Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

I have been working on new drawing of Europa for quite some time, because the old one that I posted here was really bad in terms of dimensions. So here it is, if you see any errors please let me know.
 

Attachments

  • Europa sb 4.png
    Europa sb 4.png
    114.6 KB · Views: 168
Does anybody have blueprint of Europa in same style as is this blueprint of Scharnhorst?
 

Attachments

  • RM_25_15775.jpg
    14.2 MB · Views: 54
Hello everyone.
I am not dead (I promise).
I am (for the most part) on the other side of the world from home for a while yet, and internet is not readily accessible at the moment, so keeping up with all of this is basically impossible. Regardless, it is good to see that posting on the thread has continued. I will have to comb through this new info when I get home...whenever that will be.
windmaker said:
KM have any new 17cm gun design in WWII ?
Click to expand...
A 17cm gun was considered for the M-class cruisers during their design, but was dropped...no doubt because there was no turret and dedicated naval gun, and weight was a concern as well. However, a good conversion project in the form of the 17cm Kanone 18 (a land-based artillery piece) would have been perfect, in my opinion, for the second batch of vessels (Kreuzer Q).
Junef said:
Hello, I'm happy to be a part of this great thread.

////
Click to expand...
Hello Junef, I'm glad to have you - another great member to our crew here. Only able to briefly read over your comments, but I am very interested to dig into them further at a later date. As a request, do you have anything related to the 15cm/48 SK/TK C/36? Specifically the twin, where detailed interior drawings are, at the moment, nonexistent - even in NavTechEU.
MrMemerMan said:
Hate to ask again, but is there any updates on this?
Click to expand...
I will provide as soon as I can get to place with sufficiently good internet to upload...should not be long now, but I haven't forgotten entirely! Please do not hesitate to poke me, I do have lapses on occasion (I can be easily distracted...as of late it's been WWII German and WWI US uniforms and equipment that has captivated and stolen 99% of my interest/attention).
Tzoli said:
_Sarcasticat_ or any others have you ever came across of a mention of the German Mogami? A KMS Light cruiser proposal with 5 triple 15cm guns?
Click to expand...
The man who created these series of models included a bunch of "fake", "alt-history", and real designs. I consider this super-Nurnberg to be an almost certainly fake design, but apparently it's from Schichau, so I cannot entirely rule it out. Schichau, as far as my memory serves, was only trusted with the construction of small craft (such as Torpedo boats, Fleet torpedo boats, etc) and nothing larger given they were not a true German yard. Perhaps they created a draft for a light cruiser based on their experience - which is little, given how dated the design appears, and might even be based off of Emden - but was ultimately shelved very early. It's not an impossible design, but it's a bit mythical. A bit of a German naval Bigfoot. We can't know for sure until somehow someone can pry open Schichau's archives and find out for sure.
To be fair, if the Type 1934 destroyer prototype from Schichau was not included in Z-Vor! and I had only seen the thing on the internet, what with it's twin 12.8cm guns and Flottentorpedoboot-esque appearance, I would have thought it a fake design too.
lukasgrul said:
I found some photos and blueprints of 30mm FLAK M/44 and 30mm FLAK 103 so here they are. I have question about the last picture of FLAK 103 in zwilling mount, if it was even proposed to mount only two of them on quadruple mount.
Click to expand...
A lot of these are common photos but a couple I haven't seen before, thanks!
I wish there was more detailed information on the 3cm guns.
There was, in fact, a twin mount being created for the M44 for use on Schnellboote. I believe I saw this in a Waffen-Revue. No drawings or anything, just like the 3.7cm Flak 43 Flakvierling that was briefly talked about as well. Understandably, the latter project did not make it very far as the power of the 3.7cm is too much...3cm was already pushing it. However, if you look at the Flottentorpedoboot 1944, you will also see twin 3cm M44s in a very vaguely drawn twin mount.
Another interesting detail is that the 3cm MK 103 was planned to receive a 1.8m barrel (for its land AA role) which would have increased its caliber to 3cm/60 iirc - much better suited for anti-aircraft. 3cm/44 is a bit short.

-

Look forward to seeing more from you guys.
V/R,
- Sarcasticat.
 
Pocket battleships of the Deutschland type, although formally called battleships, in fact did not have the required balancing for a battleship. In fact, they were heavy cruisers with 11" artillery of the main caliber. (Weaker than the previous battleships). Scharnhorst-class battleships had the same drawback. Unbalanced firepower and security. The weakness of the main caliber (the shells weighed only 330 kg) and caused the death of Scharnhorst in the last battle. And here are Bismarck and Tirpitz, my respects. A powerful weapon. The British felt it well for themselves. According to some sources, the Tirpitz-type battleship is one of the three strongest battleships in the world: Yamato, Iowa, Tirpitz. But this is not accurate. And the strongest does not mean the best.
 
I've seen mentions of several more obscure German carrier projects (by which I mean NOT Graf Zeppelin, Weser, De Grasse conversion, Elbe/Jade, Europa, etc.) and I was hoping to learn more.
Specifically, I'm curious about:
The carrier conversion projects for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (the battleships) and Admiral Scheer and Deutschland (the Panzerschiffe), which I believe were from that one Breyer book
The various German hybrid carriers.
Other things from relevant books would be welcome too.
(Thanks in advance!)

Also, from a Russian "Failed Carrier Powers" book, I learned about the following projects that I thought were worth sharing:
1701564138511.png 1701564156877.png

If anyone is interested in learning more, I can provide the rest of the details in the book. And if anyone knows more about these projects, by all means share that info!
 
Last edited:
I have read the one for Deutschland, but I cannot recall where. I was always a fan of the Dlands and their proposed 1938 rebuilds, but the carrier conversion concept for them never quite drew my interest. I do not recall seeing a conversion plan for Bismarck/Tirpitz, but somewhere in the darkest depths in my back corners of my mind, a conversion of one of the Scharnhorst class into a carrier sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe it was pitched for Gneisenau? I can see that coming out of RM6. If I can only vaguely remember such, I don't imagine it was getting anywhere.

The Hansadampfer conversion project is my favorite among these unknown projects. I once, months ago, sketched out a very cursed idea of fitting Me 163 Komet (and later, Fl 282 Kolibri) aircraft. I took inspiration from one of the IJA's escort carriers. I could fit 13 Komets inside it without serious cramming or being crazy enough to strap them down on the flight deck, though the idea is certainly not the craziest point.
I deduced that the hangar in the US CVEs (Casablanca was the plan I used) was 100m x 17.5m while that of Hansadampfer was 85m x 17.5m, though that's total length. Due to the designers either not (or being incapable of) plating over a middle section where machinery is located (which causes a gap in hangar space) the total usable hangar space is actually 65.6m.

The purpose of such a thing? Well, not to be too...you know, but given this design would probably not see service until 1944 (as if it would ever see service at all!), and given the aircraft I've suggested, let's just say that the Fuhrer would like to extend his gratitude to the 13 members of "Sonderkommando Hansa" and their sacrifice for the cause. He was particularly favorable of the idea to remove all 30mm cannons and their ammunition and instead replace them with a 500-pound bomb.
I may post this absolute joke of an idea on my main thread when I am able.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity ... the only ever built German aircraft carrier had a "conventional" layout, with the island on starboard, but several of those German projects, including the conversion of the Europa, had it on the port side. I only know this from the IJN Akagi and Hiryu, where , IIRC, it was chosen to allow for more separated approaches, when the sister ships were steaming together.
But I cannot imagine, that this was an argument for the Kriegsmarine, too, as it would only make sense, when several carriers would have beeen available for common deployments. Any thoughts ?
 
Hello all.

Another wall of text of mine incoming, relatively soon. When? Soon.

This time it will be about the O-class Schlachtschiffe. This particular disgorging of information (I prefer to call it a "persuasive essay") is primarily meant to delve into the particulars of the design and perhaps clear the air surrounding what is, by all accounts, a poorly understood or generally misunderstood design not altogether unlike large cruisers of other nations with the grand exceptions being her particular intended employment and choice of armament, neither of which are a "bad" thing. I imagine it may spark some debate, though; it's a pretty controversial ship, at least in the groups I tend to frequent.

There is a lot to rake up and smash together, so if anyone has any interest in helping to provide some interesting information (perhaps from RM6, the bane of my existence - translating in hard!) I wouldn't be opposed to including it before posting. Whenever I do that, of course.

I'm angling for January. Shortly following that will be the joke Hansadampfer CVE thing I made for funsies several months ago. Pray for the members of Sonderkommando Hansa, everyone.

Thanks all,
- Sarc.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all.

Another wall of text of mine incoming, relatively soon. When? Soon.

This time it will be about the O-class Schlachtschiffe. This particular disgorging of information (I prefer to call it a "persuasive essay") is primarily meant to delve into the particulars of the design and perhaps clear the air surrounding what is, by all accounts, a poorly understood or generally misunderstood design not altogether unlike large cruisers of other nations with the grand exceptions being her particular intended employment and choice of armament, neither of which are a "bad" thing. I imagine it may spark some debate, though; it's a pretty controversial ship, at least in the groups I tend to frequent.

There is a lot to rake up and smash together, so if anyone has any interest in helping to provide some interesting information (perhaps from RM6, the bane of my existence - translating in hard!) I wouldn't be opposed to including it before posting. Whenever I do that, of course.

I'm angling for January. Shortly following that will be the joke Hansadampfer CVE thing I made for funsies several months ago. Pray for the members of Sonderkommando Hansa, everyone.

Thanks all,
- Sarc.
Click to expand...
Cannot wait to read about it!
 
Hello all, popping back in real quick.

I don't usually ask questions - prefer to do as much as I can alone without bothering anybody - but I'm genuinely stumped on this one. Frequently encountering sources that state varying armor thicknesses for the O-class. Primarily the belt and deck armor. So far it appears to either be 190mm belt/90mm upper belt with 30mm weather deck and 60mm armored deck or 180mm belt/80mm upper belt with 50mm weather deck and 60mm (diesel section) - 80mm (steam section) armored deck.
The latter can be solidly confirmed to have been for the 1939 approved plan (RM6/83 supports it, at least, as do a couple of secondary sources), but the former is weird. Groner lists the 190/90-30/60 as does a Russian drawing and Axis and Neutral Battleships by Garzke and Dulin (1985), but otherwise the vast majority of newer works seem to agree that it was 180/80-50/60-80. Still, while Groner is known to have made mistakes, it seems unlikely that he just pulled such values out of nowhere. Perhaps he confused the 30mm Zitadelle value for the Oberdeck and assumed 60mm was for the entirety of the Panzerdeck? That doesn't do much to explain adding 10mm to both the belt and upper belt, though. The Russian-source image I have even goes so far as to show that the class was getting a Boschung for the entirety of its 76 meter citadel, which is not true (it was only aft). I also saw in RM6 that there was a neu and alt version of the O-class, which leads me to wonder.

If anyone has any clarifying information, it would be greatly appreciated. Where does this 190mm/90mm-30mm/60mm version take its place in the design history of the O-class, if it does at all? Is it connected to the alt (lighter, 33.8 kn) plan? (What, specifically, are the alt and neu plans?) Perhaps it's for the October 1941 modifications? (Tl;dr replaced single 2cm with Flakvierling, added additional 2x3 fixed TT amidships in hull.)

This is my only "big confusion" so far, and it would be a big help to have it solved.

Sources I've so far combed through.
- Original plans
- RM6 (/83 in particular)
- Obscure O-class armor scheme image from unknown Russian source
- Garzke and Dulin, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II (1985)
- Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 (revised edition)
- Siegfried Breyer, Marine-Arsenal Special Band 006: Die Panzerung der Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945
- M.J. Whitley, German Capital Ships of World War Two (1989)
- Erich Groner, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 (1982)
(Listed only are the most important sources. Some general sources, such as Conway's, were also looked at but generally disregarded).

Thanks again,
Sarc.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all, popping back in real quick.

I don't usually ask questions - prefer to do as much as I can alone without bothering anybody - but I'm genuinely stumped on this one. Frequently encountering sources that state varying armor thicknesses for the O-class. Primarily the belt and deck armor. So far it appears to either be 190mm belt/90mm upper belt with 30mm weather deck and 60mm armored deck or 180mm belt/80mm upper belt with 50mm weather deck and 60mm (diesel section) - 80mm (steam section) armored deck.
The latter can be solidly confirmed to have been for the 1939 approved plan (RM6/83 supports it, at least, as do a couple of secondary sources), but the former is weird. Groner lists the 190/90-30/60 as does a Russian drawing and Axis and Neutral Battleships by Garzke and Dulin (1985), but otherwise the vast majority of newer works seem to agree that it was 180/80-50/60-80. Still, while Groner is known to have made mistakes, it seems unlikely that he just pulled such values out of nowhere. Perhaps he confused the 30mm Zitadelle value for the Oberdeck and assumed 60mm was for the entirety of the Panzerdeck? That doesn't do much to explain adding 10mm to both the belt and upper belt, though. The Russian-source image I have even goes so far as to show that the class was getting a Boschung for the entirety of its 76 meter citadel, which is not true (it was only aft). I also saw in RM6 that there was a neu and alt version of the O-class, which leads me to wonder.

If anyone has any clarifying information, it would be greatly appreciated. Where does this 190mm/90mm-30mm/60mm version take its place in the design history of the O-class, if it does at all? Is it connected to the alt (lighter, 33.8 kn) plan? (What, specifically, are the alt and neu plans?) Perhaps it's for the October 1941 modifications? (Tl;dr replaced single 2cm with Flakvierling, added additional 2x3 fixed TT amidships in hull.)

This is my only "big confusion" so far, and it would be a big help to have it solved.

Sources I've so far combed through.
- Original plans
- RM6 (/83 in particular)
- Obscure O-class armor scheme image from unknown Russian source
- Garzke and Dulin, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II (1985)
- Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 (revised edition)
- Siegfried Breyer, Marine-Arsenal Special Band 006: Die Panzerung der Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945
- M.J. Whitley, German Capital Ships of World War Two (1989)
- Erich Groner, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 (1982)
(Listed only are the most important sources. Some general sources, such as Conway's, were also looked at but generally disregarded).

Thanks again,
Sarc.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I can only make you even more confused:

file.png

Supposedly, it's this drawing from NARA:
 
I was wondering why the name Hennig (bottom right of image) sounded familiar. It's because Oberbaurat (Senior building officer) Hennig also provided information (such as an approximate weight statement) for the O and H-class in NavTechEU - the one about the projected German battleships - which can be found in the share drive.
I strongly believe Mr. Hennig provided this information to the United States Government primarily from memory, an example being the weight statement I just mentioned. There are some obvious errors, but I think his notes on the design history are at least useful.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
I have read the one for Deutschland, but I cannot recall where. I was always a fan of the Dlands and their proposed 1938 rebuilds, but the carrier conversion concept for them never quite drew my interest. I do not recall seeing a conversion plan for Bismarck/Tirpitz, but somewhere in the darkest depths in my back corners of my mind, a conversion of one of the Scharnhorst class into a carrier sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe it was pitched for Gneisenau? I can see that coming out of RM6. If I can only vaguely remember such, I don't imagine it was getting anywhere.
Click to expand...
I haven't read much on the Deutschlands and I haven't heard about this rebuild proposal, do you by any chance know where I can find more details?
 
Do you know anything about redesigned Graf Zeppelin that is in this chart?
 

Attachments

  • german_aircraft_carrier_projects_table_by_ijn_yamato_bb17_dghdxiy-414w-2x.jpg
    german_aircraft_carrier_projects_table_by_ijn_yamato_bb17_dghdxiy-414w-2x.jpg
    85.2 KB · Views: 166
lukasgrul said:
Do you know anything about redesigned Graf Zeppelin that is in this chart?
Click to expand...
I believe that is Flugzeugtrager C/D, which were intended to have diesel to provide them additional range after it was realized the initial range estimates for Graf Zeppelin's steam system were way too high. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that this is a resdesign for GZ that could best be applied for GZ carriers after FZT B, though I would see no problem in providing B with diesel power given the delays in her construction compared to GZ.
 
YourChair said:
I haven't read much on the Deutschlands and I haven't heard about this rebuild proposal, do you by any chance know where I can find more details?
Click to expand...
I would suggest The German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN by Siegfried Breyer, which mentions the Deutschland and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau conversions but there is no other information about them that I am aware of.
 
So they would be like slow Independence sized light carriers? Or... knowing the Germans fascination with guns and flight decks, partial conversions so forward part cruiser with the triple 28cm turret and a short aft flight deck and hanger for a few 10-15 planes?
 
Tzoli said:
So they would be like slow Independence sized light carriers? Or... knowing the Germans fascination with guns and flight decks, partial conversions so forward part cruiser with the triple 28cm turret and a short aft flight deck and hanger for a few 10-15 planes?
Click to expand...
Even the AII-AIV designs were considered for full flight decks in lieu of their turret batteries (to give you an idea that their retention was tenuous at best); I think the hangar capacity would be too small to consider keeping the forward 28cm turret. Interestingly, the flat lines of the deck make for a rather easy full flight deck and hangar, and even better if the low stern was built up as well, so I figure that is the most likely course of action. I'm thinking more "Weser".
 
Small update.

I am in the process of writing up some stuff about Kreuzer M, having somewhat moved on from the O-class project at the moment. (I think I have done pretty much all that I can with it for now, at least until I can get home.) It's an analysis similar in nature to that of the O project: a stand-up, if flawed (what displacement-limited cruiser isn't, though?), light cruiser project, doomed to cancellation with the outbreak of the war. The torturous design process may have not turned a lump of coal into a diamond, but it did make a pretty gem given the circumstances.
At the end of that one, there will be some what-if stuff revolving around what I think might have improved the design, including many, many V12Z 42/58 engines. If my guesstimates ring true, that's gonna be a lot of shaft horsepower. In any event, I will need to be home for that. Guess we'll see when we get there.

Current splurge order:
1. O-class (Mid-Jan)
2. M-class (Late Jan)
3. Hansdampfer "thing" (Early Feb, probably)

Not hard dates. We'll see how it goes.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Hello all, popping back in real quick.

I don't usually ask questions - prefer to do as much as I can alone without bothering anybody - but I'm genuinely stumped on this one. Frequently encountering sources that state varying armor thicknesses for the O-class. Primarily the belt and deck armor. So far it appears to either be 190mm belt/90mm upper belt with 30mm weather deck and 60mm armored deck or 180mm belt/80mm upper belt with 50mm weather deck and 60mm (diesel section) - 80mm (steam section) armored deck.
The latter can be solidly confirmed to have been for the 1939 approved plan (RM6/83 supports it, at least, as do a couple of secondary sources), but the former is weird. Groner lists the 190/90-30/60 as does a Russian drawing and Axis and Neutral Battleships by Garzke and Dulin (1985), but otherwise the vast majority of newer works seem to agree that it was 180/80-50/60-80. Still, while Groner is known to have made mistakes, it seems unlikely that he just pulled such values out of nowhere. Perhaps he confused the 30mm Zitadelle value for the Oberdeck and assumed 60mm was for the entirety of the Panzerdeck? That doesn't do much to explain adding 10mm to both the belt and upper belt, though. The Russian-source image I have even goes so far as to show that the class was getting a Boschung for the entirety of its 76 meter citadel, which is not true (it was only aft). I also saw in RM6 that there was a neu and alt version of the O-class, which leads me to wonder.

If anyone has any clarifying information, it would be greatly appreciated. Where does this 190mm/90mm-30mm/60mm version take its place in the design history of the O-class, if it does at all? Is it connected to the alt (lighter, 33.8 kn) plan? (What, specifically, are the alt and neu plans?) Perhaps it's for the October 1941 modifications? (Tl;dr replaced single 2cm with Flakvierling, added additional 2x3 fixed TT amidships in hull.)

This is my only "big confusion" so far, and it would be a big help to have it solved.

Sources I've so far combed through.
- Original plans
- RM6 (/83 in particular)
- Obscure O-class armor scheme image from unknown Russian source
- Garzke and Dulin, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II (1985)
- Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 (revised edition)
- Siegfried Breyer, Marine-Arsenal Special Band 006: Die Panzerung der Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1920-1945
- M.J. Whitley, German Capital Ships of World War Two (1989)
- Erich Groner, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 (1982)
(Listed only are the most important sources. Some general sources, such as Conway's, were also looked at but generally disregarded).

Thanks again,
Sarc.
Click to expand...
1704483343442.png 1704483331704.png
1704483357861.png
This uses 3 of the text sources you listed, but also wunderwaffe.narod.ru, so maybe it can help.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Even the AII-AIV designs were considered for full flight decks in lieu of their turret batteries (to give you an idea that their retention was tenuous at best);
Click to expand...

I'm kind of curious as to where you found that information. From what I've seen, the main source material for discussion of the more obscure German carriers is Hadeler's article from Marine Rundschau. I didn't see anything like that in his article.

I'm asking out of curiosity, not to challenge you. I always thought that the various "Atlantik" hybrids would have been much better as conventional carriers, and I'd like to see any historical support for my view.

DRW
 
drwells42 said:
I'm kind of curious as to where you found that information. From what I've seen, the main source material for discussion of the more obscure German carriers is Hadeler's article from Marine Rundschau. I didn't see anything like that in his article.

I'm asking out of curiosity, not to challenge you. I always thought that the various "Atlantik" hybrids would have been much better as conventional carriers, and I'd like to see any historical support for my view.

DRW
Click to expand...
I remember tidbits like this from a huge variety of sources, but recalling what is from where is the most challenging. This particular one stuck out to me because it was something I'd never heard about the hybrids before, and as you said, information on them in general is rather scarce.
I'll see if I can find it again. I don't think it was in a primary source (RM6), and was in English...I'll have to see.
YourChair said:
Do you have any information on German surface ship (and air) anti-submarine weapons? There seems to be little info available online even on the in-service weapons, let alone the projects.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMGER_ASW.php says
View attachment 715881
Does anyone know anything further about these?
Click to expand...
There were about a billion little projects from 1944 and on which either got to the testing stage...or didn't...but information on these is very obscure. I personally am not particularly aware of ASW mortars or rockets, but it's nothing surprising.
Germans were also working on VT fuse rounds (NavTechEU). I think it was infra-red based rather than doppler like what the US was doing.
 
Last edited:
YourChair said:
View attachment 715883View attachment 715882
View attachment 715884
This uses 3 of the text sources you listed, but also wunderwaffe.narod.ru, so maybe it can help.
Click to expand...
The 'unknown Russian source' I mentioned is in reference to the first image you posted. I wonder if there was ever a plan to incorporate a slope. Maybe somewhere there was, but it's only aft in the final designs.
It is getting to the point where I'm almost only going to trust primary sources, because the variation in the other types is extreme beyond comprehension and it is becoming quite annoying. In some areas the armor values match, but in others they vary between a few different values.
 
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.

ibb.co

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
 
Last edited:
_Sarcasticat_ said:
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.

ibb.co

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
Click to expand...
Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.
 
MrMemerMan said:
Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.
Click to expand...
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.
 
speaking of Invenio, I seem to be having hard time geting it work... I get (sometimes) to the folders, but cannot procede to the files themselves anymore, so I was wondering if anyone else has had this proplem. I trying to reach it from Finland (i also tried with VPN set to germany) and with chrome and edge.
 
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?
 
00-PureEvil-00 said:
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?
Click to expand...
No different than the projects of other nations for guns of similar caliber throughout the early 20th century. Just as impractical, one must admit. I assume the turret was created either at the behest of Hitler or as an interesting little project.

Flottentorpedoboote 1942 only has a couple of plans out, but it's the earliest design for the Type 1942 (Z-51). From what is seen on what has been gathered so far, it is by and large the same basic design.
"Typ 32" is a self-made designation for the "never-built" Type 1932 destroyer - more specifically, the initial 1932 specifications and the Vulcan/Schichau proposals for what would become the Type 1934 destroyer.
If either of these interest you, I can provide more information.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh I see! Yeah that makes sense. Thanks!
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Correction on the caliber: based on the turret provided in the drawings, it could still be 40.6cm ('f' turret model).
That's all I got, and np.
Click to expand...
The only alleged armor I have for H-40B is it's main belt would have been 250mm and it's upper belt 170mm. Armor for H-40A would allegedly have been the exact same as H-39. I'm not sure if this is right however. Seawarpeace (a Russian website) is the only source of this information. So it could be some strange translation error or just pure speculation.
 
@drwells42 @YourChair
Better late than never.
Source for the full flight deck possibles for AII-AIV are in Whitley's German Capital Ships of WWII, Graf Zeppelin section, Fate subsection. Conversion would, as far as I can ascertain, be similar to Grossflugzeugtrager AI.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
@drwells42 @YourChair
Better late than never.
Source for the full flight deck possibles for AII-AIV are in Whitley's German Capital Ships of WWII, Graf Zeppelin section, Fate subsection. Conversion would, as far as I can ascertain, be similar to Grossflugzeugtrager AI.
Click to expand...
Interesting. As I say, that makes sense to me. I take it that there were no images available...

DRW
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom