Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

AndyKru said:
Project of a submarine - a carrier of boats and a mine depositor. Circa 1934.
Click to expand...
An itherto unknown version of the Type III, with an unknown to me Schnellboote design. No mines, rather oxygen flasks.
 
AndyKru said:
Mines could be loaded instead of boats.
Click to expand...
You are right, those are LMB mines, but not carried instead of boats. They were supposed to be launched through the aft "torpedo" tubes.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this is a bit lazy and that if I dug I could find the answer, but how much does it cost to digitalize these plans?

I also was wondering also if they have stuff that isn't listed on the archive website?

I am currently trying to get as many plans as possible of the type IX U-boat for an intricate modelling project, I got a decent chunk of them, but still missing some stuff.

I contacted the archive, but it may be a while.

Thanks.
 
So I've recently been told that the only practical way somebody can go look for plans is to go in person, has anybody been to Freiburg or live near there? How much would you charge to go there for me and look for IX U-boat plans?

Edit: I've gotten word that if I want plans that are not on Invenio, I have to get an employee to get it for me as they are non public...?
 
Last edited:
TheWayOfTheWind said:
So I've recently been told that the only practical way somebody can go look for plans is to go in person, has anybody been to Freiburg or live near there? How much would you charge to go there for me and look for IX U-boat plans?

Edit: I've gotten word that if I want plans that are not on Invenio, I have to get an employee to get it for me as they are non public...?
Click to expand...
Yes, you will need someone who will be able to search for what you are looking for. Private investigator/historical investigator, etc. Some only go by what's got a number and a name, but others will actually dig for what you're after. They cost a pretty penny though. I would know. Big list? 1k+ Euro.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Yes, you will need someone who will be able to search for what you are looking for. Private investigator/historical investigator, etc. Some only go by what's got a number and a name, but others will actually dig for what you're after. They cost a pretty penny though. I would know. Big list? 1k+ Euro.
Click to expand...
I hear that a researcher won't be able to access my holdings directly that they are non public, that only an employee can look through them, which I believe costs an exorbitant amount of money, I believe 200 euro an hour, almost 3 times as much as a private researcher.
 
Last edited:
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Ah, I forgot. Things have been busy, and I have been finally able to go home after some months, so everything's on a pause regardless. The only thing I wanted to add was to simply explain that the war stunted a lot of the big plans, and the engines would not have been ready in time for the originally scheduled rebuilds anyway iirc.
As for dimensions, at this time no. They're around almost for sure, but they aren't digitized yet. What's been uncovered at the US National Archives is only a tithe of what's actually there as well, so it might be there. Such a thing hasn't even been identified either, so I couldn't even tell you if it's in Germany or the US.
Click to expand...
Have re-read what M. J. Whitley had to say on the proposed rebuilds of the Deutschland class that was agreed in 1938 and a number of points could be concluded. I'm referencing page 30 of the 1989 publication of German Capital Ships of World War Two.

The increase in length appears to be by lengthening the bows (which presumably means no changes required to the rudder and shaft arrangements that might have been required it the stern lengthened as well). A more austere rebuild option "if the major refit was on unacceptable on cost and/or time grounds", notes that if that it would mean "the bows could not be rebuilt"
The 15.cm and 8.8cm/10.5cm batteries were planned to be unchanged. The more austere rebuilt suggests saving weight "the only alternative was to remove the torpedoes, saving 45 tonnes because the Fleet Commander would not allow the 15cm battery to be reduced.
The increase in beam may have been the earlier proposed change to the bulges but not clear if a different concept was planned.
Nothing explicit on replacing the machinery - but 50 tonnes added to the machinery weight.

The major refit was approved as Entwurf I in November 1938 as you have noted "had an increase beam and length. This had given very favourable tank trials and shown just how unfavourable the current ships' lines were. It was true this plan would involve more work than the beam [increase] only plan [Entwurf B], but would only take three months more. This rebuild would allow the ships to have improved splinter protection, better stability, seaworthiness and strength, as well as a 2 knot speed increase. Thus the work was well worth it from the technical point of view. Displacement would rise by 750 tonnes, made up of 500 tonnes for hull widening, lengthening and splinter protection using new steels, 100 tonnes for new equipment, 50 tonnes for machinery and a reserve of 100 tonnes."

Earlier on the page there is a summary of what might fit in the 100 tonnes new equipment category.

30 tonnes for strengthening the main motors
3 tonnes for N. V. A. special equipment (radar)
10 tonnes for improved aerials
5 tonnes for improved aircraft facilities [changing the He 60C for Ar 196A/]
19 tonnes for stabilization to the searchlights
20 tonnes for splinter protection to the free-standing guns

The total weight growth was estimated at 71. 2 tonnes for Deutschland, 71.7 tonnes for Admiral Scheer and 76.7 tonnes for Admiral Graf Spee.

Not as exciting as your Umbau-Panzerschiff Admiral Scheer rebuild. Is it possible that the plans you found for the diesel engines, Entwurf II, with the V7Z 42/58 engines, which did seem to fit the available space might have been meant for these rebuilds (with a possible beam increase) or were those engines also not yet designed too?
 
Last edited:
What scanning services do you guys use for the plans if you don't use the Bundesarchive's free service?
 
Russemoto said:
Have re-read what M. J. Whitley had to say on the proposed rebuilds of the Deutschland class that was agreed in 1938 and a number of points could be concluded. I'm referencing page 30 of the 1989 publication of German Capital Ships of World War Two.

The increase in length appears to be by lengthening the bows (which presumably means no changes required to the rudder and shaft arrangements that might have been required it the stern lengthened as well). A more austere rebuild option "if the major refit was on unacceptable on cost and/or time grounds", notes that if that it would mean "the bows could not be rebuilt"
The 15.cm and 8.8cm/10.5cm batteries were planned to be unchanged. The more austere rebuilt suggests saving weight "the only alternative was to remove the torpedoes, saving 45 tonnes because the Fleet Commander would not allow the 15cm battery to be reduced.
The increase in beam may have been the earlier proposed change to the bulges but not clear if a different concept was planned.
Nothing explicit on replacing the machinery - but 50 tonnes added to the machinery weight.

The major refit was approved as Entwurf I in November 1938 as you have noted "had an increase beam and length. This had given very favourable tank trials and shown just how unfavourable the current ships' lines were. It was true this plan would involve more work than the beam [increase] only plan [Entwurf B], but would only take three months more. This rebuild would allow the ships to have improved splinter protection, better stability, seaworthiness and strength, as well as a 2 knot speed increase. Thus the work was well worth it from the technical point of view. Displacement would rise by 750 tonnes, made up of 500 tonnes for hull widening, lengthening and splinter protection using new steels, 100 tonnes for new equipment, 50 tonnes for machinery and a reserve of 100 tonnes."

Earlier on the page there is a summary of what might fit in the 100 tonnes new equipment category.

30 tonnes for strengthening the main motors
3 tonnes for N. V. A. special equipment (radar)
10 tonnes for improved aerials
5 tonnes for improved aircraft facilities [changing the He 60C for Ar 196A/]
19 tonnes for stabilization to the searchlights
20 tonnes for splinter protection to the free-standing guns

The total weight growth was estimated at 71. 2 tonnes for Deutschland, 71.7 tonnes for Admiral Scheer and 76.7 tonnes for Admiral Graf Spee.

Not as exciting as your Umbau-Panzerschiff Admiral Scheer rebuild. Is it possible that the plans you found for the diesel engines, Entwurf II, with the V7Z 42/58 engines, which did seem to fit the available space might have been meant for these rebuilds (with a possible beam increase) or were those engines also not yet designed too?
Click to expand...
I am now looking at the same source as you, and there seems to be some disagreement for the armament, but it looks like Carls did prefer the 12.7cm DP battery and this most likely would have come to pass.

My personal thoughts as of right now are that the engine upgrades and the alterations to the hull of the ship are two separate operations running in parallel at the same time, but only cross each other one way: the Umbau-Panzerschiffe using data from the tank model, but no speculation/ideas (as that is all they are, practically) about the engine replacement would factor into the rebuild until more research and data would become available. Just the alteration in lines would have yielded an increase in speed of two knots to 28-30 (28 service, 30 absolute max), meaning that all the additional work for new engines might have had much less priority but was still under investigation.
I do not think at any point that the beam-only plan would have ever gone through, as it is only detrimental in terms of speed and seakeeping. My understanding is that the austere plan only includes non-structural changes (with the exception of engine foundation strengthening, which is critical).
The width modification is difficult to ascertain as to whether it is in regards to bulges only or the hull itself. I would think both, but I do not know for sure.
As for the V7Z/V8Z combo, it's easy to find the rough dimensions of the engines - they're the same as the in-lines, just with another set of cylinders and each row at an angle. Lengths per additional cylinders wouldn't change compared to that of the in-line. So even though the V-type engine was likely only still in the early development phase during late 1938, having a rough drawing of a 42/58 engine of various cylinder numbers (V4Z, V7Z, V8Z, V12Z, the like) is an easy thing to do.
 
Jemiba said:
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 ….
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
lukasgrul said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Attachments

  • Tonnages and total weights.png
    Tonnages and total weights.png
    1 MB · Views: 114
  • Ship characteristics.png
    Ship characteristics.png
    1,008.7 KB · Views: 99
  • Armor comparisons C & D.png
    Armor comparisons C & D.png
    3.9 MB · Views: 95
  • Armor comparisons A & B.png
    Armor comparisons A & B.png
    3.5 MB · Views: 97
  • Machinery layout.png
    Machinery layout.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 145
  • Dated 21 July 1939.png
    Dated 21 July 1939.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 149
  • Armor scheme D.png
    Armor scheme D.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 141
  • Armor scheme C.png
    Armor scheme C.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 86
  • Armor scheme B.png
    Armor scheme B.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 84
  • armor scheme A.png
    armor scheme A.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 121
  • Dutch battlecruiser.png
    Dutch battlecruiser.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 145
  • Final notes.png
    Final notes.png
    925.4 KB · Views: 143
alexi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
And of course, here's the Z-plan boards.
 

Attachments

  • Z plan troopships and tenders.png
    Z plan troopships and tenders.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 122
  • Z plan hilfsschiffe.png
    Z plan hilfsschiffe.png
    3 MB · Views: 108
  • Z plan Su.R boote.png
    Z plan Su.R boote.png
    3.2 MB · Views: 103
  • Z plan Kanonenboote, M boote.png
    Z plan Kanonenboote, M boote.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 97
  • Z plan Uboats.png
    Z plan Uboats.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 97
  • Z plan torpedo boats.png
    Z plan torpedo boats.png
    3.3 MB · Views: 103
  • Z plan1.png
    Z plan1.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 142
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.
 
Force Lord said:
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.
Click to expand...
The book Die Deutsche Kreigsmarine-Rustung 1942-1945 likely has the answers.
 
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: Handelsstörer project post O class.png
 
YourChair said:
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
Click to expand...
I wonder what the source was for this drawing of a commerce raider
 
Roodbaard1958! said:
I wonder what the source was for this drawing of a commerce raider
Click to expand...
Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1921-1997 by Siegfried Breyer. About an 80-100 USD book. I just purchased it myself.
YourChair said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Thanks for the info!
_Sarcasticat_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
1717192551283.png
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
1717192539741.png
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
1717192532164.png
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.
 
Last edited:
YourChair said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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
Click to expand...
Do you have any further information about these projects (drawings, data, further reading)?
Also, nice build!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Nothing new here, i thought about revisiting RM 6/32 and decide to "translates" the development battleship H and J.
RM 6-32.png
Betrifft: Bewaffnung Schlachtschiffe “H” und “J”
Der Führer hat nachricht, daß England und USA. 12 - 35cm in vier drillings - oder in drei Vierlingstürmen bauen.
Zu don früheren Fragen:
Bitte projekt mit 12 - 35cm und in gleichem schiff unterzubringenden 12 - 38 cm (eventuell nur 10?) zu prüfen.
Fürher würde mit 12 - 38cm dann auf größeres kaliber vorzichten, auch wonn andere nächte auf 40 cm gehen sollten. Geschwindigkeit müßte wohl herunter.
Jm Entwurf gez. Raeder.
Für die richtigkeit:
Click to expand...
DeepL translations:

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

F 15.6.40 (commission date?)
G 1.4.40?_____? 1.10.40 (the rest handwriting are the name of shipyard constructors)
H 15.2.42
J 1.6.42
Click to expand...
And the second page, showing the planned main guns for H-class (probably?), based on what i get from the first page:
4 - 38 Drillings (three-gun turrets?).
4 - 40,6cm Doppel (two-gun turrets?).
4 - 43 Doppel (two-gun turrets).
H class planned main guns.png
 
Last edited:
1717291450789.png
"Despite the lack of an aircraft carrier being completed, the Navy continued to pursue plans for additional aircraft carriers well into the war. Initially, these included the aircraft carriers C and D, which were to be laid down in 1941 according to the 1938 financial plan and were to follow the design of the Graf Zeppelin with slight improvements."

Does anyone have any information about these follow-ups to the Graf Zeppelin, and the "slight improvements" that were to be made?
 
alexi said:
Formerly with 12 - 38cm would then prefer larger caliber, even if other nights should go to 40 cm. Speed would probably have to be reduced.
In draft signed. Raeder.
Click to expand...
This passage also mentioned why the Kriegsmarine didn't prefer triple turrets. They thought it had disadvantages in gunnery.

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

1717297486350.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom