was hij zelfs tot in 1941 nog in aanbouw. Over het geheel genomen vertegenwoordiger Handelzerstor een veel betere voortzetting van de Deutschland-klasse dan de Panzerschiff P. (Naar mijn mening). Er zijn meerdere versies gepitcht, maar de geposte versie is zeker mijn favoriet.

Thx

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

View attachment 730684
"Despite the lack of an aircraft carrier being completed, the Navy continued to pursue plans for additional aircraft carriers well into the war. Initially, these included the aircraft carriers C and D, which were to be laid down in 1941 according to the 1938 financial plan and were to follow the design of the Graf Zeppelin with slight improvements."

Does anyone have any information about these follow-ups to the Graf Zeppelin, and the "slight improvements" that were to be made?

I believe I mentioned these before.
Here.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/kriegsmarine-central-km-ship-plans-discussion.37568/page-19#post-643474

 

[alexi]

Continuing on RM 6/32 development of H and J battleship.

Spoiler: Page 3

Original:

Mit der bitte um vorlage beim Ob.d.M
nachr:
Chef A
Chef M Wa
Chef K
Chef A I
Chef A IV
Betr: Schlachtschiff ’’H’’ und Folgebauten.
Zu Ob.d.M. op. 2/37 gkds. chefs. vom 13.1.37
A. In der Besprechung mit den amtschefs am 29.1.1937 ist vom ob.d.M entschieden worden, daß von K folgende entwürfe durchgerechnet werden sollen:
a) Schiff mit 8 - 40,6 cm geschützen in 4 Doppeltürmen.
b) Schiff mit 12 - 38 cm geschützen in 4 Drillingstürmen.
Geschwindigkeit zu a) und b) wie bei Schlachtschiff ’’F’’und ’’G’’.
B. Für die beurteilung der Entwürfe gelten nach ansicht von A folgende Gesichtspunkte:
1.) Leistungssteigerung durch Verstärkung der Angriffswaffen:
Die schiffe sind ihrem wesentlichen zweck nach träger schwerer Artillerie und deren verstärkung gibt daher die nach außen sichtbarste Leistungssteigerung.

Translated:

With the request for submission to the Ob.d.M
nachr:
Chief A
Chief M Wa
Chief K
Chief A I
Chief A IV
Re: Battleship ''H'' and subsequent constructions.
To Ob.d.M. op. 2/37 gkds. chefs. of 13.1.37
A. In the meeting with the chiefs of staff on 29.1.1937, the ob.d.M. decided that the following designs should be calculated by K:
a) Ship with 8 - 40.6 cm guns in 4 twin turrets.
b) Ship with 12 - 38 cm guns in 4 triple turrets.
Speed for a) and b) as for battleship ''F'' and ''G''.
B. In the opinion of A, the following aspects apply to the assessment of the designs:
1.) Increased performance by strengthening the offensive weapons:
The ships are essentially heavy artillery carriers and their reinforcement therefore provides the most visible increase in performance.

Spoiler: Page 4

Original:

Es ist aber nicht jede Vermehrung der schweren Artillerie eine zweckmässige Leistungssteigerung. Nur die Möglichkeit des zweckmäßigeren Einsatzes im Schießverfahren rechtfertigt den höheren Desplacements-Aufwand.
Voll ausnutzbar sind nur Gruppen von 3 - 5 Geschützen mit gleichen Bestreichungswinkeln und möglichst gleicher Geschützzahl.
Der Drillingsturm hat die bekannten Nachteile, für deren Beseitigung ein sicherer weg noch nicht gefunden ist. Bei einer Bewaffnung mit 4 Drillingstürmen ist im Wirkungsschießen eine zweckmässige Bildung von Gruppen nicht möglich. Als empfehlenswert bleitbt deshalb nur die Aufstellung von Gruppen aus 4 Geschützen in je 2 Doppeltürmen. Sofern also eine armierung mit 8 - 38 cm Geschützen nich als ausreichend angeshen wird, bleibt als einzige, vertrebare, unmittelbare Verstärkungsmöglichkeit der übergang zu 4 Doppeltürmen eines stärkeren Kalibers.

2.)Leistungssteigerung durch Verbesserung der allgemeinen Eigenschaften des Schiffes:
Die Verstärkung der Artillerie ist nich der einzig erfolgversprechden und im Einzelfall sogar nich immer richtige Weg. Die schwere Artillerie erfüllt nur dann ihren Zweck, wenn sie zur rechten zeit am rechten ort zum Einsatz gebracht werden kann. Ihr Vorhandensein wie ihre Verstärkung hat nur im Zusammenhange mit dem ganzen schiff berechtigung.
Die Schwere Artillerie hängt in der Erfüllung ihrer Aufgabe von folgenden Faktoren des schiffes ab:
1.) Geshwindigkeit.
2.) Aktionsradius.
3.) Panzer.
4.) Defensiv-Waffen.

Translated:

However, not every increase in heavy artillery is an appropriate increase in performance. Only the possibility of more effective use in the firing process justifies the higher displacement expenditure.
Only groups of 3 - 5 guns with the same aiming angles and, if possible, the same number of guns can be fully utilized.
The triplet turret has the well-known disadvantages, for the elimination of which a safe way has not yet been found. When armed with 4 triplet turrets, it is not possible to form effective groups. It is therefore only advisable to form groups of 4 guns in 2 twin turrets each. If an armament of 8 - 38 cm guns is not considered sufficient, the only justifiable immediate reinforcement option is to switch to 4 twin turrets of a more powerful caliber.

2) Increasing performance by improving the general characteristics of the ship:
Reinforcing the artillery is not the only promising way and in some cases not always the right one. Heavy artillery only fulfills its purpose if it can be deployed in the right place at the right time. Their presence as well as their reinforcement is only justified in connection with the entire ship.
The heavy artillery depends on the following factors of the ship to fulfill its task:
1) Speed.
2) Range of action.
3) Armor.
4.) Defensive weapons.

Spoiler: Page 5

Original:

Zu 1:
Die notwendige Geschwindigkeit ist zeitbedingt, weil sie von der allgemeinen Geschwindigkeitslage der Schlachtschiffe abhängt. Bei der durch die Entwicklung der Technick bedingten, ständigen, allmählichen Steigerung der geschwindigkeit veralten Schlachschiffe umso schneller, je langsamer sie sind. Dies hat für unsere Marine, die als einzige in der Welt quantitativ gebunden ist, besondere Bedeutung.
Die Geschwindigkeit von ’’F’’ und ’’G’’ hat seinerzeit aus Gewichtsgrüden niedriger angesetzt werden müssen, als es militärisch erwünscht war. Sie ist der von ’’Scharnhorst’’ und ’’Gneisenau’’ unterlegen. Für Schiffe, die nicht nur in der Linie, sondern wie unsere Schlachtschiffe im Atlantik im überraschenden Auftreten und oft zahlenmässig unterlegen kämpfen sollen, ist hohe Geschwindigkeit besonders wichtig. Eine steigerung der Geschwindigkeit über die von ’’F’’ und ’’G’’ hinaus ist deshalb notwendig.
Zu 2:
Der Aktionsradius des Schlachtschiff-Entwurfs ’’H’’ ist bei hochruckdampf und planmässigem Brennstoffvorrat zwar nicht ausreichend, wird bei Verwendung von Diesel-motoren aber voraussichtlich sehr gut sein.
Zu 3:
Der panzer des Entwurfs ’’H’’ ist im genzen ausreichend. In frage kommt nur eine geringe Verstärkung der schiffs enden, einiger teile des Horizontal-panzers und des unterwasserschutzes nach erfahrungen am Sprengziel.
Zu 4:
Bei den defensiv-waffen, die das schlachtschiff gegen die feindlichen kleinkampfmittel des seekrieges schützen, um die erfüllung seiner aufgaben sicherzustellen, sind noch verbesserungen möglich.
Bei der mittelartillerie ist die bildung von 2 gruppen zu je 4 Geschützen auf jeder schiffsseite erwünscht.
Bei der flakartillerie ist die völlig ungeschützte aufstellung der geschütz-Bedienungen ein schwerer mangel, der stärkste ausfälle durch splitter erwarten läßt, und die einsatzmöglichkeit der flak nach feuerluv einschränkt. Die unterbringung der 10,5 cm doppelflaks in splittergeschützten türmen bedeutet eine erhebliche verstärkung des flakschutzes.

Translated:

Re 1:
The necessary speed is time-dependent because it depends on the general speed of the battleships. With the constant, gradual increase in speed caused by the development of technology, the slower the battleships are, the faster they become obsolete. This is particularly important for our navy, which is the only one in the world that is quantitatively bound.
The speed of ''F'' and ''G'' had to be set lower than was militarily desirable for reasons of weight. It is inferior to that of ''Scharnhorst'' and ''Gneisenau''. High speed is particularly important for ships that have to fight not only in the line, but also, like our battleships in the Atlantic, in a surprising appearance and often outnumbered. An increase in speed beyond that of ''F'' and ''G'' is therefore necessary.
Re 2:
The radius of action of the battleship design ''H'' is not sufficient with high-pressure steam and a planned fuel supply, but will probably be very good if diesel engines are used.
Re 3:
The armor of the ''H'' design is generally sufficient. Only a minor reinforcement of the ship's ends, some parts of the horizontal armor and the underwater protection can be considered after experience at the blast target.
Re 4:
There is still room for improvement in the defensive weapons that protect the battleship against the enemy's small arms of naval warfare in order to ensure the fulfillment of its tasks.
For medium artillery, the formation of 2 groups of 4 guns on each side of the ship is desirable.
In the case of the anti-aircraft artillery, the completely unprotected position of the gun mountings is a serious deficiency, which leads to the expectation of heavy losses due to splinters and restricts the possibility of using the anti-aircraft artillery after fire luv. The placement of the 10.5 cm double-barreled anti-aircraft guns in fragmentation-protected turrets means a considerable strengthening of the anti-aircraft protection.

/SPOILER]

 

[alexi]

Spoiler: Page 6

Originals:

C.Beurteilung:
Vom militärischen standpunkt sind die möglichkeiten ein erhöhtes deplacement zweckmässig auszunutzen, folgendermaßen zu beurteilen:
Das ausmaß der Größensteigerung ist begrenzt durch unsere geographische Küstengestaltung. Eine erhöhung des tiefgangs ist ausgeschlossen. Eine Verlängerung des schiffes wird schon merkliche schwiergkeiten bei der benutzung des K.W Kanals und in den Häfenzur folge haben und ist daher nur noch eng begrenzt möglich. Eine Vergrößerung der breite ist soweit unbedenklich, als es die Schleusen zulassen.
Die militärisch richtige ausnutzung der deplacementssteigerung hängt entscheidend von ihrem umfangab.
In jedem falle ist die erhaltung der geschwindigkeit wie bei ’’F’’ und ’’G’’ notwendig, eine steigerung ist dringend erwünscht.
Falls eine erhöhung des deplacements nicht in dem maße stattfiden kann, daß eine verstärkung der schweren artillerie auf 40,6 cm möglich wird, so sind unter geringerem Deplacement saufwand folgende verbesserungen zu erwägen:
1.) Splitterschutz der fla-waffen.
2.) Verstärkung der mittelartillerie.

Translated:

C.Assessment:
From a military point of view, the possibilities of utilizing an increased displacement are to be assessed as follows:
The extent of the increase in size is limited by our geographical coastline. An increase in draft is out of the question. An increase in the length of the ship will cause considerable difficulties when using the K.W. Canal and in the harbors and is therefore only possible to a very limited extent. Increasing the width is unobjectionable as far as the locks allow.
The correct military utilization of the displacement increase depends crucially on its extent.
In any case, it is necessary to maintain the speed as with ''F'' and ''G'', an increase is highly desirable.
If it is not possible to increase the displacement to such an extent that the heavy artillery can be reinforced to 40.6 cm, the following improvements should be considered at a lower displacements cost:
1) Shrapnel protection of the anti-aircraft guns.
2) Reinforcement of the medium artillery.

Spoiler: Page 7 and final

Originals:

Zu a):
Vom artilleristischen gesichtspunkt aus besteht keine zwingende notwendigkeit, über das geschütz von “F“ und “G“ hinauszugehen, weil das 38 cm geschütz zurzeit allen billigen anforderungen an Reichsweite, durchschlags und sprengwirkung genügt. Bei der schwierigkeit unserer hafen und fahrwasserverhältnisse dürfte ein schiff von 42000 t an einer grenze stehen, die wir ohne erweiterung von häfen und fahrstraßen (auch z.B. der kurven des K.W.Kanals) nicht mehr wesentlich überschreiten können. Die handhabung def schiff wird schwierig sein.
Zu b):
Vom politischen gesichtspunkt muß entschieden werden, ob eine noch weitergehende überschreitung des vertrags-deplacements verantwortet werden kann. A ist der anschit, daß eine weitere wesentliche vergrößerung nicht stattfiden sollte, solange wir an das deplacement von 35000 t gebunden sind, das wir jetzt schon um 7000 t überschreiten, sodaß zusätzliche überschreitungen kaum noch zu verbergen wären.
Auch in bezug auf das (rechnungsmäsßige) haushalten mit unserer schlachtschifftonnage ist es zweckmäßig, nach außen nicht über das 35000 t schiff hinauszugehen, dafür aber lieber ein schiff mehr zu bauen.
Selbst wenn andere Marinen unter Lossagung von den Begrenzungen das Londoner Vertrages auf ein größeres kaliber als 38 cm oder größere standardverdrängung übergehen, ist damit nicht für uns ohne weiteres die Lage gegeben, ihnen mit der deplacementssteigerung in vollem maße zu folgen, sondern die eigenart unserer fahrwasser und vertragsverhälnisse wird auch dann möglichste zurückhaltung in der größensteigerung und damit im verbrauch von vertragstonnage empfehlen.
Als beste der bisher erwogenen lösungen sicht A an:
a) Typ ’’F’’ und ’’G’’ mit motoren, womöglich mit gesteigerter geschwindigkeit.
b) Schiff mit 8 - 40,6 cm in 4 doppeltürmen in an lechnung an den typ “F“ und “G“ mit dem gleichen panzer und mit motoren, womöglich mit gesteigerter geschwindgkeit.
Welcher type endgültig in frage kommt, kann erst die durchrechnung bei K und die daran sich anschließen de erwägung aller militärischen und vertraglichen faktoren ergeben.

Translated:

Re a):
From an artillery point of view, there is no compelling need to go beyond the “F” and “G” guns, because the 38 cm gun currently meets all reasonable requirements in terms of range, penetration and explosive effect. Given the difficulty of our harbor and fairway conditions, a ship of 42,000 tons is probably at a limit that we can no longer significantly exceed without expanding harbors and fairways (including, for example, the bends of the K.W. Canal). Handling the ship will be difficult.
Re b):
From a political point of view, a decision must be made as to whether an even greater overrun of the contractual deplacement can be justified. A is of the opinion that a further substantial increase should not take place as long as we are bound to the deplacement of 35,000 tons, which we already exceed by 7,000 tons, so that additional overruns could hardly be concealed.
Also with regard to the (mathematical) economy of our battleship tonnage, it is advisable not to go beyond the 35,000 tons, but rather to build one ship more.
Even if other navies, disregarding the limitations of the London Treaty, switch to a larger caliber than 38 cm or a larger standard displacement, we will not be in a position to follow them in increasing displacement to the full extent, but the nature of our waters and treaty conditions will recommend the greatest possible restraint in increasing size and thus in the consumption of treaty tonnage.
A considers the best of the solutions considered so far:
a) Type ''F'' and ''G'' with engines, possibly with increased speed.
b) Ship with 8 - 40.6 cm in 4 double turrets in connection with type “F” and “G” with the same armor and with engines, possibly with increased speed.
Which type will finally be considered can only be determined by the calculation at K and the subsequent consideration of all military and contractual factors.

The end.

 

[alexi]

Currently reading RM 6/23 albeit very hard because German blackletter style of writings, some bit information about developments and background of two panzerschiff "A" and "B", one of the list stated that Germany planning 6 panzerschiffs (A, B, C, D and E we know so far and what they becomed, while F mysteriously disappear and replaced by Schlachtschiff "F") but they also planning 2 more panzerschiffs for reserve fleet which will be laid down somewhere in 40' (replacement for Schleifen and Schleswig-Holstein).

 

[alexi]

And here's the 53cm/52 Gerät 36 barrel (bore length is 26040m).
View attachment RH_8_3024_K_0027.jpg
There's also the "Lange Gustav" 80cm barrel and a super high velocity 28.3cm/L76.

 

[Arjen]

@alexi I presume that's 26040 mm (millimetres)?

 

[Arjen]

This site says Gerät 36 bore length was 26.040 metres:

Germany 53 cm/52 (21") Gerät 36 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[alexi]

26.040 metres

Ah, i must have missed the dot since the page giving full 26040 m.