Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

alexi said:
Most of them are torpedo boat plans, sketches and including a notebook (contains deck, armor, boiler room view section) for Emden light cruiser, just use search engine it save your time scrolling through these mess.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am at sea and pretty much entirely incapable of using Invenio. I had hoped with the short time I was in port I could at least have what the plans were.
I got a list of all of them from an acquaintance of mine in the end. Very excited to see RM 25/235 when I get back to the States.
 
Hello , do somebody have any more info about project of rebuilding ocean liner SS Europa into aircraft carrier. I found some info on german naval history and wows forum german almost carriers part 2 Europa , and there isn´t much about it.
 
Only what Erich Gröner told us in "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945, Bd 1".

Principally it would have been the most capable design of all the planned conversions. but from the start it
became clear, that there would be problems with strength and stability. The hangar would have to be set into
a cutout in the main strength deck, and stability would have been insufficient, even after adding bulges. Additionally by keeping the original powerplant, fuel consumption was very high. So the project was abandoned and the burned
out ship should be converted into a troup- and tank transport for "Operation Seelöwe", which much less changes to
the original design.

Intended armament were 12 x 10,5cm AA (6 twin mountings), 20 x 3,7cmAA (10 twin mountings), 28 to 36 2cm AA
(quadruple mountings), 18 Ju 87D and 24 Me 109G
 

Attachments

  • Europa_01.jpg
    Europa_01.jpg
    158.2 KB · Views: 285
Yes, the story of Europa as a carrier conversion is pretty open-and-close. A 1972 copy of Marine-Rundschau on German Carrier projects repeats a lot of what is eventually said by Groner, but also makes an obvious connection to the smaller conversion of SS Roma - which most people don't bat an eye at, though it might take someone like Phoenix_jz to properly explain all the possible troubles Aquila's conversion might have faced. My personal opinion is not that Europa was a poor prospect for conversion, but rather that the planned conversion was not as ambitious as some others, namely Aquila, and the half-measures led to problems with the existing structure they were trying to work around.
Aside from that, the ship was a giant risk simply because of its size, and rather than being excessively fuel-hungry by nature, just required too much fuel to move around. Even a revised plan for Graf Zeppelin included a partial diesel drive (as did essentially every plan from 1942 onwards) (There even appears to be a very simple sketch on the Betonschutz plan pages depicting a 6-engine 3-shaft diesel drive). I can't make much note on the ship's stability, but it seems a logical as it is an issue faced by other conversions as well and were usually, as stated, rectified through the use of bulges...though the problem is likely inherent due to a lack of weight below the waterline - inherent ballast, such as machinery - to offset the new ambitious upper works.
It's interesting to see one of the most initial variants of Europa. It seems originally, in 1942, she had been planned to have only five twin 10.5cm guns, 10 3.7cm twins, and 5 2cm Flakvierlings with a complement of 30 Ju-87's and 18 BF-109's. It also includes concrete placed in the same manner as Aquila, behind the bulges, at and below the waterline. The blocks appear to be hollow, 500mm in overall width, but 60mm-empty space-60mm (120mm) of actual concrete protecting the hull with 8 (waterline) to 12 (below the water) millimeters of steel covering the concrete. If I'm reading this math page right, the weight of this is 3,620t of Betonschutz, possibly 4,700t overall. Aside from that, and other minor changes, everything is the same as the later drawings.
Maybe if not for time constraints and had this conversion been begun at the start of the war, such as Aquila had, things might have been very different.
 
Were there any other possible aircraft options? I saw photo of Focke-wulf Fw 190 with tirpedo attached to it , I think that the Fw 190 would be much better than Bf 109 as a fighter. And if it could carry a torpedo it would be very versatile plane. Were there any problems with Fw 190 or why germans didn´t make navalised version of Fw 190 rather than making Bf 109 T of Me 155.
 
lukasgrul said:
Were there any other possible aircraft options? I saw photo of Focke-wulf Fw 190 with tirpedo attached to it , I think that the Fw 190 would be much better than Bf 109 as a fighter. And if it could carry a torpedo it would be very versatile plane. Were there any problems with Fw 190 or why germans didn´t make navalised version of Fw 190 rather than making Bf 109 T of Me 155.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Germany had a solid idea of what its carriers were for or how they would be used. The consequent lack of clear requirements naturally affected the selection of ships, equipment--and aircraft.

Before, during, and after WW1, the US, Britain, and Japan operated combined fleets world-wide. Each had a continuously evolving idea of the types of ships it needed and how they would cooperate in action. Carriers were one such type. So, by WW2, the US, Britain, and Japan had all been operating shipboard aircraft for some 20 years. The necessary techniques and equipment were well developed and clearly defined the characteristics of dedicated shipboard aircraft.

Germany lacked this kind of naval experience. The German surface fleet had always functioned essentially as a coastal force that could, when necessary, show the flag or carry out commerce raiding using individual ships. It was used to catapulted spotter airplanes and relying on the support of shore-based aircraft. So the practical requirements of carrier aviation were a mystery,. The resulting equipment selections showed it. Extra wing-area seemed like it might be good to have. So Germany looked at biplanes like the Avia B-534, Arado Ar195 and Ar197, and Fiesler Fi167 even as the other carrier operators were phasing them out. When it did give up the biplane, Germany chose its mainstay, land-based fighter and extended the wing span, first as the Bf109T and then as the Me155.

So I imagine that, given Germany's selection criteria (or lack thereof), the Fw190 would not have had any obvious advantages over the Bf109, even had it been available when the initial selection was made. Thereafter, interest in alternatives would have diminished as the completion and use of the carriers became ever less likely.
 
Iverson hits a lot of the pertinent points on your question, lukasgrul. It would take some amount of research to determine exactly why they chose the BF 109, but I imagine it's a combination of factors primarily focusing on the ability of the carrier to launch the aircraft - this including aircraft weight, engine power, structural integrity, etc, as well as combat factors such as ordnance capacity, maneuverability, range, and speed. I imagine the BF 109 was chosen due to its greater power-to-weight ratio, lighter and smaller construction, and increased maneuverability (and greater wing-span, as stated) compared to the FW 190 which was more of a fast flying minigun.
I suppose you can think of it like Japanese naval versus land-based fighters.
FW 190 launching from an airstrip on the coast armed with a torpedo isn't a terrible idea, but I don't think it would be better on a carrier.
 
Hello , do you have any blueprints of radar systems used on Bismarck class and those that would be used on Graf Zeppelin?
 
lukasgrul said:
Hello , do you have any blueprints of radar systems used on Bismarck class and those that would be used on Graf Zeppelin?
Click to expand...
I know there should be some information and line drawings of them in various sources. I could try and take a look around over the next few days.
 
lukasgrul said:
Hello , do you have any blueprints of radar systems used on Bismarck class and those that would be used on Graf Zeppelin?
Click to expand...
I will admit that due to my incredible laziness I've been procrastinating on your request.
However, I'll give you what I've scrounged so far.

For Graf Zeppelin:
The 15cm/55 hull-mounted guns received their firing data from a forward 6-meter rangefinder, a direction indicator, and two target finders. The 10.5cm/65 DPAA guns were controlled by four triaxially stabilized SL-6 "ball type" control posts, with three having a 4-meter rangefinder and the fourth having a 5-meter rangefinder. 3.7cm and 2cm guns were directed by 1.25-meter rangefinders. There appears to have been no plan even as late as 1939 to include radar. In the bow you can find a S-Gerat and Gruppenhorchgerat.

For Bismarck only (because including Tirpitz is complicated):
Bismarck utilized 3 major rangefinder stations. One forward on top of the bridge structure was a 7-meter rangefinder, the second on the Turmmast was a 10.5-meter, and the one aft was a 10.5-meter as well. All three included FuMO 23 radar. B and X (Or B and C in German practice) 38cm turrets also included a 10.5-meter turret rangefinder. Turret A had a rangefinder until 1941. 15cm secondary battery guns that included a rangefinder in them had a 6.5-meter model. Bismarck's 10.5cm battery used two of the triaxially stabilized SL-8 "ball type" 4-meter rangefinders with two in reserve further aft (3-meter versions without the ball covering on top). She even had a couple of 3-meter night rangefinders. 1.25-meter rangefinders for the 3.7cm and 2cm battery.
Specifications of FuMO 23:
A 2x4-meter "mattress"-style radar with a frequency of 368 MHz and 81.5cm wavelength with a power output of 9 kW at 500 KHz with a range of approximately 25,000 yards (to other capital ships). The FuMO 22 featured a lot of the same specifications, and had a range of 25km with an accuracy of +/- 5 degrees. By comparison, the FuMO 21 (of the same specifications) had a range of 14-18km with an accuracy of +/- 3 degrees and the FuMO 24/25 with 15-20km range and +/- 0.3 degrees.
 
Update:

New plans for the Flottentorpedoboote 1940, SMS Baden, Ftb 1939, and Emden can now be found in their respective folders and sub-folders.

I think some of you will find the Ftb 1940 plans very interesting.

Thank you.
 
Update:

Got slightly less lazy, uploaded Blucher (1939) plans.

For those who want more detailed plans for the Hipper class that isn't just three images on The Dreadnought Project.

It's interesting to compare Blucher and Weser I (ex-Seydlitz).

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

Attachments

  • H-40 A bl.jpg
    H-40 A bl.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 231
  • H-40 bl.jpg
    H-40 bl.jpg
    321.4 KB · Views: 244
Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?
 
lukasgrul said:
Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?
Click to expand...
I have heard that there were plans for the H-39's to feature triple 38cm guns in the event that 40.6cm twins could not be made in time, but it's hard to verify such information.
But Tzoli is more than likely right. A bunch of unknown H-class prelims we'll probably never see.
 
lukasgrul said:
Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?
Click to expand...
A proposed (or a theoretical) H battleship with quadruple turrets was mention in Breyer book, the advantages were shorter superstructure height, hull length, compact armor layout but would have cost larger cut in the barbatte deck.
There was a short mentioned in RM notebook (forgot which one) that Hitler were impressed by American standard-type battleship, French and KGV quadruple turrets, in which he requested OKM to design such ship with either 35cm or 38cm guns in four triple turrets (one of the Bismarck preliminary came with triple 38cm but haven't founded so far), but either way they could be concept designs.
 
alexi said:
lukasgrul said:
Thank you very much, I have a question, those quadruple gun turrets with 406 a 380 mm guns vere designed for what?
Click to expand...
A proposed (or a theoretical) H battleship with quadruple turrets was mention in Breyer book, the advantages were shorter superstructure height, hull length, compact armor layout but would have cost larger cut in the barbatte deck.
There was a short mentioned in RM notebook (forgot which one) that Hitler were impressed by American standard-type battleship, French and KGV quadruple turrets, in which he requested OKM to design such ship with either 35cm or 38cm guns in four triple turrets (one of the Bismarck preliminary came with triple 38cm but haven't founded so far), but either way they could be concept designs.
Click to expand...
This bit about Hitler being impressed about American standards manifested itself with Germany obtaining a plan for the 35.5cm triple. It would be interesting to see this style of turret mixed with the planned German 35cm gun.
 
I've attempted to once before request digitization from USNA but have been shot down. I'd need a private investigator of some sort to do so.
 
Tzoli said:
The site says it is not yet digitalized.
Click to expand...
Right, and as such you would need to hire someone to take pictures of the plan. Someone who would be capable of getting access and likely lives in the area.
I've asked them before to digitize certain plans (some of these that have been linked, ironically) but they refused.

Very sad to see that you need to pay so much and cross so much red tape just to get something simple done.
 
Do you have any blueprints/drawings of german battlecarrier projects like Großflugzeugkreuzer A II, A IIa, A III and A IV?
 
Your best chance to get into National Archives goodies is some really high-rank military officer/staff (politician perhaps).
 
Are there any other battlecruisers planned for kriegsmarine besides O-class? I heard about KW 45 but Idont´t know anythink about it.
 
lukasgrul said:
Are there any other battlecruisers planned for kriegsmarine besides O-class? I heard about KW 45 but Idont´t know anythink about it.
Click to expand...
I have some some plans for KW45/50 and some data. A lot of info is currently unknown or is generally unknown due to it being a private design that was drawn up by the Kriegsmarinewerft. The KW in the design name is short for "Kriegsmarinewerft".

In 1939, 2 versions of this project were submitted for consideration by the Kriegsmarine shipbuilding commission ( German: Neubauausschuss ): KW45 and KW50 .

They slightly differed from each other in displacement , armor, and also in size. Armament and layout were identical.

KW45:
Displacement: 45,000 Tons
-
Dimensions:
•Length: 984 Feet
•Beam: 108 Feet
•Draft: 29 Feet
-
Powerplant: DPU, 300,000 hp
-
Speed: 37 Knots
-
Armor:
Belt: 200mm
Deck: 115mm
(Note: My source has listed "towers" but I have no idea what those are referring to. Not conning towers or turret faces. I'll edit this if I figure it out.)
-
Armament:
•Main Battery: 4x2 380mm SK C/34
•Secondary: 4x3 150mm SK C/25
•Anti-Aircraft: 8x2 37mm SK C/30 / 4x2 105mm SK C/33
Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm TA
-
Aircraft:
•X3 Arado Ar 196
--------------------
KW50:
Displacement: 50,000 Tons
-
Dimensions:
•Length: 984 Feet
•Beam: 118 Feet
•Draft: 29 Feet
-
Powerplant: DPU, 300,000 hp
-
Speed: 35 Knots
-
Armor:
Belt: 300mm
Deck: 115mm
-
Armament:
•Main Battery: 4x2 380mm SK C/34
•Secondary: 4x3 150mm SK C/25
•Anti-Aircraft: 8x2 37mm SK C/30 / 4x2 105mm SK C/33
•Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm TA
-
Aircraft:
•X3 Arado Ar 196
--------------------
Note: The two KW designs looked nearly exactly the same. However, if you look at the top left on the blueprints, you can see a version with 3 propeller, and a slightly visible version with 4. I think KW50 had 4 propellers, since it was the largest of the two. If I am mistaken I will correct it.
Or if it was just a proposed planned selection of areas propellers could have gone I will correct this if someone points it out.
 

Attachments

  • KW45.jpg.5296453f68cd8a794afca262a53cc6ca.jpg
    KW45.jpg.5296453f68cd8a794afca262a53cc6ca.jpg
    100.6 KB · Views: 280
Last edited:
An English translation of what it says. Probably not an accurate translation.
Also, are they referring to the WW1 ships Moltke, Goeben, Seydlitz? Or are those supposedly the names for the O class. As far as I know, the O class never had names (or at least names that haven't been revealed). I know that the H class ships could have been named Hutten and Berlichingen since apparently those are the instances of names that were involved with said ships.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20221219-145837.png
    Screenshot_20221219-145837.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 216
Your botched translations already given, they implied Kriegsmarine battlecruisers were the successors of the Imperial battlecruisers, hence the name mentions to the old dogs, H-class naming were purely speculative as far i know of.

KW45 and 50 have 5 shafts, because they both designed/proposed with high cutting edge propulsion at that time, some variants show different placements for diesel generators and turbines (either 3 turbine shafts, 2 diesel or 4 turbine, 1 diesel etc).

"Towers" can be turret barbatte or conning tower.
 
alexi said:
Your botched translations already given, they implied Kriegsmarine battlecruisers were the successors of the Imperial battlecruisers, hence the name mentions to the old dogs, H-class naming were purely speculative as far i know of.

KW45 and 50 have 5 shafts, because they both designed/proposed with high cutting edge propulsion at that time, some variants show different placements for diesel generators and turbines (either 3 turbine shafts, 2 diesel or 4 turbine, 1 diesel etc).

"Towers" can be turret barbatte or conning tower.
Click to expand...
Just a clarification, I put it in a image translator and assumed it was fine. I simply just wanted to get the idea of what it was saying. I did not translate any of it myself as I do not speak German.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom