KRIEGSMARINE CENTRAL - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

[spcmdxp]

The 42cm should be a /48 calibre gun as navweaps states that these would be bored out 40,6cm/52 barrels.

I'm still wonder if there was a plan for production 42cm guns, which has been the thought process behind why this might be a 42cm gun.
Checking out the C/34f and C/34g twins, the 'g' is very slightly larger - by no more than about 5% in most measurements - which is a rather small increase in size. I wonder why, if they're the same 40.6cm guns?
Checking the 'h', it's a massive increase in size.

Trunnion to Rear of Turret:
f: 13200
g: 13650
h: 14700
Width of Turret:
f: 9600
g: 10100
h: 10900
Width of Barbette:
f: 11000
g: 11500
h: 12500

53cm/45 for comparison:
Trunnion to Rear of Turret: 16350
Width of Turret: 12800
Width of Barbette: 14200

38cm/52 C/26 for comparison:
Trunnion to Rear of Turret: need to do maths
Width of Turret: 8900
Width of Barbette: 10600

38cm/52 C/34d for comparison:
Trunnion to Rear of Turret: more math
Width of Turret: still more math
Width of Barbette: 10500

So, some obvious conclusions:
- f-h is increasingly larger in turret size
- f and h are different size guns
- g is either a 40.6cm gun like f or an intermediate caliber between f and h (need to remeasure barrel lengths and confirm)
- h is no larger than 53cm, and in fact comes nowhere NEAR the size of the 53cm twin.

With all of these in mind, I can make some surefire assertions:
- This is not a 50cm gun.
- 43cm was never considered by the KM as far as I am aware, and I do not believe it is mentioned in any sources that I am aware of.

This leaves me with:
45cm/50-caliber.

However, I will not discount the idea of a 43cm/52-caliber gun. There could be a source out there. The KM has considered a wide variety of calibers including 17cm, 19cm, 21cm, 35.5cm, 42cm, 48cm, etc. It would not be out of the ballpark to think that 43cm may be one of these calibers. 45cm is just what I feel comfortable with as it's already been established as a caliber the KM have or will consider, albeit at /60-caliber length.

RM 24/362-364 seems to show another scheme of Drh LC/34f, which to a great extent resembles Drh LC/34g and has those three values of 13650, 10000 and 11500.

Sorry for not providing the original scan but my computer froze several times dealing with it.

 

[alexi]

Here's 40.6cm gun breech, from C/39 coastal battery mount.

https://imgur.com/bqkil24

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

The 42cm should be a /48 calibre gun as navweaps states that these would be bored out 40,6cm/52 barrels.

I'm still wonder if there was a plan for production 42cm guns, which has been the thought process behind why this might be a 42cm gun.
Checking out the C/34f and C/34g twins, the 'g' is very slightly larger - by no more than about 5% in most measurements - which is a rather small increase in size. I wonder why, if they're the same 40.6cm guns?
Checking the 'h', it's a massive increase in size.

Trunnion to Rear of Turret:
f: 13200
g: 13650
h: 14700
Width of Turret:
f: 9600
g: 10100
h: 10900
Width of Barbette:
f: 11000
g: 11500
h: 12500

53cm/45 for comparison:
Trunnion to Rear of Turret: 16350
Width of Turret: 12800
Width of Barbette: 14200

38cm/52 C/26 for comparison:
Trunnion to Rear of Turret: need to do maths
Width of Turret: 8900
Width of Barbette: 10600

38cm/52 C/34d for comparison:
Trunnion to Rear of Turret: more math
Width of Turret: still more math
Width of Barbette: 10500

So, some obvious conclusions:
- f-h is increasingly larger in turret size
- f and h are different size guns
- g is either a 40.6cm gun like f or an intermediate caliber between f and h (need to remeasure barrel lengths and confirm)
- h is no larger than 53cm, and in fact comes nowhere NEAR the size of the 53cm twin.

With all of these in mind, I can make some surefire assertions:
- This is not a 50cm gun.
- 43cm was never considered by the KM as far as I am aware, and I do not believe it is mentioned in any sources that I am aware of.

This leaves me with:
45cm/50-caliber.

However, I will not discount the idea of a 43cm/52-caliber gun. There could be a source out there. The KM has considered a wide variety of calibers including 17cm, 19cm, 21cm, 35.5cm, 42cm, 48cm, etc. It would not be out of the ballpark to think that 43cm may be one of these calibers. 45cm is just what I feel comfortable with as it's already been established as a caliber the KM have or will consider, albeit at /60-caliber length.

RM 24/362-364 seems to show another scheme of Drh LC/34f, which to a great extent resembles Drh LC/34g and has those three values of 13650, 10000 and 11500. View attachment 673971View attachment 673973

Sorry for not providing the original scan but my computer froze several times dealing with it.

You're right. 366 (the one I was comparing with) is dated earlier than 362-364. Didn't look as I should have.
I do wonder why they increased the size of the turret, though. I suspected (during a talk with a friend) that it could have been that there was a realization that space was an issue, or perhaps larger motors/equipment were desired.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

ALCON,

Added a few things from The Dreadnought Project. I've finished everything from the Kaiserliche Marine period but have really begun the Weimar/Reich period plans. I will continue to do so tomorrow.
It's quite the time-consuming process.

Leichter/Motor Kreuzer 1938 is also a folder you will find now.

Of course the changes with the turrets/gun folders and images in KM Weaponry, but I consider that a WIP.

 

[Tzoli]

They likely considered different loading mechanisms

 

[alexi]

Given with 28cm and 38cm preliminaries work in 1926,27 you can tell how much German willing to try different loading layout, the all elevation loader reduce much of its turret size and dimensions as possible, which remind i came across another 40.6cm C/34 designed in 1935 with a curve shell hoists (but the scans are pretty poor quality sadly).

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

They likely considered different loading mechanisms

Given with 28cm and 38cm preliminaries work in 1926,27 you can tell how much German willing to try different loading layout, the all elevation loader reduce much of its turret size and dimensions as possible, which remind i came across another 40.6cm C/34 designed in 1935 with a curve shell hoists (but the scans are pretty poor quality sadly).

Hard to tell given the lack of detail in the turrets, but I agree nonetheless. @alexi is totally correct.

 

[alexi]

Now with the 40.6cm breech provided, i think we can start to remeasuring barrel length more properly now, starting from the barrel tip to the trunnion, since most these plans only scale with full barrel.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Now with the 40.6cm breech provided, i think we can start to remeasuring barrel length more properly now, starting from the barrel tip to the trunnion, since most these plans only scale with full barrel.

I'd love to do that, when I can find the motivation to do so.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Alright everyone, I've transferred just about anything of importance from The Dreadnought Project.

I'll be moving things I've found from other threads regarding 3.7cm and 3cm guns over to here, as the discussions there are valuable in and of themselves.

I still need to move the RM 25 folder contents to their new homes, I suspect I will be doing this in chunks over time. They will also be renamed so identifying the plan is easier.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Okay, here's the 3/3.7cm stuff.

---

3,7CM FLAK SK C/36:
37 × 250R AMMUNITION.

This almost unknown gun was the Kriegsmarine’s first attempt to acquire an automatic 37mm AA cannon. Instead of using the 37 × 264B Flak ammunition (as used in the Flak 18, Flak 36, Flak 37 and Flak M43), Rheinmetall-Borsig designed the gun around a version of the Army 37mm cartridge used in manually-loaded tank and anti-tank guns. This rimmed cartridge case was modified by giving it a thicker rim, presumably to strengthen it in view of the more violent extraction forces in an automatic mechanism. The HE shells it fired were the same as those used in the Flak 18+ ammunition.

The gun bore a close resemblance to the Bofors guns, including the boxy receiver and a gravity feed above the mechanism taking 5-round clips, and was presumably based on these. It was fitted to a C/36 single mounting. Few technical details are available, beyond a gun weight of 240kg (930–1,040kg including the three-axis mounting) and a rate of fire of up to 180rpm.

It seems that not many C/36 were made, being deployed on only a few vessels, according to a Handbuch für Admiralstabsoffiziere which lists the Aviso Hela, the two Type 1A submarines U-25 and U-26 (and possibly some Type IX), torpedo boats and fishing protection vessels.

The Kriegsmarine had another try some years later, resulting in the 3,7cm M42 (see below) which used the same ammunition and general design, retaining the boxy receiver and the vertical gravity feed. It is evident that the M42 was an improved SK C/36, and the first mount- ing used by the M42 was the C/36.

Confusion over the German 37mm naval AA guns and their designations is widespread, and not only over whether the C/36 term is being used to describe the gun or the mounting (if the latter, the gun could be either the SK C/36 or the M42, as they are hard to tell apart). Also, it is often stated that the SK C/36 is nothing more than a marine version of the Luftwaffe’s Flak 36, when the two guns are completely different in their design as well as in the ammunition they fired. The situation is even more confused as some Flak 18/36/37 guns were indeed fitted to ships as a quick way of boosting their AA defences, so alertness is necessary in determining which guns are actually being referred to.

Sticking to the "Handbuch für Admiralstabsoffiziere", my best guess is that the triaxial 3,7 cm Flak L. C/36 mount was never mounted in the intend receivers (aviso Hela, fishery protection boats, torpedo boats, Type I , IX and XII U-boats, Elbe, Weser) and, by memory, most of them having just the older C/30 double mount (besides the never built Type XII). About the gun, again, in my opinion it is already depicted in posts #7 and #17, being a naval Flak 36. This is as far as my knowledge and guessing goes.

---

3,7CM FLAK 18, 36, 37; M36; BK
3,7: 37 × 264B AMMUNITION.

This series formed the bulk of the Luftwaffe’s medium-calibre automatic AA guns for the duration of World War II. The prototype of this series was designated the Rheinmetall ST 10, which was nominally handed over to Solothurn for further development as the S10-100, before being formally returned to Rheinmetall-Borsig. The mechanism used a short-recoil rotating-head lock with the cocking handle, attached to the front of the bolt, riding in a long slot in the receiver, which curved sharply as it approached the forward end of its movement, rotating the bolt head locking lugs.

The guns in this series were basically the same, with L/57 barrels, weighing 278–295kg and firing at 160rpm. The differences between the Flak 18, 36 and 37 mainly involving the mountings and sights: the Flak 18 had a cumbersome four-wheel mounting and was only made in small numbers, from around 1935, before being replaced by the Flak 36 which had a much improved two- wheel mounting. The Flak 37 differed in being fitted with a new sight, the Flakvisier 37, which incorporated a computer with a clockwork drive. Mounting weight in action varied from 1,550 to 1,750kg.

The BK 3,7cm was adapted to be carried by aircraft, primarily in the anti-tank role.

37 × 264B FLAK 18

This was the standard German land- based medium automatic AA gun ammunition of World War II, being used in a succession of weapons designated Flak 18, 36, 37 and the M43 which was also used in a naval mounting. It was also used in a modified version of the Flak 18, the BK 3,7 aircraft gun used for ground attack.

The cartridge case is tapered and belted, typical of Rheinmetall-Borsig automatic cannon ammunition of the period. It contained 189g propellant which generated 255Mpa chamber pressure. The complete round is 367mm long and weighs about 1.5kg. Projectiles had two copper driving bands until 1940 when a shortage of copper led to the use of a single soft-iron band instead, which required the gun chamber to be slightly shortened. The usual loadings were:

• HE: 635–644g nose-fuzed shell, with or without added incendiary element or tracer; HEI-T contained 24g HEI; SD (self destruct) impact fuze; MV 820m/s; 6.5 s tracer burn

• AP-T: 680–700g base-fuzed shell; 790m/s; 2 s tracer burn; penetration 50mm/90 degrees/500m, 40mm/60 degrees/500m

• APCR: (H-Panzergranate for the BK 3,7 only); 380g tungsten-cored shot, MV 1,170m/s; penetration 140mm/ 90°/100m, 70mm/60°/100m.

• In addition, a Minengeschoss was under development: 550g, contained 90g HTA explosive; the tracer burned for 2,000m (4.1 s); SD took place 2,800–3,500m.

Russia acquired technology from Rheinmetall in the early 1930s and developed a multi-purpose automatic cannon around the Flak 18 ammunition: the AKT-37. This failed to enter service.

Images of 3.7cm Flak 18/36 guns onboard ships (ZG3 Hermes first picture, Romanian ships for the last three images).

---

3,7CM FLAK M42: 37 × 250B AMMUNITION.

This Rheinmetall-Borsig design for the Kriegsmarine was a second attempt at an automatic naval 37mm Flak cannon, following-on from the little-used SK C/36 Flak (see above) which bequeathed its ammunition and Bofors-type feed to the M42, 5-round clips being retained. The M42 was evidently closely based on the C/36, otherwise there would seem to have been no point in retaining its unique ammunition instead of using the standard 37 × 264B of the other Flak guns. The performance was similar to the Luftwaffe’s 3,7cm Flak 37 although the mechanism as well as the ammunition differed; the gun was long-recoil operated with an artillery-type wedge lock and continuous feed. An L/69 barrel was used, gun weight was 300kg and the RoF was 160–180rpm.

The original mounting for the M42 was the Flaklafette C/36 (as used by the SK C/36 cannon) but this was soon replaced by the triaxially stabilized LC/39 (also in a U-boat version) and the LM 42 and LM 43, both developed specifically for the gun and weighing 1,350kg. There was a twin mounting, the Doppellafette LM 42 (DLM 42) which weighed 1,750kg. Despite the M42 designation, the gun entered service in late 1943, initially for submarines. An installation programme for fitting this gun to smaller surface ships got underway in 1944.

37 × 250R SK C/36 AND M42

Most German 37mm Flak automatic cannon used in World War II used the 37 × 264B ammunition described below, but two of the naval guns are exceptions. The 37 × 250R cartridge is almost identical to the German army’s 37 × 249R light tank/anti-tank round, only with a slightly thicker rim (3.9mm rather than 2.5mm – presumably to strengthen it in view of the more violent extraction forces in an automatic weapon) and a modified HEI-T projectile. The thick- rimmed round was developed for the naval Flak 3,7cm SK C/36 (cartridge cases with C/36 stamps exist); little is known about this gun, but it appears to have been officially adopted and was installed in a number of second-line vessels. The M42 inherited the same ammunition, but itself saw little use, its successor, the M43, using the standard 37 × 264B round.

The thick-rimmed cartridge case is straight tapered. The HE projectiles were the same as those in the 37 × 264B Flak. The original C/36 loading fired a 625g HE-T shell at an MV of 840m/s. The M42 loadings used 175–185g of propellant generating 290Mpa. There are two crimping grooves locating the projectiles more firmly in the case. This round used the same projectiles as the 37 × 264B except for the APCR. The complete round is 355mm long and weighed 1.37kg when loaded with the standard HEI-T projec- tile, which weighed 644g and was fired at 845m/s. There was also a 680–700g AP loading fired at 815m/s and a 550g Minengeschoss fired at 925m/s, although that last one may not have had time to get into service.

Incidentally, the German navy started the war with a different 37mm Flak gun, the SK C/30, which used very powerful 37 × 380R ammunition, but this was manually loaded so very slow-firing.

I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that the M42 did not use the 37 x 264B ammo.

Below, you can see a photo of a round of 37 x 264B ammo in my collection. Below that, you can see a photo of a disassembled 37 x 250R for the M42. Look at the bases of the two rounds - the M42 has a simple rim, the 37 x 264B has a complex belted design.
Third one down is a page from Waffen-Revue 107, giving technical data on the M42, and finally a close-up of the ammo pic in that document. You can see that the M42 used the ammo with the simple rim, not the belted case.

I have checked my references and the two cartridges had very similar performance. The projectiles were the same, and the muzzle velocities were very close. This is surprising because the Flak 36 round looks bigger so should have had room for more propellant, but on the other hand, its barrel is shorter.

---

3,7CM FLAK 43: 37 × 264B AMMUNITION. ALSO
KNOWN AS GERÄT 339.

This was the final successful attempt at an automatic 37mm Flak cannon, intended for use by both the land forces and the Kriegsmarine. It used the same ammunition as the earlier Flak 18, 36 and 37 series and the same L/57 barrel length, but a new gas-operated mechanism derived from that of the 3 cm MK 103 and featuring a diagonal wedge lock boosted the cyclic rate to 250rpm. Ammunition feed was from the side through enlarged trunnions to minimize the movement of the loading tray and the ammunition came in eight-round strips. Gun weight was 265kg. There were also twin-gun mountings, with the Luftwaffe Flakzwilling 43 mounting one gun above the other, while the Kriegsmarine Flak LM 44 placed them side-by-side.

Here you can see USS T-35 (DD-935), postwar and in US hands. On flying bridge wings you can see what somewhat obviously are 3.7cm/57 M43 in Einelafette port and starboard. Here is an additional picture of the M43 single in LM43.

The LM43 appears to be, or be strongly based off of, the single Heer/Luftwaffe mount while the LM44 twin is a modified Doppellafette LM42 from the 3.7cm M42.

---

3 cm MK 303: 30 x 211 ammunition

This high-velocity gun was developed during WW2 at Brünner Waffenwerke in Czechoslovakia under German control, with the involvement of Krieghoff. It was a gas-operated design using a horizontal wedge lock and seems to have been a scaled-up version of the 2 cm MG 301 (see above). It used "frame feeding" (10-round skeletal magazines). It weighed 185 kg, was 295 cm long with an L/73 barrel and fired at 400 rpm. It was intended for naval Flak applications (initially in Type XXI submarines) but was not ready in time. After the war, development was continued by Czechoslovakia and it entered service with the Czech and other armies in a twin AA mounting, designated M53.

Musgrave states on page 198 (1992 edition) that the "3cm Flak 44" was by Rheinmetall, but on page 566 includes a "3cm Flak M.44" in a list of Mauser projects.

There are three relevant Unterlüß documents, listing the guns, the ammunition and the mountings.

The gun document includes the following 3 cm projects (among others):
MK 411 (engine-driven, 900 m/s)
Mk 303 (Brünner Waffenwerke); 400 rpm; 185 kg; 1,060 m/s; gas operated; naval Flak for U-Boote and S-Boote.
3 cm Flak M 44 (300M); Mauser project; gas operated; 400 rpm; 100 kg; 920 m/s.
3 cm Flak 4M 44 (I think - I only have a poor quality photocopy); Rheinmetall-Borsig (competitor for the above); 420 rpm; 140 kg; 920 m/s.

The ammunition document includes:
3 cm MK 411 HE-T; 440 g; 900 m/s
3 cm MK 303 (Br); M-Geschoss 330 g (72 g HE); 1100 m/s

The mounting document includes:
3 cm Flak M 44 twin mounting for S-Boote; 690 kg.

Bottom two images show the 3cm twin mounts intended for Flottentorpedoboot 1944. Sources are weird for these guns, so I wouldn't say that they're the 3cm MK 3O3 Brunn guns. Die Deutschen Flottentorpedoboote 1942-1945 states these are "3-cm-Flak M 44 L/44 in funf Doppellafetten M 44"...meaning these would be...3cm MK 103's? Die Deutsche Kriegsmarine 1935-1945 Band 7 - Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Zerstorer und Torpedoboot says they are "3-cm-Flak L/44,6 M-44 in Doppellafetten LM-44" which is without a doubt aiming for the 3cm MK 103. Still, it makes me wonder if there was a mixup between the MK 103 and the Mauser 3cm M44 design.

3 cm Flugabwehrkanone M44 (300 (gerät?)M)
Overall Lenght: 3145mm
Barrel lenght (L/73): 2200mm
Weight: 170 or 185kg
Estimated Muzzle velocity: (M-G)900-920; (HE) 800; (PzG) 725m/sec.
Weight projectile: (M-G) 0,33 kg; (HE) 0,44 kg; (PzG) 0,5 kg.
Estimated rate of fire: 400 rounds p/minute
Mauser, Oberndorf

Taken from Gander/Chamberlain`s "Enziklopädie Deutscher Waffen", Motorbuch Verlag.

Mauser 3 cm Flak M44 data:

400 rpm, rotating bolt (schwenkverschluss?);
2,5 m gun lenght (1,6 m barrel);
forward cartridge ejection;
friction muzzle brake;
900-920 m/sec muzzle speed (with mine shell), 800 with HE, 725 with PzG;
Shell weights: Mine shell, 0,33 kg/ HE shell, 0,44 kg/ PzG 0,5 kg;
165 kg weight.

Rheinmetall-Borsig 3cm for comparison:

Rheinmetall 3 cm M44 data:

400-420 rpm;
lenght as Mauser`s;
180 kg gun weight, 240 kg mount, combat weight 600 kg;
360º rotation, -10/+75º elevation;
Ammo same as Mauser`s.

A Mauser document states that Rheinmetall relocated develoment of 3 cm swivel mounts for E-boats to the Brünner Waffenfabrik, as well as the U-boat (Type XXI) double mount to the Czech company Bata, at Zlin. Preliminary work was probably undertaken by Rh (my guess). Rheinmetall was also designing a triaxial single mount for the M44, as well as a quadruple mount.

As you can see, the Ftb 1944's mounts elevate -10/+90 so Rheinmetall is out of consideration.

Some extra on MK 411, for the curious:

"2,8 cm Gerät 411: 28 x 216B ammunition.

A Krupp project initiated in 1941 for a motor cannon driven by the aircraft engine, and therefore presumably limited to use with vee-engines, with the gun fitting between the cylinder banks and firing through a hollow propeller hub. This used a large and powerful cartridge, but was unsuccessful. It is sometimes confused with the 3 cm MK 411, about which virtually nothing seems to be known except the calibre."

Further digging in Petter's book (somewhat slow due to the need to type the German text into a translator) reveals that the "Motorkanone MK 411" was designed in two calibres, 28 mm and 30 mm. The 28 x 216B round exists (a couple of examples in a collection) but the 30 mm is unknown.

Petter's designation for this project (both 28 mm and 30 mm) is MK 411, but when he specifically describes the 28 mm version he designates it Gerät 411.

Anyway, the MK 411 was clearly designed for aircraft use, as instead of being gas or recoil operated, the mechanism was driven by the aircraft engine as the Motorkanone designation indicates. The gun would have fired through the hollow propeller hub. Weight of a practice projectile was 300 g; MV not known. Both steel and brass-cased versions of the ammunition survive, both dated 1941.

he has photos and drawings of the 34 x 149. I actually have one of the cases for that, and have had a replica M-Geschoss projectile made. I have no idea what gun it was made for.

The brass-cased MK 411 is shown below. I hope Mr Petter doesn't mind me showing this. I must say that his book is superb - 900 pages on high-quality gloss paper and profusely illustrated. It is expensive, but a must-have for any serious student of this subject. The title is Munition für deutsche Flieger Bordwaffen bis 1945. He can be contacted at: Petter.Franz at t-online.de

Still hoping that one day I will get that dump of information on the 3cm/44 MK 103 so I can add it in further detail to this list.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

German Primary Docs folder has been reorganized. RM 25 contents are now in KM Ships/KM Weaponry folders and properly named, along with all the .TIFF files. Some folders and .TIFF files are of the same plan so don't mind the occasional duplicate. All I need to do is refine and standardize folder names for the most part.

Also unzipped the RM 6 files into folders for easier access without downloading.

 

[Tzoli]

Any possibility for pre-Scharnhorst and pre-Bismarck plans?, don't think those are easy to find.

If you're looking for proto-Scharnhorst's then look no further than Panzerschiff D (Ersatz Elsass) preliminaries:

There are a few images of Schlatschiff F and G (prelim designs for Bismarck) floating around on the internet.

Honestly though? You hit anything above a heavy cruiser and in large part you've lost my interest.

Do you have more data on these D/Scharnhorst ( Panzerschiffe D / Schlachtschiffe D / Ersatz Elsass ) preliminary designs?

 

[alexi]

Would be great if someone native can translate those RM notebooks.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Would be great if someone native can translate those RM notebooks.

I agree. If anyone can find one...

Any possibility for pre-Scharnhorst and pre-Bismarck plans?, don't think those are easy to find.

If you're looking for proto-Scharnhorst's then look no further than Panzerschiff D (Ersatz Elsass) preliminaries:

There are a few images of Schlatschiff F and G (prelim designs for Bismarck) floating around on the internet.

Honestly though? You hit anything above a heavy cruiser and in large part you've lost my interest.

Do you have more data on these D/Scharnhorst ( Panzerschiffe D / Schlachtschiffe D / Ersatz Elsass ) preliminary designs?

Unfortunately, no.

 

[alexi]

Preliminaries panzerschiff D are quite hard to find, you have to ask specific German naval forums, should Whitley's book have some of these, can anyone confirms?

I only remember tiny bit on D1 and D2 main belt protection (something at 100mm to 150mm belt due to their displacement), the rest grows with range from 220, 300, 320 and 350mm belt, that's, now a proposed diesel panzerschiff D was ask early on before KM ditched for turbine propulsion (easier to install, for sake of timing), at least we know that quadruple turreted D did exist.

 

[Tzoli]

And interesting weapon choice of 33cm which could go anywhere from 285mm to 334mm... or inspired by the WW1 335mm SK L/45 Gerät 10 gun of 1910.
35cm might inspired by the SK L/45 C/14 gun
Presumably all of these new guns are /50+ calibre

 

[alexi]

I believe its due to French influence, Raeder considering 33cm and 35cm as maximum caliber period, to counter against French new capital ships (as the same early battleship "F" also armed with 8x33cm and 35cm (or 35.5cm) gun on 35000 tons hull), now i did recall someone post a page from unknown book source proposed a Scharnhost design armed with 28.3cm in quadruple all forward (it was on Wows old forums before they nuke it).

 

[alexi]

Anyway, if you want to know more about panzerschiff D preliminaries and study, i suggest you read this thread (is in German), some guys upload picture of panzerschiff D plans (sadly they're all from 2007 so link are dead).

The 30.5cm armed proposed Panzerschiff D did exists but very few, mainly because Raeder obsessions, he suggests that if 33cm isn't ready yet, then 30.5cm should take place (mentioned in those 26000,26500 tons studies), and then the mysterious 7th and 8th replacement (supposedly German only plans to replace six aged pre-dreadnoughts) but two more replacement come along (this demand a study of 25000 tons, armed with 30.5cm, interesting).

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Anyway, if you want to know more about panzerschiff D preliminaries and study, i suggest you read this thread (is in German), some guys upload picture of panzerschiff D plans (sadly they're all from 2007 so link are dead).

The 30.5cm armed proposed Panzerschiff D did exists but very few, mainly because Raeder obsessions, he suggests that if 33cm isn't ready yet, then 30.5cm should take place (mentioned in those 26000,26500 tons studies), and then the mysterious 7th and 8th replacement (supposedly German only plans to replace six aged pre-dreadnoughts) but two more replacement come along (this demand a study of 25000 tons, armed with 30.5cm, interesting).

This was a good link. Reminded me to do some searching.

---

Found some things such as:

A few additions from Hanfried Schliephake, "Aircraft Armament" and "Handbook of Aircraft Weapons Ammunition 1936-1945":3 cm MK 103:Caliber 30 mmWeight of the weapon 145 kgInstallation weight as a motor cannon 165 kg

Length of the barrel 1338 mm
Weight of the empty 100 shots - belt 12 kg belt
weight with 100 H.Pzgr.L'spur approx. 94 kg
belt weight with 100 M.Gr. approx. 92 kg
cadence 380 (H.Pzgr.L´spur) or 420 (M.Gr.) rounds/min.
Vo 940 (H.Pzgr.L´spur) or 860 (M.Gr.) shots/min.
Penetration performance of the H.Pzgr.L'spur 110 mm at 300 m
projectile weight:
330 g M-Gesch.Patr.L´spur 103 o.Zerl., M-Gesch.cart. 103 m.Zerl.Ausf.C, M-Gesch.Patr. 103 o.Zerl.Ausf.A and M-Gesch.Patr. 103 m.Zerl.Ausf.A
440 g Sprgr.Patr.L´spur 103 o.Zerl.

ammunition	Bullet weight in g	Explosive charge in g	propellant charge in g	penetration performance	cartridge weight in g	Vo to m/s
3cm explosive shell cartridge L'spur without fragmentation	440	27g	107+4	-	890	800
3cm explosive shell cartridge L'spur 103 without fragmentation	440	?	?	?	?	750
3cm M projectile cartridge L'spur without fragmentation	295	61g	112+4	-	770	910
3cm M projectile cartridge L'spur 103 without fragmentation	330	?	?	?	?	860
3cm M projectile cartridge L'spur 103 with splitter Ausf. C	330	72g Nitropentaker	?	?	?	860
3cm M projectile cartridge L'spur 103 without splitter Ausf. A	330	85g HTA 41	?	?	?	860
3cm M projectile cartridge L'spur 103 with splitter Ausf. A	330	85g HTA 41 or PETN	?	?	?	860
3cm anti-tank grenade cartridge L'spur without fragmentation	530	14g	97+4	25 mm armor at 300 m at 60° angle of impact	530	700
3cm M projectile cartridge L'spur without fragmentation	330	72g Nitropentaker	110+4	-	778	900
3cm tank incendiary shell cartridge (Elektron) without fragmentation	500	electron shell + 9g	98+4	20 mm shipbuilding steel up to 1000 m at 60° impact angle or up to 300 m at 45°	935	725
3cm H-Panzergranatpatrone L'spur without fragmentation	350	Special steel core in light metal shell	116+4	70 mm armor at 300 m at 60° impact angle, 100 mm at 90°	804	960
3cm anti-tank incendiary shell cartridge L'spur without fragmentation	455	5.2g + 6g	110+4	26 mm armor at 300 m at 60° impact angle, 32 mm at 90°	903	800

[For 3cm MK 101/103]
"330g" +/- 8g
Ausf. C projectiles are more streamlined for increased ballistic performance at the cost of capacity and thus have a maximum of 72g instead of 85.

More on 30mm projectiles:

Komet weapons: MK 108 ammunition - line drawings and photos

---

Regarding the development of the 12.8 cm Flak 40, some things are still not entirely clear to me. In his standard work , Die deutsche Geschütze 1939 - 1945

, which I have already quoted several times, von Senger and Etterlin write : " Use: in a battery formation of 4 guns with Luftwaffe and naval anti-aircraft guns, primarily for object protection against high-level attacks. In 1936 the first order was placed with Rheinmetall and in 1938 the first test guns were sent to Wa. delivered. In December [1938] 100 guns were ordered. At the end of 1941 the troops received the first batteries. [...] assessment



: This gun was probably the most effective anti-aircraft gun in the 1939/45 war. However, it was too heavy for mobile use. It performed well until the end of the war, but from the end of 1944 it was at the limit of its capabilities against high-level attacks. The development of the Type 45 was not completed by the end of the war.« [p. 202]

In the Waffen-Arsenal special volume S-44 "The flak towers in Berlin, Hamburg and Vienna 1940 - 1950" by Michael Foedrowitz [Podzun-Pallas 1996] it says with regard to the 12.8 cm twin Flak 40:

»On September 23, 1940, the anti-aircraft artillery inspection (dept. fortifications) reported the results of a meeting of the departments involved with the project. The choice of heavy anti-aircraft guns caused some concern, because the Navy could only provide double-barreled 10.5 cm anti-aircraft guns in 1½ years. The ship anti-aircraft guns were three-axis guns, equipped with an angular axis (cantilever mechanism) to compensate for ship movements and were therefore considerably more complicated than conventional stationary anti-aircraft guns on land. The Navy had developed a 12.8 cm anti-aircraft gun
for stationary use, but this would also only be available in 1½ years. It was suggested that the bases on the anti-aircraft towers should be designed for the 12.8 cm anti-aircraft guns and first provisionally fitted with the 10.5 cm caliber. [...]
A gun weight of about 30 tons and a recoil force of 25 tons were calculated.« [p. 5]

Accordingly, the development of the 12.8 cm Flak 40 went back to the Navy. Siegfried Breyer ( »Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905 - 1970« says with regard to the conversion of the »Gneisenau« started in

1942 : » Of the planned rearmament, only the 6 - 38 cm SK were safe. All the other armament - in particular the replacement of the 15 cm SK and the 10.5 cm Flak with 12.8 cm dual-purpose guns
however, has not yet been definitively determined. Since it could only be made on the basis of written records from the K-Office, the sketch is deemed to have been made and is to be included with the usual reservations.« [p. 319]

The sketch referred to above is in the book on p. 318 and shows GU with 11 x 12.8 cm twin turrets, i.e. a broad side of 6 x (2) 12.8 cm (12 turrets).
There are two of these on each side of the ship on the upper deck instead of the previous 15 cm twin turrets, the two 15 cm single carriages per side are omitted and three 12.8 cm twin turrets are located one deck higher at the positions of the previous 10.5 cm twin anti-aircraft guns. Another banked amidships behind tower C instead of the 10.5 cm twin anti-aircraft guns previously installed there.

According to this, a 12.8 twin flak tower must have been under development in 1942. Anything known about this?

In the meantime, has a relevant sketch been found in the files of the Warship Construction Office returned by the Soviet Union to the GDR in 1988, which documents the planned conversion of the Gneisenau in 1942/43? So far, apart from the extension of the forecastle and the conversion to 3 x (2) 38 cm SK C 34, not so much concrete information (especially plans) has been published.

The journey thus continues.

 

[alexi]

Data table for 28cm, 35cm and 38cm (number of guns, broadside weight, round per minute, armor penetration, range etc, you get the idea).

https://imgur.com/TNT2LDo

 

[Tzoli]

Data table for 28cm, 35cm and 38cm (number of guns, broadside weight, round per minute, armor penetration, range etc, you get the idea).

https://imgur.com/TNT2LDo

I presume 35cm/54 cannon?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

To ALCON,

Another big update! MORE PLANS!

Today's list consists of Flottentorpedoboote 1939 and 1941 with some additional plans from the Typ 1936C Zerstorer.
Here is the list:
- RM 25/5911 Line Plan [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6859 Longitudinal and Top View [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6860 Deck Plans [FTB 1941] (From 1941)
- RM 25/6861 Oil and Water Distribution [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6931 Suggested Arrangement of Torpedo Loading Device [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/7410 T22-T30 Telephone System Wiring Plan [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/7412 T22-T30 DC BuM Systems Wiring Plan [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/8674 Main Steam Line Arrangement with Metal Hose Expansion Joints [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/9249 10.5cm Cartridge Chamber No. IV (Frame 13.75 - 18.75) [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/16390 Upper Decks [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16391 Lower Decks [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16392 Cross Sections [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16415 Oil and Water Distribution [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16436 Cross Sections [FTB 1939] (From 1939-41)
- RM 25/16437 Deck Plans [FTB 1939] (From 1940)
- RM 25/16438 T22-T27 Deck Plans [FTB 1939] (From 1942)
- RM 25/16441 T22-T30 Electrically Operated Steering Gear Arrangement [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/16442 T22-T36 Water Facilities [FTB 1939] (1941-1942)
- RM 25/16453 T37-T42 Longitudinal and Top View [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16454 T37-T42 Upper Decks [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16455 T37-T42 Lower Decks [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16456 T37-T42 Cross Sections [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16457 T37-T42 High Pressure/Medium Pressure Steam Turbine [FTB 1941] (1942-43)
+ Total Size: 9.79 GB

I've nabbed some additional plans through Invenio for KREUZER M. It's not much, but it's honest work.

As you can tell, there are actually two versions of the Type 1941 here. In total, there are 4 major iterations of the Type 1941 design - wild, right?

Here is the link for those too lazy to go to OP: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TvB_4n7bAEFCNdy5kOFPAruCxWLS9HXW?usp=sharing

You will find the new plans neatly organized within their class type folder. (I.e. FTB 1941 is in the folder for FTB 1941, and so on.)

If there is any new information or plans anyone would like to share, I'm always up for a discussion.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I've scraped through the archives again and came out with a lot of plans, this time with a focus on the larger ships.

Now to be included are the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (new and initial configuration respectively), Gneisenau 1942 38cm refit plan, H-class and O-class battleships.

You will find them in the above link. They're nothing new or special to some, but I hope you enjoy regardless.

 

[Tzoli]

Which H and O variants? H-39 and O-39?

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

To ALCON,

Another big update! MORE PLANS!

Today's list consists of Flottentorpedoboote 1939 and 1941 with some additional plans from the Typ 1936C Zerstorer.
Here is the list:
- RM 25/5911 Line Plan [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6859 Longitudinal and Top View [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6860 Deck Plans [FTB 1941] (From 1941)
- RM 25/6861 Oil and Water Distribution [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6931 Suggested Arrangement of Torpedo Loading Device [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/7410 T22-T30 Telephone System Wiring Plan [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/7412 T22-T30 DC BuM Systems Wiring Plan [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/8674 Main Steam Line Arrangement with Metal Hose Expansion Joints [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/9249 10.5cm Cartridge Chamber No. IV (Frame 13.75 - 18.75) [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/16390 Upper Decks [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16391 Lower Decks [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16392 Cross Sections [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16415 Oil and Water Distribution [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16436 Cross Sections [FTB 1939] (From 1939-41)
- RM 25/16437 Deck Plans [FTB 1939] (From 1940)
- RM 25/16438 T22-T27 Deck Plans [FTB 1939] (From 1942)
- RM 25/16441 T22-T30 Electrically Operated Steering Gear Arrangement [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/16442 T22-T36 Water Facilities [FTB 1939] (1941-1942)
- RM 25/16453 T37-T42 Longitudinal and Top View [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16454 T37-T42 Upper Decks [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16455 T37-T42 Lower Decks [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16456 T37-T42 Cross Sections [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16457 T37-T42 High Pressure/Medium Pressure Steam Turbine [FTB 1941] (1942-43)
+ Total Size: 9.79 GB

I've nabbed some additional plans through Invenio for KREUZER M. It's not much, but it's honest work.

As you can tell, there are actually two versions of the Type 1941 here. In total, there are 4 major iterations of the Type 1941 design - wild, right?

Here is the link for those too lazy to go to OP: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TvB_4n7bAEFCNdy5kOFPAruCxWLS9HXW?usp=sharing

You will find the new plans neatly organized within their class type folder. (I.e. FTB 1941 is in the folder for FTB 1941, and so on.)

If there is any new information or plans anyone would like to share, I'm always up for a discussion.

Nice, a lot of work you accomplished!

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

To ALCON,

Another big update! MORE PLANS!

Today's list consists of Flottentorpedoboote 1939 and 1941 with some additional plans from the Typ 1936C Zerstorer.
Here is the list:
- RM 25/5911 Line Plan [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6859 Longitudinal and Top View [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6860 Deck Plans [FTB 1941] (From 1941)
- RM 25/6861 Oil and Water Distribution [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/6931 Suggested Arrangement of Torpedo Loading Device [FTB 1941]
- RM 25/7410 T22-T30 Telephone System Wiring Plan [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/7412 T22-T30 DC BuM Systems Wiring Plan [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/8674 Main Steam Line Arrangement with Metal Hose Expansion Joints [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/9249 10.5cm Cartridge Chamber No. IV (Frame 13.75 - 18.75) [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/16390 Upper Decks [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16391 Lower Decks [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16392 Cross Sections [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16415 Oil and Water Distribution [TYPE 1936C]
- RM 25/16436 Cross Sections [FTB 1939] (From 1939-41)
- RM 25/16437 Deck Plans [FTB 1939] (From 1940)
- RM 25/16438 T22-T27 Deck Plans [FTB 1939] (From 1942)
- RM 25/16441 T22-T30 Electrically Operated Steering Gear Arrangement [FTB 1939]
- RM 25/16442 T22-T36 Water Facilities [FTB 1939] (1941-1942)
- RM 25/16453 T37-T42 Longitudinal and Top View [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16454 T37-T42 Upper Decks [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16455 T37-T42 Lower Decks [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16456 T37-T42 Cross Sections [FTB 1941] (1944)
- RM 25/16457 T37-T42 High Pressure/Medium Pressure Steam Turbine [FTB 1941] (1942-43)
+ Total Size: 9.79 GB

I've nabbed some additional plans through Invenio for KREUZER M. It's not much, but it's honest work.

As you can tell, there are actually two versions of the Type 1941 here. In total, there are 4 major iterations of the Type 1941 design - wild, right?

Here is the link for those too lazy to go to OP: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TvB_4n7bAEFCNdy5kOFPAruCxWLS9HXW?usp=sharing

You will find the new plans neatly organized within their class type folder. (I.e. FTB 1941 is in the folder for FTB 1941, and so on.)

If there is any new information or plans anyone would like to share, I'm always up for a discussion.

Nice, a lot of work you accomplished!

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Which H and O variants? H-39 and O-39?

Dates vary for H-class from 1939 to 1940. O-class 1940 and 1941.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I plan to release a little bit about the 15cm/48 TK C/36T and the 12.8cm/45 SK C/41 turret comparison, with some stuff about the 12.8cm/45 SK C/41 and the 12.8cm/45 SK C/34.

 

[Wurger]

Thank you very much for sharing such data, Sarcasticat!

 

[Tzoli]

In the H plans there are a 3 and 4 turreted H-39 designs (called Entwurf II and III )
the Entwurf III was not the final H 39 as it had mixed steam turbines and diesel power plant ( COSAD ) 4 shafts and 175.000shp rather 165.000 full diesel and 3 shafts. Also there are one and two funnelled versions.
And there is a reworked H-40 from 1942 with the same aspects but much larger hull (I call this H 42 Entwurf I )
288m long wl, 79.000tons standard and only 4x2 40,6cm, armour unknown.

 

[Wurger]

In the H-Klass one cannot find a good side profile showing the twin 3,7cm AA armored cupolas.

 

[JFC Fuller]

@_Sarcasticat_ , thank you for your work here, a wonderful effort.

I am not vey familiar with German 1930s-1940s ship designs so much of what you have found is new to me but there are a couple of things that stick out:

The three and four gun 40.6cm turrets from 1937/38 open up some fascinating what-ifs in terms of capital ship design, especially noting that three-turret H-class design with the super-firing twin 105mm aft. I do hope someone turns up a ship design with these mountings.

The Z45 destroyer is very interesting. Its a great compare and contrast with the contemporary, and similarly sized, British Daring class. One thing that surprised me is the relatively low elevation of the 12.8cm guns, it looks like just 55 degrees compared to 80+ degrees in most British and US DP mountings, which suggests it would have been compromised in the AA role compared to its allied contemporaries.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

@_Sarcasticat_ , thank you for your work here, a wonderful effort.

I am not vey familiar with German 1930s-1940s ship designs so much of what you have found is new to me but there are a couple of things that stick out:

The three and four gun 40.6cm turrets from 1937/38 open up some fascinating what-ifs in terms of capital ship design, especially noting that three-turret H-class design with the super-firing twin 105mm aft. I do hope someone turns up a ship design with these mountings.

The Z45 destroyer is very interesting. Its a great compare and contrast with the contemporary, and similarly sized, British Daring class. One thing that surprised me is the relatively low elevation of the 12.8cm guns, it looks like just 55 degrees compared to 80+ degrees in most British and US DP mountings, which suggests it would have been compromised in the AA role compared to its allied contemporaries.

Thank you. I love doing this, and the benefits are severalfold.

I totally agree. I'd love to see what happens when someone makes a design using the 53cm/45 twin. Models for some have been made by Tzoli in Shipbucket style so I am interested to see what becomes of that.

Z45, also known as the Type 1945, is a rather interesting design among the other German destroyers. While destroyers starting with the Type 1942 (Z51) design had adopted diesel, this final destroyer design has reverted to steam. Besides the fact that the Wehrmacht had all but capitulated and new designs were at that time all but pointless, it does present something of an interesting "last-moment" glimpse of what they had in mind for their future of design. Heavy "DP" and AA firepower (12.8cm's and 5.5/3cm) with a moderate torpedo armament (for 1944/45 destroyers and designs) and high speed, which was most attainable via steam at that time. As with the torpedo boats, such as the Flottentorpedoboot 1944, speed and AA firepower had been deemed paramount. Even the legendary V12Z 32/44 diesel engines under testing until 1945 could not, on paper, provide the same theoretical power as steam in their eyes...and it was still heavy and took up quite some space. The "reversion" to steam allowed for a smaller and lighter ship with a heavier main armament. Plus it was "tried and true" (more like something they at least knew), while testing with the V12Z 32/44 had shown teething issues not unlike the M9Z 42/58 aboard the Deutschland-class. Vibration, noise, the works. Not like the KM intended to operate outside of the Baltic or North Sea by and large...unlikely their DDs wouldn't capsize in a heavy storm elsewhere...so diesel's range was a mute point.
To elaborate, it would take eight V12Z 32/44 to make 80,000 hp (though this could be easily exceeded if you chose to include an intercooler and turbo charger, but things like the turbocharger were deemed an unnecessary complexity and would not have been added beyond the Z51) which compared with a steam plant of the same power is very heavy. Regardless, designs like the Type 1942C/44 sought to do just that. Might have been better to do that, as diesels provide a good ballast to offset potential increases in deck weight, like including a fourth 12.8cm twin, perhaps?
On the lack of elevation for the LM/41 twin (it's 52 degrees) I believe that was an effect of cutting down weight on the turret. Not that Germany could not produce turrets with HA elevation - see the Drh L C/38 twin for the 15cm/48 TK C/36 which could elevate to 65 degrees. However that turret weighed 60+ tonnes and the LM/41 just 40.
The LM/41 is the final evolution of a series of three turrets intended for German destroyers. Starting with the Drh L C/38 leading to the briefly-lived Drh L C/38 with 12.7cm/45 SK C/34 guns (for designs like the Type 1938B and Type 1941 destroyers) and finally down to the LM/41. Each version was lighter than the last, which tells me they were looking to cut weight more than anything.
I'll have to reverify but I'll get back to you when I can, but it doesn't appear to be a limitation of the turret or its design.

 

[Tzoli]

I'm not using Shipbucket style aka pixel style but rather my own

 

[Petrus]

They're all in RM 24-2, including some varies other than 12.7cm mounts, but i'll upload all here, i also found interiors of C/34.f turret (apparently there are two variants, f1 and f2, f2 have shorter barrel length only at 17600m).

https://imgur.com/a/FWQt4y1

Do you have any information on expected rate of fire of the 12.7-12.8 cm mountings shown in the drawings?
Piotr

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I'm not using Shipbucket style aka pixel style but rather my own

Ah, sorry.

They're all in RM 24-2, including some varies other than 12.7cm mounts, but i'll upload all here, i also found interiors of C/34.f turret (apparently there are two variants, f1 and f2, f2 have shorter barrel length only at 17600m).

https://imgur.com/a/FWQt4y1

Do you have any information on expected rate of fire of the 12.7-12.8 cm mountings shown in the drawings?
Piotr

Generally it's "15-18 RPM", but that's the absolute optimum ROF in most cases for shipboard mountings. Actual ROF is something closer to 12-14 RPM. For the 12.7cm/45 SK C/34 in poor weather conditions the ROF is "similar to the 15cm C/36" which is about 7-10 RPM.

For these weapons you would most safely say 12-14 RPM.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Okay so short answer for the poor elevation is that there was a reduction in width between the guns which directly caused a decrease in elevation. I do not know the specifics of why this is the case, but I know why they did this. In the end, it was the result of a desire to reduce weight, which came from modifying the 15cm/48 TK C/36 Drh L C/38 twin turret design and reducing its armor thickness to just 8mm. When decreasing the size of the turret, the guns are placed closer together, and the elevation is decreased as a result.

I will elaborate further, with pictures and all, but this may take 3 weeks due to my situation.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Wanted to do as I said 3 weeks ago and deliver on Zerstorer armaments.

I'll put this out of the way right now, I got most of my data from this page: https://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:127-мм_орудие_SK_C/41

Surprisingly enough there is a lot of data on this page.

The short of it is that the SK C/41 is, essentially, a Flak 40 derivative with a 45-caliber barrel. The barrel itself is different from either the SK C/34 or the Flak 40, but the breech isn't particularly different from the latter. Some accommodations were made to fit the new gun into the new Drh L C/41 turret, but they are minor. I'll leave the specifics to be read from the link.

Ammunition is from the SK C/34 but pressed into a new brass cartridge to form unitary ammunition. This solves the issue of shell supply as the Kriegsmarine obviously has a monopoly on SK C/34 shells. Interestingly, the L/4,5 Kz (mHb) remote-fuse anti-aircraft round is quite powerful and would no doubt be much more effective than its point-detonation nose fuse counterpart in the surface role.

In regards to the turret, the history is a little simple:
15cm/55 SK C/28 --> 15cm/48 Drh L C/38 ---> 12.8cm/45 Drh L C/38 --> 12.8cm/45 SK C/41 in Drh L C/41 | 12.8cm/61 KM40 in LM40.

It's a series of attempts to compress and lighten the preceding design, and was largely successful by reducing armor thickness, cutting down on internal space, and the utilization of weight-saving techniques like welding.

There is a mystery related to the 12.8cm/45 SK C/34 in the Drh L C/38 twin. Little is actually known about it, and one has to wonder if it's just the 15cm twin but replaced with 12.8cm guns, with that being it. For the Type XI submarine, which also uses 12.8cm/45 SK C/34 guns in a "Drh L C/38" twin turret, albeit a quite rounded version (probably to better withstand pressure underwater), weighs in at 42.2 tonnes. Armor data for it is unknown. The Drh L C/41 has 8-10mm of armor and weighs 40.5 tonnes, so I would think it safe to say that the Type XI's twin turrets have similar armor.

You can find examples of the 12.8cm/45 in the Drh L C/38 on the designs Type 1938B and Type 1941, as well as the Kolonialkanonenboot. They are not Drh L C/41 examples - for the 1938B, the SK C/41 wasn't even a twinkle in the Reich's eye at that point. In addition to this they have an elevation of 60 degrees, 8 more than the C/41 and 5 less than the 15cm version. This is likely due to the very same reason the C/41 has a 52-degree elevation - reducing the space between the guns. You can see the 60-degree elevation also on the Type 1941 as well. The use of the SK C/34 and the Drh L C/38 was one of the major reasons why the Type 1936C, with its modern Flakleitgerat M42 and newer turrets/guns (with 52-degree elevation, I might add) was chosen instead. The drawings of the turrets on the 1938B and 1941 don't even look the same as those with the Drh L C/41.

Also, for some reason, sources vary on the weight of the 15cm/48 Drh L C/38. Is it 60.4 tonnes? Is it 62.5? I dunno.

Here are some pictures from WoWs. WoWs is very...very...far from perfect, but I think they did a good job with the turret models. Or at least well enough.




The similarities are obvious right off the bat. The Drh L C/41 is as squished and downsized as possible by comparison to the larger, 15cm Drh L C/38.

-

Wanted to do this for a while, and I hope I cleared up a bit of mystery and misconception regarding KM DD armaments. Now, what I'd really like to know is more about the 12.8cm/61 and it's LM40 turret...
Any questions please ask, if I can't answer them then maybe we can have a discussion on it. I encourage you to click the link if you want more specifics on the SK C/41.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Totally and completely forgot to add these as part of the previous post, so here they are.

Apologies in advance for the cropping - or lack thereof.

15cm/48 TK C/36 (Drh L C/38):





12.8cm/45 SK C/34 in ("Drh L C/38"):





12.8cm/45 SK C/41 (Drh L C/41):