Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

[IJN Yamato BB17]

Hello all.

It's been a long while, but I combed through the archive for new plans. Today is for KM ship plans specifically. Quite a few were found, some already known and posted, but all are now in the share drive for convenient access.

Included are plans for:
- Admiral Hipper (9 plans)
- Admiral Scheer (8 plans)
- Artillerie-Schulschiff Bremse (5 plans)
- Blucher (3 plans)
- Flugdeckkreuzer (1942) (1 plan)
- Flugzeugtrager B (22 plans)
- Flottentorpedoboot 1940 (2 plans)
- Flottentorpedoboot 1941 (7 plans)
- Graf Zeppelin (129 plans)
- Koln (3 plans)
- Kreuzer M (1 plan)
- Prinz Eugen (65 plans)
- Scharnhorst (10 plans)
- Schlachtschiff H (4 plans)
- Schlachtschiff O (2 plans)
- Kreuzer Seydlitz/Lutzow (4 plans)
- Spahkreuzer 1938 (3 plans)
- Type 1934 (1 plan)
- Type 1934A (21 plans)
- Type 1936 (23 plans)
- Type 1936A (18 plans)
- Type 1938B (2 plans)
- ZF6/ZF7/ZF2 (8 plans)

Not all of these plans are immediately of interest or groundbreaking in any way. A few of the sub-10 plan ones consist of nothing but crane drawings or living accommodation specifics, to give a couple of examples. Perhaps that is your thing, but I suspect most do not find it of particular interest.
The Fzt. Graf Zeppelin/B plans are of much use in the playing of "hangar tetris". There is a "plan" with a series of tables giving specific detail to the armor arrangement of the Admiral Hipper-class within the new Prinz Eugen plans. Kreuzer M's sole new plan is of its Vulcan gearbox used for the four M12Z 42/58 engines on the center shaft. Of interest to me is a 1939 Type 1936A plan that shows a "simplified" version of the Drh. L. C/38 turret that you see on other plans like that of the Type 1938B, Kolonialkanonenboot, and some Type 1937 drawings - and Schlachtschiff O, of course.

I will be making dives into other areas (e.g. RM3) later on.

Cheers.

Germany - Sarcasticat's Home :) - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Was there any information you could find regarding the origins of the - Flugdeckkreuzer (1942) blueprint? From what sources I have access to there is no information about this type of flightdeck cruiser design.

 

[Arjen]

@Squallog Hit <search> in top right SPF bar, hit <Everywhere>, select 'This thread'. Specify item.

<everywhere> drop down menu with 'in thread' option only appears if you're in the thread you would like to search in.

 

[Squallog]

@Squallog Hit <search> in top right SPF bar, hit <Everywhere>, select 'This thread'. Specify item.

<everywhere> drop down menu with 'in thread' option only appears if you're in the thread you would like to search in.

nice one, thanks

I'll check the google drive for plans as well

 

[StraightLinus]

Here are two variants of the Panzerschiff P project (1938 and 1939) and the "Handelzerstorer" variants following them

I know this is old but can you please repost the Panzerschiff P Entwurf 1938 and Entwurfsvariante 1939 designs.

 

[StraightLinus]

Does anyone have the 2 line drawings of the P class. Specifically Entwurf von A V 1938 and Entwurfsvariante von 1939.

 

[lukasgrul]

There are these three blueprints that I saved from this forum.

 

[Ashcat]

Hello and welcome,

This is a hub for all things Kriegsmarine. You will find information, data, and even deductions like this nearly nowhere else - and I take great pride in that.
So if you have a question about the Kriegsmarine, are looking for some specific ship or weapon, or even want sources, this is your place. Myself or any number of the great members of secretprojects will, I have confidence, assist.

Author's Note: this isn't wehraboo central, this is Patrick, and "German science is the greatest in the world" isn't an instrument.

You will find plans and books on a great many things. This includes but is very certainly not limited to:

• H-Class.
• Existing German Battleships (Schlatschiff Scharnhorst/Gneisenau/Bismarck/Tirpitz) and their preliminary designs.
• Admiral Zenker's various designs.
• O-class battlecruiser.
• Kreuzer M.
• Spahkreuzer's 38, 39, and 40.
• Your typical K's, Leipzig, and Nurnberg.
• Destroyers of every type and size, including Zerstörer Typ "32", Typ 36C, 37J/I-IV, 42 (Z-51), 42A/B/C, Typ 44, and Typ 45.
• Flottentorpedoboote, including Ftb 1939, 1940, 1941/41A, 1942, and 1944.
• S-Boote.
• Weapons of all conceivable calibers (5cm AA to 53cm main guns).
• Torpedoes.

All plans can be found here, including some other goodies if you look hard enough.

Germany - Sarcasticat's Home :) - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Is there a scharnhorst preliminary with 35 cm - 35.6 cm main guns? I remember reading somewhere that there was. If there is can I have more information on it? Danke

 

[StraightLinus]

There are these three blueprints that I saved from this forum.

Thank you so much. Funny how the third draft depicts the P class with a dual deck mounted catapult instead of the single rotating one depicted one most designs.

 

[alexi]

Is there a scharnhorst preliminary with 35 cm - 35.6 cm main guns? I remember reading somewhere that there was. If there is can I have more information on it? Danke

There's one, presumably the "Neuentwurf I" (New Design I), instead a purposely built to armed with 6x35cm it was an up-gunned proposal from 9x28cm, the designers are refers the already available 28cm and new potential 33cm which will put "D" and "E" on par with French battlecruisers.
You should read this 2007 thread, it will give you some insights about Scharnhorst-class evolutions, i saved this Scharnhorst-class evolution pipeline (from @_Sarcasticat_ ) in case image link broken, those projects marked in green box meaning these have existed blueprints from bunderachiv, i only have D3b, D6 and D7a, no luck on Neuentwurf II

 

[1Big Rich]

There's one, presumably the "Neuentwurf I" (New Design I), instead a purposely built to armed with 6x35cm it was an up-gunned proposal from 9x28cm, the designers are refers the already available 28cm and new potential 33cm which will put "D" and "E" on par with French battlecruisers.
You should read this 2007 thread, it will give you some insights about Scharnhorst-class evolutions, i saved this Scharnhorst-class evolution pipeline (from @_Sarcasticat_ ) in case image link broken, those projects marked in green box meaning these have existed blueprints from bunderachiv, i only have D3b, D6 and D7a, no luck on Neuentwurf II
View attachment 735645

Thanks for posting that image, alexi.

Member Harold posted something similar on Warship Projects 3.0 years ago, and I wish I had saved it.
The 33cm schiffe D are very intriguing.

Regards,

 

[that_person]

Here are all remaining Großflugzeugkreuzers that I draw.

What's the source for these?

 

[drwells42]

What's the source for these?

These designs first became widely known from Wilhelm Hadeler's article "Projektskizzen von Flugzeugschiffen der
Kriegsmarine aus dem zweiten Weltkriege" in the Jan-Feb 1972 issue of the journal Marine-rundschau. In recent years, we've seen the actual KM drawings become available. If you poke around this thread a bit, you'll find them.

DRW

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

The funny thing is, some time ago I've reread this document (it's at the bottom of this thread's first page, if anyone's curious), and... guns' caliber is not stated there. The figures "450 [mm]" and "500 [mm]" are listed as "Vorderwand", i.e., turret front armor, not gun caliber.

(long speculation and "analysis" ensue)

Remember that? Now forget it))
Three years ago I created a thread to collect information about these guns. Created and quickly forgot about it.
Now I have accidentally found it again, and... there was this. A picture from some book confirming that these mysterious Krupp guns were, indeed, 45 and 50 cm in caliber. At least, shell weights and velocities in the book coincide with those stated in the document.

Never forget your old threads, guys. You never know what treasures you can found there

 

[ptdockyard]

The M-class with 17cm data sounds very interesting!

 

[Tzoli]

The quad H class variants as well. Based on the turret drawings, Richelieu/Donkerque style layout

 

[lukasgrul]

Is there any blueprint with top down view of H-40B? I could find only side of this design. I am currently drawing H-40A with top view but I do not have enough blueprints to make H-40B.

 

[Arjen]

From Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1905-1970 by Siegfried Breyer, Manfed Pawlak Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1970.
Breyer only identifies it as 'H-Klasse (endgültiger Entwurf 1939), but it shows all equipment presented in your H-40 B.gif
Differences: Ar 196 floatplane abaft of Y-turret, slanted pole fitted to top bridge structure.

 

[Arjen]

The image H-40 B bl.jpg looks similar to the image on p.336 of Breyer's book. Identified by Breyer as H-41 Projekstudie >A< (top) and H-41 Projektstudie >B< (bottom). Your image has English captions that also identify the drawings as H-41 A and B. Are you in fact looking for a top view of H-41 B?

I do not have enough blueprints to make H-40B.

 

[drwells42]

Is there any blueprint with top down view of H-40B? I could find only side of this design. I am currently drawing H-40A with top view but I do not have enough blueprints to make H-40B.

AFAIK, Dulin & Garzke were the only ones who called them H-40A and H-40B. That might not be all bad, as it makes at least some sense.

Here's the drawing from their book.

There may be a real KM drawing, but I'll have to dig through my files.

DRW

 

[alexi]

Just to save your time, there are some of H-class plans already digitalized and stored in @_Sarcasticat_ google folders, the further you looking for H-class studies or plans, they're mostly text and little data like those H-43 unknown variants above.
These two are similar to H-40A and H-40B because they're both 4 shafts and mixed propulsions.

 

[drwells42]

From Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1905-1970 by Siegfried Breyer, Manfed Pawlak Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1970.
Breyer only identifies it as 'H-Klasse (endgültiger Entwurf 1939), but it shows all equipment presented in your H-40 B.gif
Differences: Ar 196 floatplane abaft of Y-turret, slanted pole fitted to top bridge structure.

I believe that your drawing from Breyer is in fact H-39. The fact that it has three propellers indicates that it is not either of the "H-40" designs, both of which had four. The relatively narrow stern indicates that it is not H-41. In my copies of Breyer, (original German and English translation) it is grouped with the H-39 drawings.

DRW

 

[Arjen]

Breyer doesn't identify any H-39 or H-40 battleship designations. Just the unnumbered H, H-41, H-42, H-43, H-44.

I take it @lukasgrul is looking for H-41 B top view.
From Breyer:

 

[lukasgrul]

Breyer doesn't identify any H-39 or H-40 battleship designations. Just the unnumbered H, H-41, H-42, H-43, H-44.

I take it @lukasgrul is looking for H-41 B top view.
From Breyer:

I am looking for design from 1941, but with four propellers.

 

[drwells42]

Just to save your time, there are some of H-class plans already digitalized and stored in @_Sarcasticat_ google folders, the further you looking for H-class studies or plans, they're mostly text and little data like those H-43 unknown variants above.
These two are similar to H-40A and H-40B because they're both 4 shafts and mixed propulsions.

I'm not 100% sure that these are the drawings @lukasgrul is looking for. They certainly are 4-shaft mixed propulsion designs, like H-40A and H-40B, and the number of main guns is correct. I do believe that these are real KM drawings.

That said, some of the dimensions are not as Breyer and Dulin & Garzke describe.

For example, the 4-turret ship shows a length of 266 meters. This is identical to H-39. The beam is actually slightly less than H-39. (37 meters, vs 37.2 for H-39.) Both Breyer and Dulin & Garzke agree that the length of H-40B is 287 meters (waterline) and that the beam is 39.2 meters. Breyer adds a 299 meter overall length.

It seems unlikely that Breyer and Dulin & Garzke are both wrong. Neither source is perfect, (and indeed I keep a "Breyer Errata" list) but it is improbable that two independent books have the same error. The most likely explanation to my mind is that the 4-turret ship in the KM drawing is a different preliminary design.

Similarly, the 3-turret ship shows a length of 260 meters. Both Breyer and Dulin & Garzke have 270 meters (waterline) for H-40A. My suspicion is that this is an early drawing of H-40A.

DRW

 

[drwells42]

Also, to clarify, only Dulin and Garzke called these ships H-40A and H-40B. Breyer (and others) just called them "Entwurf A" and "Entwurf B".

I agree that Breyer does not use the designation H-39, but many other sources use it to refer to the 1939 version of the H-class that the Germans actually started to build.

DRW

 

[ptdockyard]

I have never seen a 6-gun H-class. What are the guns?

 

[drwells42]

I have never seen a 6-gun H-class. What are the guns?

Same 16" as the other earlier H-class. (not to be confused with the later H-42 to H-44 "pipe dreams")

DRW

 

[lukasgrul]

Just to save your time, there are some of H-class plans already digitalized and stored in @_Sarcasticat_ google folders, the further you looking for H-class studies or plans, they're mostly text and little data like those H-43 unknown variants above.
These two are similar to H-40A and H-40B because they're both 4 shafts and mixed propulsions.

I know about these, but the second blueprint is showing H-39 in 1942 version. Somebody written it in this forum before.

 

[alexi]

I know about these, but the second blueprint is showing H-39 in 1942 version. Somebody written it in this forum before.

That's me, the H-39/42 version i showed in previous thread is technically the redesigned of H-41, the "Vier Turm H" is one of H-40 study, the "Vier Turm H" is dated in 26.4.40 while "A" and "B" are dated on July '40 (after correct myself through reading G&D Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII), @drwells42 is correct.

Anyway, am currently reading and try machine translate (DeepL) whatever i can find more about them on RM 6/60 "Verlauf der entwurfsbearbeitung des schlachtschiffs “H“ (Progress of design of Battleship "H"), is 6,7 pages long describes the lengthening development of battleship "H", alongside with preliminary plans up to 7 drafts, main armanents either 8x16" or 12x15" guns (they choose 16" guns because twin turrets are smaller and weight saving the most), designers attempt to minimize hull sizes to make H-class more transverable within canal, dockyard limitations, favorable propulsions, machinery, armor weight calcuations, criticisms of the class by several chief departments and etc.

 

[alexi]

Also, here's the slightly better quality of panzerschiff "A" ("Ersatz Preussen"), the two twins mounted super-firing over her aft 28.3cm turret are the short-lived SK C/25 8.8 cm/L75 flaks.

 

[alexi]

Finished machine translations (DeepL) on RM 6/60 "Verlauf der entwurfsbearbeitung des schlachtschiffs “H“, admittedly i do not want to flood @_Sarcasticat_ thread with botched translations from the archives, but i have no motivation to learn another language when my english isn't even good enough, if this annoying to you guys please let me know.
The document files divided into four sections:
1. Vorgeschichte. (Preliminary Phase)
2. Kritik des Typs. (Criticism of the type)
3. Entstehung des Neuentwurfs. (Development of new designs).
4. Schluß (Conclusions).
The translations isn't perfect, you may find some nonsensical wordings, there are few i know and put them on the separate note.

Spoiler: 1. Vorgeschichte

Verlauf der entwurfsbearbeitung des schlachtschiffs “H“
I. Vorgeschichte.
Nachdem infolge enigreifens des fürhers die von A mit A IV a 2543/36 G.Kdos vom 11.12.36 gestellen militärischen Forderungen für das schlachtschiff "H" hinfällig gerwodern waren, haben über den Typ unmittelbare Verhandlungen des Ob.d.M. in erster Linie mit dem amtschef M Wa und Chef K I stattgefunden, zu denen teilweise die amtschefs A und K hinzugezogen wurden.
Über die Verantwortung bei der entwurfsbearbebeitung des alten schlachtschiffs “H“ sagt K:
“ daß für Schlachtschiff “H“ vom Führer und Ob.d.M im Mai 37 über chef M.Wa die heutigen militärischen Eigenschaften bestimmt worden sind.“
(K 813/38 G.kdos. vom 11.10.38)
Gemäß Nb.A 99/38 G.Kdos. vom 12.10.38 sind die unterlagen für den schiffstyp auf Grund von Fragen, die der Ob.d.M zur Prüfung gestellt hatte, geschaffen worden.
“Zur klarstellung der grundlagen für die Beantwortung dieser Fragen hat am 15.1. 37 eine Besprechung von Chef M Wa mit chef K und Chef K I statgefunden.
An der besprechung der amtschefs beim Ob.d.M am 29.1.1937 ist A V beteiligt worden. Es standen aber nur noch drei Entwürfe zur wahl, und zwar zwei Entwürfe mit 8 - 40.6 cm in doppeltürmen (Nr.3 und 3a) und ein entwurf mit 12 - 38 cm in drillingstürmen (Nr. 4). A hat mit A IV a OP. 10/37 g.kdos vom II.37 seine militärischen forderungen aufgestellt und als die typbestimmenden Hauptpunkte eine armierung von 8 - 40.6 cm in doppeltürmen und eine geschwindigkeit von 30sm gerfordert.
An der Prüfung der entwürfe und festlegung der Grösse der entwürfe ist a nicht beteiligt worden. A hat lediglich eine Zusammenstellung der entwürfe 1 - 7 (Sk I s Nr. 63) erhalten.
A hat sich nur deshalb mit der wahl des Entwurfs 3 mit 27.8 sm Geshwindigkeit abgefunden, weil die erreichung der geforderten 30 sm nach den angaben von K bei den sonst geforderten Eigenschaften des schiffes überhaupt nich zu erreichen war. Eine geschwindigkeit von 29 sm hätte bereits ein noch um 8500 t grösseres schiff enfordert (Entwurf 3a).
Nach der Entscheidung des Ob.d.M über den typ ist gemäß Nb.A 99/38 G.Kdos der neubenausschuß vom Ob.d.M im oktober 37 mit der durchprüfung der antriebsfrage beauftragt worden, hat sich aber mit den grundsätzlichen Eigenschaften des typs im überigen nicht mehr befaßt.

Spoiler: Translations:

Progress of the design of the battleship “H”
I. Prehistory.
After the military demands for the battleship “H” made by A with A IV a 2543/36 G.Kdos of 11.12.36 had become obsolete as a result of the Fürher's decision, direct negotiations on the type took place between the Ob.d.M. primarily with the Chief of Staff M Wa and Chief K I, to which the Chiefs of Staff A and K were partly consulted.
Regarding the responsibility for the design of the old battleship “H”, K. says
“ that for battleship “H” the present military characteristics were determined by the Führer and Ob.d.M. in May 37 via chef M.Wa.”
(K 813/38 G.kdos. of 11.10.38)
According to Nb.A 99/38 G.Kdos. of 12.10.38, the documents for the ship type were created on the basis of questions posed by the Ob.d.M. for examination.
“To clarify the basis for answering these questions, a meeting was held on 15.1.37 between Chief M Wa, Chief K and Chief K I.
A V was involved in the meeting of the heads of office at the Ob.d.M. on 29.1.1937. However, there were only three designs left to choose from, namely two designs with 8 - 40.6 cm in double turrets (no. 3 and 3a) and one design with 12 - 38 cm in triple turrets (no. 4). A has with A IV a OP (meeting?). 10/37 g.kdos of II.37 and demanded an armament of 8 - 40.6 cm in twin turrets and a speed of 30 nm as the main points determining the type.
A was not involved in the examination of the designs or in determining the size of the designs. A only received a compilation of designs 1 - 7 (SkI s No. 63).
A only accepted the choice of design 3 with a speed of 27.8 nm because, according to K's information, the required 30 nm could not be achieved at all with the other required characteristics of the ship. A speed of 29 nm would have required a ship that was 8500 tons larger (draft 3a).
After the decision of the ob.d.M. on the type, in accordance with Nb.A 99/38 G.Kdos, the newbuilding committee was commissioned by the ob.d.M. in october 37 with the examination of the propulsion question, but did not deal with the basic characteristics of the type in general.

Spoiler: II. Kritik des Typs

II. Kritik des Typs.
Der entwurf des schlachtschiffs “H„ ist zu beanstanden wegen seiner ungenügenden Geschwindigkeit, seiner allgemein unerwünschten grösse von 58700 t typdeplacement und seiner unverhältnismässigen Breite von 41m. Es tritt bei derartig breiten schiffen auf flachem bis mittlerem wasser ein starkes einsaugen des hecks mit sehr erheblicher tiefgangsvergrösserung (hinten bis zu 8m mehr!) und dadurch bedingter geringer höchstgeschiwindigkeit (unter 20 sm), ein ferner ungünstiges Verhalten im seegang und schwierigkeiten bezw. Unmöglichkeit der kanalbeneutzung. Annähernd volle ausnutzung der an sich schon ungenügenden höchstgeschwindigkeit erfordert wassertiefen über 100m.
Diese mängel sind von A von voraherein beanstandet worden. Obwohl besonders der chef K I darin mit A übereinstimmte, konnte in einjähriger arbeit an dem typ nur eine Verringerung der breite um 1m durch kürzung der Wallgangsbreite und verlängerung des schiffes um 12 und damit eine Verbesserung der geschwindigkeit um 0.2 sm auf 28.0sm erreicht werden.
Die ursache des fehlentwurfs liegt in der ungewöhnlichen breite, die bisher noch von keinem einzigen seeschiff erreicht worden ist. (Nur die größte der russichen popoffkas hatte eine Breite von 41.2 m; sie kann aber nicht mehr als seeschiff angesprochen worden.) Infolge der über grossen breite wird die maschinenleiistung sehr schlecht ausgenutzt. Die Breite war z.t bedingt durch die breite des wallgangs, die von K zunächst mit 6.5, danach mit 6m vorgesehen wurde, obwohl A niemals eine über die durch Sprengversuche ermittelte notwendige breite von 5.4m hinaus gefordert hatte, hauptsächlich aber durch die Anordung der maschinenanlagen (zunächst turbinen, dann motoren) die wie sich später zeigte - einen unnötigen breitenmehrbedarf von 2 m orgab.

Spoiler

II. criticism of the type.
The design of the battleship “H” is objectionable because of its inadequate speed, its generally undesirable size of 58700 tons type displacement and its disproportionate width of 41m. With such wide ships on flat to medium water, there is a strong suction of the stern with a very considerable increase in draught (up to 8 m more at the stern!) and the resulting low maximum speed (less than 20 nm), unfavorable behavior in swell and difficulties or impossibility of using the canal. Almost full utilization of the already insufficient maximum speed requires water depths of over 100m.
These deficiencies were objected to by A from the outset. Although the chief K I in particular agreed with A, it was only possible to reduce the width by 1m in one year of work on the type by shortening the width of the companionway and lengthening the ship by 12 and thus improve the speed by 0.2 nm to 28.0 nm.
The reason for the lack of draft lies in the unusual width, which has not yet been achieved by a single seagoing vessel. (Only the largest of the Russian popoffkas (RUSSIAN MONITOR NOVGOROD) had a (draught) of 41.2 m, but it can no longer be considered a seagoing vessel). As a result of the excessive width, the engine power was very poorly utilized. The width was partly due to the width of the companionway, which was initially planned by K at 6.5 m, then at 6 m, although A had never demanded a width in excess of the necessary 5.4 m determined by blasting tests, but mainly due to the arrangement of the machinery (first turbines, then engines) which, as later became apparent, resulted in an unnecessary extra 2 m of width.

Spoiler: III. Entstehung des Neuentwurfs.

III. Entstehung des Neuentwurfs.
Bei der bearbeitung der Erstüberlegungen für die kreuzer des typs “P“ in zusammenarbeit A V/Baurat driessen zeigte sich bei prüfung der frage, ob diese mit der gleichen motorenanlage wie die der schlachtschiffe des typs “H“ ausführbar seinen, daß die motoren der schlachtschiffe durch war. Die nachprüfung der widerstandsverhältnisse für die schlachtschiffe des typs “H“ bei schmälerem schiff ergab die möglichkeit, bei einer breite von 37 m mit etwa derselben maschinenleistung mindestens 30 sm zu erreichen. Die Breite von 37 m war zu errichen durch Herabsetzung der wallgangsbreite auf die nur notwendige breite von 5.5 m und einsparung von weiteren 2m sn der maschinenraumbreite. Die gewichtsbilanz des schmäleren schiffs ergab die möglichkeit der einsparung von einigen tausend tonnen, die sich noch vermehren liessen, wenn einige unerhebliche abstriche an den militärischen forderungen vorgenommen wurden.
Chef A V machte daher am 15.9.38 mündlich dem Chef K I den vorschlag, den baurat Driessen mit der Nachprüfung des Typs “H“ zu beauftragen.
Als trotz mündlicher zusage Driessen nicht beauftragt wurde, wiederholte A V mit A V s 7466/38 G.Kdos. vom 19.9. diesen Vorschlag schriftlich.
Da wieder nichts erfolgte, schrieb A V mit A V s 7466/38 G.Kdos II Ang. vom 28.9.38:
“ A (A V) bittet um bestätigung, daß gem. A Vs 7466/38 G.Kdos. vom 19.9.38 Mar.Baurat Driessen den Auftrag zur überprüfung des schlachtschiffes “H“ und der U-bootsjäger mit dem Ziel, eine höhere geschwindigkeit und möglichst gleichzeitig eine verkleinerung des typs zu erreichen, erhalten hat, da AV nunmehr in zusammenarbeit mit Baurat Driessen den bisherigen entwurf des schlachtschiffes “H“ und des U-bootsjägers überarbeiten möchte.“
Gleichzeitig antwortete K mit K I 740/38 G.Kdos vom 28.9.38 auf die erste anfrage von A V hin:
“DIe möglichkeit zur verbesserung der Geschwindigkeit des schlachtschiffes typ “H“ ist abhängig von der veränderung der grundlegenden militärischen forderungen; denn unter den bisherigen grundlagen ist das schiff unter heranziehung aller maßgeblichen stellen des hauses bis aufs letzte durchgearbeitet.
Zur beurteilung, welche militärischen grundlagen etwa herabgesetzt werden müßten, teilt K an A mit, daß bei der jetzigen grösse zur vermehrung der geschwindigkeit an der meile um 2 kn 50000 WPS nötig wären, oder daß eine herabsetzung des deplacements bei der jetzt vorliegenden grösse um etwa 1000 t 0.1 kn gewinn bringt.
Vor inangriffnahme neuer bearbeitung des fast fertigen entwurfs des jetzigen schlachtschiffs “H“ ist daher die genaue festlegung der neuen militärischen forderungen notwendig.“
A V hat daraufhin mit A V s 7541/38 G.Kdos vom 5.10.38 geantwortet:
“Bei der beabsichtigten erneuten durchprüfung des entwurfs für schlachtschiff “H“ handelt es sich zu nächst darum, ohne herabsetzung der militärischen forderungen ein schnelleres und möglichst gleichzeitig auch kleineres schiff zu erzielen. Erst wenn im laufe der bearbeitung sich herausstellt, daß und welche änderungen der bisherigen militärischen forderungen hierfür notwendig werden, kann darüber entschieden werden.“
K antwortete mit K 813/38 G.Kdos vom 10.11.38:
“Die Heranziehung des für schlachtschiff “H“ nicht zuständigen referenten baurat Driessen zur durchsprechung durch A V wird von K abgelehnt.
Eine überprüfung des entwurfes zwecks erreichung höherer geschwindigkeit bei geringfügiger änderung der maschinenbaulichen räume und unter beibehaltung der sonstigen militärischen forderungen ist bei K schon vor längerer zeit als studie in arbeit genommen.
Wenn sich auch dabei herausgestellt hat, daß mit einem V-Motor eine grössere leistung in etwa den gleichen räumen unterzubringen ist, so kann eine solche motorenanlage doch wegen der dringlichkeit des baubeginns der schlachtschiffe für die schiffe “H“ und “J“ nicht mehr in frage kommen."
Dazu ist zu bemerken, daß eine V-Motorenanlage von A V nicht in betracht gezogen worden war.
Am gleichen tage wurde von chef A V mit A Vs 7595/38 G.Kdos persönlich an chef K I ein neuer entwurf des schlachtschiffs "H", der mit 51000 t typdeplacement, 4 wellen und 19300 PS dieselantrieb eine geschwindigkeit von 30,5 sm erreichen sollte, übergeben.
Nachdem durch diesen entwurf der neue weg grundsätzlich gezeigt war, sind noch 4 weitere projekte teils von A V, teils von K ausgearbeitet worden mit geschwindigkeiten bis zu 32 sm, die am 21.12.38 zur entscheidung des Ob.d.M. über den neutenwurf schlachtschiff “H“ geführt haben. Genehmigt wurde ein schiff mit 52560t typdeplacement, 30.4 sm geschwindigkeit, 3 wellen und 165 PS dieselantrieb. Dieses schiff weist an merklichen nachteilen gegenüber dem alten entwurf “H“ nur die verminderung der mittelartillerie um 2 - 15cm doppeltürme auf, während es bei kleinerem deplacement und erheblich grösserer geschwindigkeit noch folgende vorteile bietet;

Spoiler: Translations:

II. development of the new design.

When working on the initial considerations for the type “P” cruisers in collaboration with A V/Baurat driessen, the question of whether they could be built with the same engine system as the type “H” battleships revealed that the engines of the battleships were through. The examination of the resistance ratios for the “H” type battleships with a narrower ship revealed the possibility of achieving at least 30 nm with a width of 37 m with approximately the same engine power. The width of 37 m was to be achieved by reducing the width of the side gangway to the only necessary width of 5.5 m and saving a further 2 m on the engine room width. The weight balance of the narrower ship made it possible to save several thousand tons, which could be increased even further if some insignificant reductions were made to the military requirements.
Chief A V therefore made a verbal suggestion to Chief K I on 15.9.38 to commission the building councilor Driessen to review the “H” type.
When Driessen was not commissioned despite a verbal promise, A V repeated this proposal in writing with A V s 7466/38 G.Kdos. dated 19.9.
As nothing was done again, A V wrote with A V s 7466/38 G.Kdos II Ang. dated 28.9.38:
“ A (A V) asks for confirmation that according to A Vs 7466/38 G.Kdos. of 19.9.38 Mar.Baurat Driessen has received the order to review the battleship “H” and the submarine chasers with the aim of achieving a higher speed and, if possible, a reduction in size of the type at the same time, as AV would now like to revise the previous design of the battleship “H” and the submarine chaser in cooperation with Baurat Driessen.”
At the same time, K replied with K I 740/38 G.Kdos dated 28.9.38 to A V's first request:
“the possibility of improving the speed of the battleship type “H” is dependent on a change in the basic military requirements; for under the previous bases the ship has been worked through to the last detail, taking into account all the relevant parts of the house.
In order to assess which military bases would have to be reduced, K informs A that at the present size, an increase in speed of 2 knots would require 50,000 WPS, or that a reduction in displacement of about 1,000 tons at the present size would result in a gain of 0.1 knots.
Before starting new work on the almost finished design of the current battleship “H”, it is therefore necessary to precisely define the new military requirements.”
A V responded with A V s 7541/38 G.Kdos dated 5.10.38:
“the intended re-examination of the design for battleship “H” is first of all a matter of achieving a faster and, if possible, smaller ship without lowering the military requirements. Only when it becomes clear in the course of the work that and which changes to the existing military requirements are necessary for this can a decision be made.”
K replied with K 813/38 G.Kdos dated 10.11.38:
“K rejects the use of the consultant baurat Driessen, who is not responsible for battleship “H”, for discussion by A V.
A review of the design in order to achieve higher speed with minor changes to the engine room and while retaining the other military requirements has been in progress at K for some time as a study.
Even if it has turned out that a V-engine can accommodate a higher output in roughly the same space, such an engine installation can no longer be considered for the ships “H” and “J” due to the urgency of starting construction of the battleships.”
It should be noted that a V-engine installation had not been considered by A V.
On the same day, boss A V personally handed over a new design of the battleship “H” to boss K I with A Vs 7595/38 G.Kdos, which was to reach a speed of 30.5 nm with a type displacement of 51,000 tons, 4 shafts and 19,300 hp diesel propulsion.
After this design had basically shown the new way, 4 more projects were worked out, partly by A V, partly by K, with speeds of up to 32 nm, which led to the decision of the Ob.d.M. on 21.12.38 about the new design of the battleship “H”. A ship with a type displacement of 52560 tons, a speed of 30.4 nm, 3 waves and 165 hp diesel propulsion was approved. The only noticeable disadvantage of this ship compared to the old design “H” is the reduction of the middle artillery by 2 - 15cm double turrets, while it still offers the following advantages with a smaller displacement and considerably higher speed;

Spoiler: IV. Schluß

IV. Schluß
Folgende tatsachen stehen also unwiderleglich fest:
1.) An der bestimmung des typs des alten schlachtschiffs “H“, A ausser der aufstellung militärischer forderungen nicht beteiligt.
2.) Alle anstrengungen des K-Amtes, den typ gemäß den auch von K als berechtigt anerkannten forderungen von A entsprechend zu verbessern, hatten bis september 38 keinen nennenswerten erfolg.
3.) In zusammenarbeit von Baurat Driessen mit A V ist im zeit raum etwa nur einer woche die möglichkeit einer grundlegenden verbesserung nachgewiesen worden.
4.) Auf grund dieser neuen gedanken sind eine reihe neuer projekte ausgearbeitet worden, die lediglich unter inkaufnahme einer geringen beschränkung der mittelartillerie zu einem grundlegend besseren typ geführt haben.
5.) Daß es sich bei dem vorstehend geschilderten neuentwurf für schlachtschiff “H“ durch A V/Driessen um einen grundsätzlich neuen weg gehandelt hat, erhellt aus folgendem:
Die Kürzung der mittelartillerie um 2 türme vermindert das artilleriegewicht um etwa 300 t.
Fortfall von 2 - 15cm barbatten und verminderung des panzers der übrigen 15 cm barbatten auf 80 mm bringt mit anderen unbedenklichen einsparungen von panzerdicken eine gewichtsverminderung von etwa 700t.
Durch den fortfall der beiden türme hätte das schiff um etwa 3 - 4 m kürzer werden können, wenn dadurch nicht das ohnehin sehr ungünstige längen= -Breitenverhältnis noch weiter verschlechtert worden wäre. Die ersparnis an schiffskörper= und panzergewicht würde etwa 600t betragen. Es durfte daher nur in betracht kommen, bei erhaltung der gesamtlänge des schiffes den abstand der schweren türme um 3 - 4 m zu verkleinern. Dadurch ergibt sich die möglichkeit einer panzerersparnis von nur etwa 200t.
Insgesamt ergibt sich auf dem von K beabsichtigten und allein für möglich gehaltenen wege durch einsparungen infolge kürzung der militärischen forderungen eine gewichtserleichterung von etwa 1200t und damit eine geschwindigkeitsseteigerung von 0,12 sm.
Bei verkürzung des schiffes könnten insgesamt etwa 1600t gespart werden, damit würde aber kein grösserer geschwindigkeitsgewinn infolge der formverschlechterung zu erreichen sein.
Es stehen sich also gegenüber der auf dem K-Were erreichbare geschwindigkeitsgewinn von 0,12 sm und 2,4 sm durch die von A V/Driessen gewählte verbesserung des typs durch gleichzeitige verringerung der breite um 3 m und dadurch ermöglichte erhebliche einsparungen an schiffskörper und panzergewicht, also ein 20 facher gewinn bezw, bei vergrösserung der mashinenanlage um 50000 bezw, 55000 PS ein geschwindigkeitsgewinn von 2 oder 4 sm, wobei von K.s.Zt, kein weg gezeigt wurde, wie die grössere maschinenleistung unterzubringen wäre.
6.) Es ist richtig, daß im grunde der Driessen’sche Weg so einfach ist, daß ihn auch jeder andere hätte gehen können, Das ist aber bei genialen ideen häufig so und findet seinen treffenden ausdruck im sprichwort vom ei des kolumbus.

Spoiler: Translations:

IV Conclusions:
The following facts are therefore irrefutably established:
1) A was not involved in the determination of the type of the old battleship “H”, apart from making military demands.
2) All efforts of the K office to improve the type in accordance with the demands of A, which were also recognized by K as justified, had no significant success until September 38.
3) In cooperation between Baurat Driessen and A V, the possibility of a fundamental improvement was demonstrated within a period of only about one week.
4) On the basis of these new ideas, a series of new projects were drawn up, which only led to a fundamentally better type at the cost of a slight reduction in the medium artillery.
5) The fact that the new design for battleship “H” by A V/Driessen described above was a fundamentally new approach is clear from the following:
Reducing the medium artillery by 2 turrets reduces the artillery weight by about 300 tons.
Elimination of 2 - 15 cm barbettes and reduction of the armor of the remaining 15 cm barbettes to 80 mm, together with other harmless savings in armor thickness, results in a weight reduction of about 700 tons.
By eliminating the two turrets, the ship could have been about 3 - 4 m shorter if this had not further worsened the already very unfavorable length-to-width ratio. The saving in hull and armor weight would have been about 600 tons. It could therefore only be considered to reduce the distance between the heavy turrets by 3 - 4 m while maintaining the overall length of the ship. This resulted in the possibility of an armor saving of only about 200 tons.
All in all, the route envisaged by K, which alone was considered possible, would result in a weight reduction of around 1200 tons and thus an increase in speed of 0.12 nm due to the reduction in military requirements.
By shortening the ship, a total of around 1600 tons could be saved, but this would not result in a greater gain in speed due to the reduction in shape.
The speed gains of 0.12 nm and 2.4 nm achievable on the K-Were are therefore offset by the improvement of the type chosen by A V/Driessen by simultaneously reducing the width by 3 m and thus enabling considerable savings in hull and armor weight, i.e. a 20-fold gain or, if the engine plant were increased by 50,000 or 55,000 hp, a speed gain of 2 or 4 nm, whereby K. s.t.t., no way was shown how the greater engine power could be accommodated.
6) It is true that Driessen's path is basically so simple that anyone else could have followed it, but this is often the case with ingenious ideas and is aptly expressed in the proverb about Columbus' egg(???).

 

[alexi]

You'll see "A, K, M Wa or Gkdos or A I or IV or Ob.d.M" often in German archives, those are shortened name of German Naval Departments, offices, committees and high command within OKM (Oberkommando der Kriegsmarine), these departments have their respective folder archives on Bunderarchiv.

(A/AI,AII,AIII,AIV,AV) stand for "Marinekommandoamt der Reichsmarine und Kriegsmarine" (RM 20) as in Naval Command Department. They also have five department groups hence numbers from I to V in roman letters.
(K) stand for "Marinekonstruktionsamt" or "Hauptamt Kriegsschiffbau der Reichsmarine und Kriegsmarine" as in Construction Naval Department or Head Department of Warship Construction. (RM 25)
(M.Wa) stand for "Marinewaffenamt" as in Naval Weapon Department. (RM 24)
Ob.d.M short for Oberbefehlshaber der Marine - Commander in Chief (RM 6).
(S.k.l) short for Seekriegsleitung - Naval Warfare Command. (RM 7)
(Gk.dos) stand for "Geheime Kommandosache" meaning Top Secret Letter or Secret Commando Operation? (in other words, highly classified document of sorts).
Baurat Driessen a design bureau called Driessen which i have no knowledge of.

 

[YourChair]

Remember that? Now forget it))
Three years ago I created a thread to collect information about these guns. Created and quickly forgot about it.
Now I have accidentally found it again, and... there was this. A picture from some book confirming that these mysterious Krupp guns were, indeed, 45 and 50 cm in caliber. At least, shell weights and velocities in the book coincide with those stated in the document.

Never forget your old threads, guys. You never know what treasures you can found there

Reviving this: does anyone know what book that photo is from? Is it Breyer's Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer?

 

[alexi]

Yes is from Siegfried Breyer but definitely not his "Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1905-1970", is from a 2002 book but i don't know what title is, a valuable book because S.Breyer credited a lot from RM 7 "Seekriegsleitung der Reichmarine und Kriegsmarine", apparently it contains of lot documents about German ship data, preliminary designs and plans etc, hopefully they'll get digitalized soon.

 

[lukasgrul]

Here are some blueprints that I got from Model Monkey.

 

[YourChair]

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

20230107-234748 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20230107-234748 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Reviving this: your image hosting service appears to be down; do you still have the picture?

 

[YourChair]

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.

Also, what information do you have about these armor redesigns?

 

[drwells42]

Reviving this: does anyone know what book that photo is from? Is it Breyer's Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer?
View attachment 739409

It is from Breyer's "Schlachtshiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1921-1997: Internationaler Schlachtschiffbau", pg 174.

DRW

 

[alexi]

When translating RM 6/32 Development of Battleship "H" and "J" (Thread page 22 for those who curious), there are 4 pages above it, seems describe the main gun choices for battleship "H" and "J". Unfortunately they're all hand writing! so i can't read it but you can see some texts of the main guns for the class, 35cm, 38cm, 40.6cm, the rebored 42cm and according to page 115 these documents dated in 13.01.1937.
On Page 114 you'll see "5-38cm" text, possibly the 5x2 arrangement (but i do consider 2x3/3x2 layout are possible too).
"H" were also originally to be third sister ships of Bismarck-class (F and G), a modified design based on preliminary Bismarck and armed with 8x35cm guns at 35000 tons.

 

[YourChair]

Does anyone have a drawing of the protection scheme for H-39 (cross-sections and/or side and top views)?
And also what armor improvements were planned for H-41?