Kriegsmarine - KM, H-Class Battleships

[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.

 

[alexi]

Given Sanglune read on Dutch admiralty wanting their own Bismarck? possible, or it just battlecruiser plans since in German they were refer as "battleship" (as in "Holland schlachtschiff typ").

Here's H-klasse armor scheme with alternative variant.

 

[lukasgrul]

Hello , thank you for you reply. I was searching for some time and I found these blueprints of both versions of H-40 battleship designs. Do you have any more blueprints please?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Hello , thank you for you reply. I was searching for some time and I found these blueprints of both versions of H-40 battleship designs. Do you have any more blueprints please?

The best I can offer at the moment.

H-Class - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[lukasgrul]

Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?

 

[Tzoli]

Those are 406mm, likely for unknown H class preliminaries to reduce size and cost

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?

I have heard that there were plans for the H-39's to feature triple 38cm guns in the event that 40.6cm twins could not be made in time, but it's hard to verify such information.
But Tzoli is more than likely right. A bunch of unknown H-class prelims we'll probably never see.

 

[alexi]

Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?

A proposed (or a theoretical) H battleship with quadruple turrets was mention in Breyer book, the advantages were shorter superstructure height, hull length, compact armor layout but would have cost larger cut in the barbatte deck.
There was a short mentioned in RM notebook (forgot which one) that Hitler were impressed by American standard-type battleship, French and KGV quadruple turrets, in which he requested OKM to design such ship with either 35cm or 38cm guns in four triple turrets (one of the Bismarck preliminary came with triple 38cm but haven't founded so far), but either way they could be concept designs.

 

[MrMemerMan]

Very interesting stuff. It's really cool to see that it's been around 77 years and designs are still popping up. Even if they weren't considered or were purely just design studies.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?

A proposed (or a theoretical) H battleship with quadruple turrets was mention in Breyer book, the advantages were shorter superstructure height, hull length, compact armor layout but would have cost larger cut in the barbatte deck.
There was a short mentioned in RM notebook (forgot which one) that Hitler were impressed by American standard-type battleship, French and KGV quadruple turrets, in which he requested OKM to design such ship with either 35cm or 38cm guns in four triple turrets (one of the Bismarck preliminary came with triple 38cm but haven't founded so far), but either way they could be concept designs.

This bit about Hitler being impressed about American standards manifested itself with Germany obtaining a plan for the 35.5cm triple. It would be interesting to see this style of turret mixed with the planned German 35cm gun.

 

[lukasgrul]

Were there any other projects of battleships besides H-class mentioned in plan z?

 

[lukasgrul]

Are there any more blueprints of H-41 battleship? I could find only this one.

 

[Tzoli]

H-39, H-40a, H-40b, H-41, H-42, H-43 and H-44
Battlecruisers:
O-class designs O-39 or O-40, O-41 and O-42?
KW-35 -45 -50

 

[alexi]

Are there any more blueprints of H-41 battleship? I could find only this one.

That's the best print you can get from Breyer, am afraid some of them remain locked in invenio, most digitalized, least public plan, prints and sketches are H-39 and H-40a/b.

 

[lukasgrul]

Do you have any blueprints of H-40 B battleship? I have found blueprints of H-39 and H-40 A but H-40 B is still mystery for me. I have only this blueprint which doesn´t show much.

 

[lukasgrul]

I have found these blueprints on the disc you have on first page. I thought that this is H-40 B but the length isn´t right and superstructure is same as on H-39.

 

[alexi]

I have found these blueprints on the disc you have on first page. I thought that this is H-40 B but the length isn´t right and superstructure is same as on H-39.

Left one is steam turbine powered design and right side is H-39/42, bigger than H-39 (close to H-41 size), there's one preliminary H-39 with 16x15cm guns (only data) in RM-6.

 

[lukasgrul]

And in what part of RM-6 is it?

 

[alexi]

And in what part of RM-6 is it?

RM 6_60 page 31, also i founded a Mogami-class light cruiser blueprints in naval attache section.

 

[Imidiot]

I have found these blueprints on the disc you have on first page. I thought that this is H-40 B but the length isn´t right and superstructure is same as on H-39.

Left one is steam turbine powered design and right side is H-39/42, bigger than H-39 (close to H-41 size) and have more AA batteries, there's one preliminary H-39 with 16x15cm guns (only data) in RM-6.

H-39/42? Is H-39 design redesigned in 1942? If I know correctly isn't construction of battleship 'H' already halted then?

 

[alexi]

A mistake on my part here, H-39/42 doesn't have more AA batteries, its identical finalized H-39, the hull is just bigger and longer, halted doesn't stop you from improving design though (H-42,43 and 44 say hi!), H-39/42 from my guessing is compromise between H-39 and 41, justify its massive size and weight and 42cm/48 if not make in time then 40cm/52 'll be used instead.

Here's dimensions compare with H-39 and H-39/42.
-Length: 266 m vs 282 m (at waterline only).
-Draft: 10 m vs 12 m
-Beam: 37m vs 40.5 m
H-39/42 have full load displacement at 79000 tons (slightly more than H-41), machinery same as H-39 (12xMAN diesels, 3 shafts), same horsepower just slower than 2 knots (28 knots vs 30 knots)

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

A mistake on my part here, H-39/42 doesn't have more AA batteries, its identical finalized H-39, the hull is just bigger and longer, halted doesn't stop you from improving design though (H-42,43 and 44 say hi!), H-39/42 from my guessing is compromise between H-39 and 41, justify its massive size and weight and 42cm/48 if not make in time then 40cm/52 'll be used instead.

Here's dimensions compare with H-39 and H-39/42.
-Length: 266 m vs 282 m (at waterline only).
-Draft: 10 m vs 12 m
-Beam: 37m vs 40.5 m
H-39/42 have full load displacement at 79000 tons (slightly more than H-41), machinery same as H-39 (12xMAN diesels, 3 shafts), same horsepower just slower than 2 knots (28 knots vs 30 knots)

Weird that they would cut down on H-39 only to increase its size again.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I have found these blueprints on the disc you have on first page. I thought that this is H-40 B but the length isn´t right and superstructure is same as on H-39.

Left one is steam turbine powered design and right side is H-39/42, bigger than H-39 (close to H-41 size), there's one preliminary H-39 with 16x15cm guns (only data) in RM-6.

Do you think this?

That's gotta be fake. I don't think they mixed 12.8cm and 15cm even in their wildest designs.

There is 1 H-class design with x16 15cm guns though.

 

[lukasgrul]

Are there any information about H-42 dimensions , like waterline length or armor schemes atc. ?

 

[alexi]

Beyond H-41, they're mostly speculated, you can look up here.

 

[alexi]

You can also find H-43 and H-44 specs on RM 6_83 (page 123).

 

[lukasgrul]

Are there any blueprints of 45cm , 48cm or 50,8cm gun meant for use on later H-class battleships?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Are there any blueprints of 45cm , 48cm or 50,8cm gun meant for use on later H-class battleships?

Nothing that I am aware of.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Are there any information about H-42 dimensions , like waterline length or armor schemes atc. ?

This is what you got.

 

[lukasgrul]

And are there informations about H-41 battleship, like armour scheme and etc.

 

[Vietcong double-agent]

I have found these blueprints on the disc you have on first page. I thought that this is H-40 B but the length isn´t right and superstructure is same as on H-39.

Left one is steam turbine powered design and right side is H-39/42, bigger than H-39 (close to H-41 size), there's one preliminary H-39 with 16x15cm guns (only data) in RM-6.

I have found these blueprints on the disc you have on first page. I thought that this is H-40 B but the length isn´t right and superstructure is same as on H-39.

Left one is steam turbine powered design and right side is H-39/42, bigger than H-39 (close to H-41 size), there's one preliminary H-39 with 16x15cm guns (only data) in RM-6.

Do you think this?

That's gotta be fake. I don't think they mixed 12.8cm and 15cm even in their wildest designs.

There is 1 H-class design with x16 15cm guns though.

I've looked into page 31 of the RM_6_60 and can only find this, so can you guy show me the exact file ?

 

[alexi]

Who are you quoting?

 

[Vietcong double-agent]

Who are you quoting?

Your comment

 

[Arjen]

@Vietcong double-agent This is the point where it's wise to only quote what you are asking about/replying to.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Before I forget. This is a picture of H-40 Armor, which came in two variants. The right armor scheme provides more overall armor, especially deck armor, and appears to be caused by an acknowledgement of the role of aircraft.

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

 

[MrMemerMan]

Before I forget. This is a picture of H-40 Armor, which came in two variants. The right armor scheme provides more overall armor, especially deck armor, and appears to be caused by an acknowledgement of the role of aircraft.

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.

I did go with H-41s armor for this one. Since there is no armor provided for H-40A and H-40B (as they are known, but H-40B was drawn up in 1941), it's impossible at this time to say with any certainty what the armor values would be. Presumably they would be equal to H-39 since these designs are based heavily upon it. However, H-39s overall protective scheme was considered inadequate even after they were laid down. So much so that a complete redesign was seriously considered before the ships were scrapped. The desires of improvement over H-39 mixed with the results of Bismarck led to the H-41. If H-40A/B were ever to be built (as a redesign of H-39), it might have been to these sorts of protection specifications.
H-40A and H-40B are non-serious design studies likely meant to appease Hitler, who desired larger naval guns than 40.6cm. H-40A and H-40B presumably are to carry these 40.6cm+ guns, since no caliber is given in their plans. 45cm perhaps? Hard to say. One can certainly tell that no serious amount of effort was expended for the designs, so it is safe to say that the armor values are highly likely to be equal to that of H-39.
To make a simplification of these two paragraphs, H-40A/B are just gunswapped H-39 with minor changes.

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

533 mm battleship guns... just, what do you know about insanity? And that was long before late H-series behemoths.

Somewhat off-topic, but what info do you have about Flottentorpedoboot 1942 and Zerstörer Typ 32 designs mentioned in the starting post?

 

[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.