Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

[_Sarcasticat_]

Interesting. As I say, that makes sense to me. I take it that there were no images available...

DRW

No, but the text does detail that the capacity for aircraft would increase to 38 bombers and 12 fighters (from 12 fighters and 20 bombers in the turreted designs of AIII/AIV.)
Aircraft would be "Me 109 F" and "Ju 87 D".

 

[Force Lord]

Been looking at the Marinearchiv forum despite my complete lack of knowledge in German and having to rely on Google Translate on all things, but on this thread from 2013 I saw something that got me curious. Here's the original German, by the user RePe:

Hallo Admiral Kummetz,

das Ausonia-Projekt war bekanntlich zeitlich dem Ende des WK I zuzuordnen. Es ist wohl kaum vorstellbar dass zu dieser Zeit die Marine sich
mit einem "Großträger"-Projekt befasst hätte. Also gehe ich davon aus, du meinst Projekte der Kriegsmarine betreffend Flugzeugträger
grösser als die Graf Zeppelin.
Dazu gibt es einige Zeilen im Buch von Mike J. Whitley "Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe", S. 88/89:

"Trotz der Entscheidung für die Wiederaufnahme der Bauarbeiten auf der GRAF ZEPPELIN hegte das Quartiermeisteramt der Skl. immer noch
beträchtliche Befürchtungen hinsichtlich der Geeignetheit des Entwurfs und drückte im Verlaufe des Jahres 1942 in einer Denkschrift über den
Aufbau der Flotte nach dem Kriege die Notwendigkeit aus, den Grundentwurf vollständig zu überarbeiten. Der neue Entwurf sollte folgende
Parameter aufweisen: 12,7-cm-Mehrzweckgeschütze, einen Fahrbereich ähnlich der Schlachtschiffe, die Geschwindigkeit eines Kreuzers
und gute See-Eigenschaften für eine atlantische Verwendung. (Es könnte sich hierbei um die Entwurfs-Spezifizierung unter dem Decknamen
"Lilienthal" handeln, die 1943 in den Kriegsspielen der Kriegsakademie eine Rolle spielte. Sie fasste folgendes ins Auge: 58.000 t, zwanzig
12,7-cm-Luft/Seeziel-Geschütze, ein Flugdeck mit 100-mm-Panzerung und imstande, 100 Flugzeuge zu führen.)

And here translated to English by Google's best efforts:

Hello Admiral Kummetz, as is well known,

the Ausonia project was assigned to the end of WWI. It is hardly conceivable that the Navy would have been involved
in a “ large carrier ” project at this time. So I'm assuming you mean Navy projects regarding aircraft carriers
larger than the Graf Zeppelin .
There are a few lines about this in Mike J. Whitley's book "Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe", p. 88/89:

"Despite the decision to resume construction work on the GRAF ZEPPELIN, the Skl.'s quartermaster's office still had
considerable fears about the suitability of the ship design and expressed the need to completely revise the basic design in a memorandum on the
structure of the fleet after the war in the course of 1942. The new design should
have the following parameters: 12.7 cm multi-purpose guns, a driving range similar to that of battleships , the speed of a cruiser
and good sea characteristics for Atlantic use. (This could be the design specification under the code name
"Lilienthal", which played a role in the war games of the War Academy in 1943. It envisaged the following: 58,000 tons, twenty
12.7 cm air-to-sea guns, a flight deck with 100 mm armor and capable of carrying 100 aircraft.)

The bolded part is what got my attention. Can anyone corroborate what Whitley said?

 

[Torsionbar]

Initial design of Panzerschiff "A" (aka future "Deustchland"), isn't new but these early looking design often can be missed while searching, spots any differences and interesting compare to finalized design?
Side view

https://imgur.com/fUwntYn

Above view

https://imgur.com/2dCP77Y

 

[Tzoli]

I have currently found 4 designs, Schichau、Vulcan and Wilhelmshaven designs are the same as in the table，but B&V's STÖRTEBECKER II is separate from the table. Although Weser won the competition, William preferred B&V, which led to the emergence of the more powerful STÖRTEBECKER II in 1907.

Probaly Sörtebecker I is the design from the list

 

[Jemiba]

1000mm Übergroße Granate？

I would translate "Übgs.Gr. Modell" as "Übungsgranate, Modell", meaning a model of a training round. Interesting maybe is the note on the drawing "Maße sind in Vielfachen von D eingetragen" (dimensions are written down as multiples of diameter". So, there are no absolute dimensions on this drawing !

 

[drwells42]

No, but the text does detail that the capacity for aircraft would increase to 38 bombers and 12 fighters (from 12 fighters and 20 bombers in the turreted designs of AIII/AIV.)
Aircraft would be "Me 109 F" and "Ju 87 D".

While I must admit it seems likely they would have used A-I as a model for the "Atlantik" hybrid conversion into a full carrier, (after all, the A-II hybrid is simply a hybrid version of A-I) one might easily imagine a version with a more enclosed bow, in the manner of the 15,000 ton and 18,000 ton ships.

Is there any chance that you could provide a longer excerpt from Whitley?

DRW

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Been looking at the Marinearchiv forum despite my complete lack of knowledge in German and having to rely on Google Translate on all things, but on this thread from 2013 I saw something that got me curious. Here's the original German, by the user RePe:



And here translated to English by Google's best efforts:



The bolded part is what got my attention. Can anyone corroborate what Whitley said?

Lilienthal is referenced in Whitley's German Capital Ships of WWII, in the Graf Zeppelin section. Outside of this sole reference, I have not seeing anything else regarding the "Lilienthal". However, given the stats provided, it must have been at least somewhat sketched out. There is probably a design of it somewhere, if it survives. I'm rather certain one was at least made.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

While I must admit it seems likely they would have used A-I as a model for the "Atlantik" hybrid conversion into a full carrier, (after all, the A-II hybrid is simply a hybrid version of A-I) one might easily imagine a version with a more enclosed bow, in the manner of the 15,000 ton and 18,000 ton ships.

Is there any chance that you could provide a longer excerpt from Whitley?

DRW

"The design for the 'Grosseflugzeugkreuzer' (project AI and AII) envisaged a 40,000-tonne ship with a three-shaft 210,000hp machinery installation and capable of 34 knots. This incorporated a hangar 160m long and could accommodate 12 fighters and 16 bombers. A gun armament of four 20.3cm, sixteen 15cm and sixteen 10.5cm was provided, which the 15cm still being shipped in casemates. Armoring was fairly extensive, totaling 9,000 tonnes with a 150mm main belt and 60-100mm armored deck. A variation of this project was a modification as a true aircraft-carrier with the 20.3cm guns being omitted and a consequent increase in the aircraft capacity. The hangar length was increased to 210m, allowing the operation of 26 bombers and 12 fighters. The dimensions, engines and hull were to be identical to the Grossflugzeugkreuzer, but with the omission of the heavy guns the weight breakdowns were differently arranged. This design was referred to as the Grossflugzeugtrager.
An even larger project was the 'Atlantikflugzeugkreuzer' (projects AIII and AIV) which displaced about 70,000 tonnes, carrier 38 aircraft and was armed with four or six 28cm guns! With armored deck and flight deck up to 150mm thick and a waterline belt of 250mm, this was indeed a heavily protected vessel. Once again a modification of the sketch design was a true aircraft-carried layout, which, by the omission of the 28cm guns, allowed the aircraft complement to rise to 38 bombers and 12 fighters."

I can see the encased fore ends for the lighter ships, but wonder about the bigger ones. Either way, I suspect the AII-AIVs would not have had it, given AI did not either.

 

[IJN Yamato BB17]

The only attempt I've seen to put picture to words for the Scharnhorst Class Carrier Conversion is Karle94.

Its funny that both Germany and Japan proposed to convert their capital ships into carriers. Japan it was the Kongos, Fuso's and Ise's Germany it was the Deutschland's and Scharnhorst's. However these conversions would only be a hinder to both.

Chasing down ever possible/blueprint German Aircraft Carrier design is exhausting as I have yet to see anyone bring everything together in one place.

 

[drwells42]

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.

My reading of Breyer (pg 34) is that the conversions of Lützow/Scheer and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were only briefly considered before being rejected. I certainly haven't seen these elsewhere.

DRW

 

[drwells42]

An even larger project was the 'Atlantikflugzeugkreuzer' (projects AIII and AIV) which displaced about 70,000 tonnes, carrier 38 aircraft and was armed with four or six 28cm guns! With armored deck and flight deck up to 150mm thick and a waterline belt of 250mm, this was indeed a heavily protected vessel. Once again a modification of the sketch design was a true aircraft-carried layout, which, by the omission of the 28cm guns, allowed the aircraft complement to rise to 38 bombers and 12 fighters."

I can see the encased fore ends for the lighter ships, but wonder about the bigger ones. Either way, I suspect the AII-AIVs would not have had it, given AI did not either.

Interesting. That suggests that the drawings for the "full carrier" version exist somewhere.

As mentioned above, I do think that it is likely that the "full carrier" version of A-III/A-IV would be a larger analog of A-I, at least as regards the flight deck at the bow. They seem to have liked the idea of a bridge at the bow for this series, and that precludes the sort of enclosed bow that we saw on the 15,000 and 18,000 ton ships.

In my opinion, these German designs had too little hangar and flight deck space for their size, and that is reflected in their small air wing. Anything they could do to increase the size of the hangar and flight decks would have been an improvement.

DRW

 

[Force Lord]

I'm sure a number of you guys may know about the following, but here's a list of construction drawings and model plans possessed by the Württemberg State Library: https://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/filead...Pdf-Dateien/Marine-Technische_Zeichnungen.pdf. In my case it was again me looking around Marinearchiv.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

In my opinion, these German designs had too little hangar and flight deck space for their size, and that is reflected in their small air wing. Anything they could do to increase the size of the hangar and flight decks would have been an improvement.

DRW

This is a very annoying inaccuracy that tends to float about for German carrier aviation in general. Hangar volume is not the issue - the aircraft used are. "Plane Tetris" with Graf Zeppelin utilizing to-scale foreign aircraft shows the absolute inadequacy of converted BF-109 and Ju-87 aircraft in this context (with the exception of the Ju-87D). Even net hangar volume (actual usable area) is often in excess of foreign contemporaries.
For AIII and AIV, one could certainly make the argument that the capacity is lacking. This may be due to the fact that while GZ has two hangars, AI-AIV only have one. A careful comparison would have to be made. Interestingly, though, despite being nearly 40,000 tons heavier, AIII/IV is not much larger than GZ. This is almost certainly due to the extensive armoring, which is significantly greater than that of their predecessor.
I suspect this may have something to do with the perceived inability of Atlantic employment for Graf Zeppelin, possibly due to her height, which was the cause of this particular reaction.

I would not mind finding those full-carrier plans, should they exist.

 

[Force Lord]

I've seen it been claimed on the WoWs forums that, besides German carrier aircraft lacking folding wings and the general reluctance of the Luftwaffe to provide aircraft for purposes they had little use for (especially when the Kriegsmarine couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted its carriers to do), part of the problem was that the spacing between aircraft was inefficient and made poor use of space, reflecting the general inexperience in carrier aircraft management and the Luftwaffe transplanting airfield and land hangar practice on to ship hangars.

EDIT: Also I doubt the Germans were aware of American practice of stowing aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I've seen it been claimed on the WoWs forums that, besides German carrier aircraft lacking folding wings and the general reluctance of the Luftwaffe to provide aircraft for purposes they had little use for (especially when the Kriegsmarine couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted its carriers to do), part of the problem was that the spacing between aircraft was inefficient and made poor use of space, reflecting the general inexperience in carrier aircraft management and the Luftwaffe transplanting airfield and land hangar practice on to ship hangars.

EDIT: Also I doubt the Germans were aware of American practice of stowing aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar.

The initially converted aircraft did not. This is largely due to the attempt to convert land-based variants, but there was success with the Ju-87 D, which would fold extremely nicely. None of the fighters would be of a folded-wing design, possibly a limitation of the BF-109 fuselage, which was used in the BF-109T and Me-155.
As far as aircraft arrangement in hangars, I see no issues - they play just as much tetris as any other nation, as far as comparisons reveal. Maybe there's some sort of uber-efficient arrangement I'm missing here?

There is a 1942 carrier plan that actually has Me-155s hanging from the hangar ceiling, just as in USN practice.

 

[YourChair]

I've seen it been claimed on the WoWs forums that, besides German carrier aircraft lacking folding wings and the general reluctance of the Luftwaffe to provide aircraft for purposes they had little use for (especially when the Kriegsmarine couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted its carriers to do), part of the problem was that the spacing between aircraft was inefficient and made poor use of space, reflecting the general inexperience in carrier aircraft management and the Luftwaffe transplanting airfield and land hangar practice on to ship hangars.

EDIT: Also I doubt the Germans were aware of American practice of stowing aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar.

Germans usually did not need to store aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar because their carriers (at least Graf Zeppelin) were designed on the Japanese model, with a double hangar.

 

[donnyjie]

Here's another c/36g, this one have total length of 28150m, longer than 53cm/52 barrel (27700m) and designed in 1936.

Could you provide the hi-res resource, or the doc serial number in Bundesarchiv?

 

[alexi]

Could you provide the hi-res resource, or the doc serial number in Bundesarchiv?

Initially i want to upload directly from invenio but the file size are massive, i have to minimize a bit.
Anyway is RH 8/3024K, this folder contain various gun barrels (5cm, 20.3cm/L60, 28cm/L58 and this c36/g etc).

 

[Russemoto]

Hello everyone, I'm back again.

Today's topic is the Deutschland rebuilds. / and me throwing a bunch of diesel engine development at the screen because I can't help but explain every little facet and detail.

/// REVISION UNDERWAY, PLEASE STAND BY. ///​

Was there ever more work on this topic? Are there any dimensions available for the possible upgraded Deutschlands?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Was there ever more work on this topic? Are there any dimensions available for the possible upgraded Deutschlands?

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.

 

[AndyKru]

Project of a submarine - a carrier of boats and a mine depositor. Circa 1934.

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

Project of a submarine - a carrier of boats and a mine depositor. Circa 1934.

We give you a boat-carrying boat so you can enjoy some boats while sitting in a boat.
(Yeah, my sense of humor is even worse than my English. I'm not sorry for that.)
P.S. And now I wonder if a flying boat can be stuffed into this thing's hangar, for full combo.

 

[Wurger]

Project of a submarine - a carrier of boats and a mine depositor. Circa 1934.

An itherto unknown version of the Type III, with an unknown to me Schnellboote design. No mines, rather oxygen flasks.

 

[AndyKru]

An itherto unknown version of the Type III, with an unknown to me Schnellboote design. No mines, rather oxygen flasks.

Mines could be loaded instead of boats.

 

[Wurger]

Mines could be loaded instead of boats.

You are right, those are LMB mines, but not carried instead of boats. They were supposed to be launched through the aft "torpedo" tubes.

 

[AndyKru]

Project of an unbuilt squadron minesweeper M-boot 1934

 

[lukasgrul]

If anybody is interested, here are some carriers that I drew in shipbucket style.

 

[TheWayOfTheWind]

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.

 

[TheWayOfTheWind]

Taking a while for these guys to reply at the Bundesarchive.

 

[lukasgrul]

Few days ago I finished a drawing of 21000t aircraft carrier project.

 

[TheWayOfTheWind]

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...?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Few days ago I finished a drawing of 21000t aircraft carrier project.

Well done

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

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...?

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.

 

[TheWayOfTheWind]

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.

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.

 

[Russemoto]

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.

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?

 

[TheWayOfTheWind]

What scanning services do you guys use for the plans if you don't use the Bundesarchive's free service?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

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?

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.

 

[MrMemerMan]

If anybody is interested, here are some carriers that I drew in shipbucket style.

You should get these uploaded onto Shipbucket!

 

[Jemiba]

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 ….

 

[lukasgrul]

From what I know it was only experimental.