Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

Hood said:
It's one of the better of the German hybrids that I've ever seen.
Still not sure all those forward turrets would be a good idea given the turbulent air they would cause over the flightdeck but it seems a more usable design overall.
It seems to have a very heavy AA-oriented armament so I presume this dates from 1941-42 period? It still feels odd why they chose a cruiser layout given it only has 12.8cm guns, a traditional carrier layout with sided mounts would still provide good defensive arcs. I'm not particularly convinced such a battery really allows for traditional 'cruiser' employment, even against merchants.
Click to expand...
This is almost certainly a 1942 design. The 128mm depicted is the largest available gun and turret AAA combo that could be produced in short order (128mm/45 SK C/34 + Drhl C/38, in this case, possibly modified). 128mm is no doubt chosen due to its greater effectiveness against surface targets compared to the 105mm/65 SK C/33, which is a better AAA system overall. The 128mm is perfectly adequate against targets that could catch it - destroyers - and practically overkill against merchant vessels.
Assuming of course that the V12Z 32/44 isn't at its fullest development. By 1945 the engine could produce about 11,600 hp on the regular with peaks at just over 15,000 hp. One could expect nearly 140,000 shp by then just by the minute improvements and refinements along with the intercooler and turbo-supercharger.
I suspect this is a conversion study for Seydlitz. Many ships, even the Panzerschiffe, were subject to conversion studies, even if they never got particularly far.
JFC Fuller said:
This is one of the most interesting German carrier designs I have seen, with pure DP armament its closer to a pure carrier than the Atlantic hybrids were and the diesel propulsion should have offered very impressive range. I agree with @_Sarcasticat_ that the most likely engine is the V24Z 32/44 for a total of 120,00SHP. The rotating hangar deck catapult at the aft of the hangar is reminiscent of the hangar deck catapults the US Navy briefly used, the aircraft shown suspended from the hangar ceiling is also similar to USN practice.

The hangar deck catapult does impinge on hangar space though, it appears to take-up sufficient space for three additional Ju-87s. If the hangar deck catapult was removed and the Me-109 variants given folding wings it looks possible to comfortably fit 28 aircraft in the hangar where it currently shows storage (on the deck, excluding any hung from the ceiling) for 22 - a 27% increase.

It would be great if we could find a data table for this design.
Click to expand...
The bane of all KM carrier designs: their own aircraft.
I am quite surprised to see aircraft hanging from the overhead. This is a unique thing among CV designs of any sort I've seen from the Kriegsmarine.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
I believe there was, either in Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 or in the NavTechEU documents for H-class battleships...I think I've posted both of those in the Share Drive.
Click to expand...
I looked through it quite a few times and wasn't able to find them (unless the drive isn't loading some of the pictures or whatever). If it is indeed in there, please locate it to me. I may have missed it on accident several times lol.
If you could show/tell me what Breyer said about them, that would be absolutely perfect.
I do have their design information, just nothing regarding armor.
 
MrMemerMan said:
I looked through it quite a few times and wasn't able to find them (unless the drive isn't loading some of the pictures or whatever). If it is indeed in there, please locate it to me. I may have missed it on accident several times lol.
If you could show/tell me what Breyer said about them, that would be absolutely perfect.
I do have their design information, just nothing regarding armor.
Click to expand...
I will upload them today if I can and then pass you links.
 
Do we know what was the expected or proposed radar outfit of the various Z plan ships?
The numerous H variants,
O and P classes
the carriers and the destroyers?
Surface search, Air search, Sonar?
 
Also am I right that the German naval radar development is a mess? There seems to be rarely or no distinction between a Surface-Search, Air-Search and Fire-Control radars? Often one radar was used for all these missions?
 
Well, I think that they would use same radars as they were on Tirpitz in his last version. So 2 FuMO 26 mattress antennas , 1 FuMO 23 mattress antenna,1 FuMO 30 Hohentwiel and 1 FuMO 212 or 213 Wurzburg. I think that this would be it, probably they would remove FuMO 23 and replace it with another FuMO 26 and they would install more FuMO 212 or 213. Hydrophone would be same. This is only my speculation so correct me if I am wrong.
 
And carriers would use same FuMO 26 at least 2 versions of it, and FuMB 4 an FuMB 7 as passive radar equipment. I can recommend you WOWs forum authentic Graf Zeppelin, it is an awesome forum.
 
lukasgrul said:
Well, I think that they would use same radars as they were on Tirpitz in his last version. So 2 FuMO 26 mattress antennas , 1 FuMO 23 mattress antenna,1 FuMO 30 Hohentwiel and 1 FuMO 212 or 213 Wurzburg. I think that this would be it, probably they would remove FuMO 23 and replace it with another FuMO 26 and they would install more FuMO 212 or 213. Hydrophone would be same. This is only my speculation so correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
For which the H class?
And what FuMO used for what kind of detection?
 
And also I am only assuming that these radars would be used on any H-class ship. In my opinion it is logical but it might not be true.
 
Uploading those books didn't exactly pan out like I wanted. They'll have to wait a while.

For H class, that's going to be difficult. A bit of measuring and guesswork is all I can think of for now.

KM radar is a bit of a mess, especially in the early days when the coding for their names was literally impossible to understand. The simplification to FuMO, FuMB, etc made it a lot better.

FuMO does not distinguish between gunnery, surface, and air-search radars. FuMO 21, 22, 23, 24/25, 26, etc are all surface search/gunnery (primarily gunnery, to check against optical measurements). In the majority of cases, these radars would be attached to the rangefinder housing directly. In smaller vessels like DDs and FTB you can expect the rangefinder and FuMO to be separate.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Uploading those books didn't exactly pan out like I wanted. They'll have to wait a while.

For H class, that's going to be difficult. A bit of measuring and guesswork is all I can think of for now.

KM radar is a bit of a mess, especially in the early days when the coding for their names was literally impossible to understand. The simplification to FuMO, FuMB, etc made it a lot better.

FuMO does not distinguish between gunnery, surface, and air-search radars. FuMO 21, 22, 23, 24/25, 26, etc are all surface search/gunnery (primarily gunnery, to check against optical measurements). In the majority of cases, these radars would be attached to the rangefinder housing directly. In smaller vessels like DDs and FTB you can expect the rangefinder and FuMO to be separate.
Click to expand...
It gets worse when you start looking at the KM's use of ESM and ECM devices where they often just use a code name for various code names for portions of it. Pacific islands tended to be the names of choice like Palau, Hawaii, or Bali for example.
 
Yeah I've noticed that. And looks like the FuMO 21, 32 and 81 Berlin is more of an Air Search radar?
 
Were there proposals to use the 12,7cm/45 SK C/34 gun in AA or DP mountings?
 
Tzoli said:
Yeah I've noticed that. And looks like the FuMO 21, 32 and 81 Berlin is more of an Air Search radar?
Click to expand...
All three of those, (I assume you mean 23 not 32) function as surface search sets. The Seetakt derivatives like 21, 22, and 23, made surface search secondary to fire control as these were fixed in place on fire control directors and could only be turned by turning the director itself. That meant that they had no continuous sweep function over 360 degrees.

FuMO 81 Berlin on the other hand was a continuous sweep system and had a PPI display. It also incorporated an A scope that gave range to a target so it had some fire control input ability as well.
 
In the document of RM-6/86, it mentioned that the design of a battleship armed with "3 super-heavy triple turrets" should be ready in September 1942. I wonder if there are some more information of this battleship design in the archive. RM_6_86_0015.jpg
 
This might related to Krupp developments of 45cm and 50cm guns, they proposed twin and triple turrets in 1942, the second bit give us a how large this battleship going to be since it succeeds H-41 hull, become impractical to operate in shallow coasts (something like that).
 
Question:
Why did the German navy stopped naming it's destroyers and torpedo boats with person names and just Z and T numbers?
The 1934/1934A and 1936 classes of destroyers as well as the 1923 and 1924 classes of torpedo boats all had names while the following classes did not.
 
Maybe they ran out of names they considered worthwhile? Or just decided that naming any ship smaller than a cruiser would be too much of a hassle?

EDIT: Also, maybe someone high-up in the Kriegsmarine just happened to get nostalgic about the Kaiserliche Marine naming convention regarding destroyers and torpedo boats. Or perhaps they decided that, as Plan Z was being discussed at that time (the first destroyer that used only numbers as identification was the Type 1936A which was first laid down in November 1938, well within the Plan Z discussion period), the amount of destroyers and torpedo boats planned to be built would have probably well exceeded the amount of proper names available. It should be recalled that the names were all related to important Kaiserliche Marine individuals ranging from Rear-Admirals to common sailors.
 
Last edited:
Nothing new yet on invenio, but here's early design of Admiral Hipper-class cruisers, single pole mast and old rangefinder models, 2nd pairs 105mm raised above deck instead lower on finalized design (dated 3 months before their constructions), "J" (Prinz Eugen) is the same but her main mast have more stacked platforms and have dome-shaped fire directors.
kreuzer G,H.png

I also noticed in Admiral Hipper-class design plans, KM working another heavy cruiser designated as "Gegenentwurf Tourville" (counter against French built Dusquene-class cruiser), it haven't digitalize yet.
 
Last edited:
alexi said:
Nothing new yet on invenio, but here's early design of Admiral Hipper-class cruisers, single pole mast and old rangefinder models, 2nd pairs 105mm raised above deck instead lower on finalized design (dated 3 months before their constructions), "J" (Prinz Eugen) is the same but her main mast have more stacked platforms and have dome-shaped fire directors.
View attachment 707470

I also noticed in Admiral Hipper-class design plans, KM working another heavy cruiser designated as "Gegenentwurf Tourville" (counter against French built Dusquene-class cruiser), it haven't digitalize yet.
Click to expand...
Alexi, can you please also post the "J"?
 
Hello, I have question about Europa. If she would get same modernisation of her project as Graf Zeppelin in 1942, where would be radar antennas put?
 
Maynard-Plumm said:
In the document of RM-6/86, it mentioned that the design of a battleship armed with "3 super-heavy triple turrets" should be ready in September 1942. I wonder if there are some more information of this battleship design in the archive.View attachment 707197
Click to expand...
Here's a machine translation, for those of us with limited German language skills:

SKL. is of the opinion that the focus of heavy of the construction of heavy ships in a fleet to be created in the future lies with the aircraft carriers. However, the construction of battleships must not yet be definitively abandoned.-Development is proceeding in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Führer in such a way that a significant increase in caliber is envisaged. In order to be able to accommodate a sufficient number of tubes on the ships, the development of triple turrets is necessary. At the end of September, K is expected to submit the design of a battleship with 3 superheavy triple turrets will be submitted.

It must be borne in mind that all ships beyond the "H 41" type cannot be deployed from the German coasts. With the development as it appears at present, therefore, only a deployment from Drontheim is possible, since the situation at Brest will not change fundamentally as long as the British Isles remain untouched as a jumping-off point for the English-American Air Force.

The construction of a ship corresponding to the Führer's last wishes will take a long time. It is therefore necessary that the largest type ("H 41") envisaged so far be constructed through first, so that the plans are available in case we are forced to start construction immediately in the event of a sudden change in the situation.
 
alexi said:
Am not sure what you mean PT.

Anyway, i found a project of twin DP 203mm gun (fitted with the recoil rammers), is designated for coastal defense but imagine a navalized version of it.
View attachment 708264
Click to expand...

I have been looking at this mount for a while and the more I do the more fascinating it becomes. It looks like it was designed to allow loading at any angle, with rounds collected by the bucket on the end of the loading arm from the elevator that is forward on the level below the guns. The forward elevator is served by the centreline elevator, with trolleys moving the round and charge from one elevator to the other but at no point does the charge appear to move behind the round. As such, I am not clear on how the final loading cycle would work. It looks like the separate charge and shell are rammed from the collecting bucket into separate chambers behind the breech with the charge above the shell, the shell chamber lines up perfectly behind the breech but its not clear how the charge would be brought in behind it. Assuming this used the same ammunition as the guns on the Hipper class, e.g. non-combustible charge cases, there would also need to be a means of removing spent cases.

I see no reason why this couldn't be installed on a ship, but it would probably require something bigger than a Hipper to host four of them.
 
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
I have been looking at this mount for a while and the more I do the more fascinating it becomes. It looks like it was designed to allow loading at any angle, with rounds collected by the bucket on the end of the loading arm from the elevator that is forward on the level below the guns. The forward elevator is served by the centreline elevator, with trolleys moving the round and charge from one elevator to the other but at no point does the charge appear to move behind the round. As such, I am not clear on how the final loading cycle would work. It looks like the separate charge and shell are rammed from the collecting bucket into separate chambers behind the breech with the charge above the shell, the shell chamber lines up perfectly behind the breech but its not clear how the charge would be brought in behind it. Assuming this used the same ammunition as the guns on the Hipper class, e.g. non-combustible charge cases, there would also need to be a means of removing spent cases.

I see no reason why this couldn't be installed on a ship, but it would probably require something bigger than a Hipper to host four of them.
Click to expand...
As a Heavy AA ship? Interesting, but against surface role the barrels close placement would have negative effect on accuracy.
I will draw it and see how the barbette diamaters differ. but these guns placed as such I think it would require a smaller barbette.
 
Tzoli said:
As a Heavy AA ship? Interesting, but against surface role the barrels close placement would have negative effect on accuracy.
I will draw it and see how the barbette diamaters differ. but these guns placed as such I think it would require a smaller barbette.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of a heavy cruiser with dual-purpose (DP) main armament. The drawing shows a roller path diameter of 6500 (6.5m), but that is driven by the length required behind the gun for the swinging loading arm to pass through the floor/deck levels. The result being that the gun house of the turret, at 5000 (5m), is 1500 (1.5m) narrower than the turret roller path. What was the roller path diameter for the 8" turrets on the Hipper class?
 
Does anybody what is this? It is on back of most german carriers flight decks.
 

Attachments

  • Graf Zeppelin .jpg
    Graf Zeppelin .jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 217

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom