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.