Polish Projects

[USSEssex]

Part 2 about aircraft carriers.

4. Apparently, during the Battle of the Atlantic, there was an idea to transfer escort aircraft carriers to the Polish Navy.
It was first written about on the fow.pl forum, but apart from this information, nothing more is known about it, currently it is a legend, because as far as I know, no documents have been found to confirm it.
It is also unknown where this information comes from.
Maybe someone will remember something when I wrote about it.
5. Another Polish thread with an aircraft carrier concerns Captain Stefan P. Wesołowski.
In November 1943, Wesołowski received an offer to become the deputy commander and then commander of the auxiliary aircraft carrier USAT Ganandoc.
This ship was supposedly built in 1940 as an iron ore carrier, but was to be converted into an auxiliary aircraft carrier at the Brooklyn Naval Yard.
There were to be 65 fighters on the lower deck, with 30 fighters on standby on the flight decks.
One day USAT Ganandoc was damaged during the invasion of Normandy, so until it was repaired Stefan Wesołowski served on another ship, was again in command of USAT Ganadnoc in March 1945 after it was repaired, and served on it until the end of the war.
So much for the historical summary.
The mystery is what ship Wesołowski wrote about.
I know one ship called SS Ganandoc, but from what I know it was built in England in 1929 here source https://www.navsource.org/archives/30/22/22030.htm.
Additionally, I don't remember any photos of Ganandoc being rebuilt into an auxiliary aircraft carrier.
He wrote down his memories in his book titled: Od „Gazoliny” do „Ganandoca” from 1983.
The sources I used https://www.polishnews.com/hero-of-two-nations , and polish wikipedia here link https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Wesołowski_(żołnierz)#Służba_na_morzu .
This is because there are few sources.
6. Plan M.
This naval program was developed sometime in 1942/43, December 5. 1944 was accepted, not created.
And I read this Plan M, I don't see any mention of Casablanca-class aircraft carriers there, but the 6 aircraft carriers were supposed to have a displacement of 8,000 tons, the 3 battleships that are there have a displacement of 35,000 tons each.
Some of the ships were supposed to be from allies, including Great Britain.
So it is possible that the aircraft carriers would be British, and maybe they would be aircraft carriers similar to the Casablanca.
And as I wrote a few posts above, this document mentions a medium cruiser with a displacement of over 8,000 tons, the order of which was prevented by the outbreak of war in 1939 (yes, it says medium cruiser in the document, you read that correctly).
I will tell you once again what I see in the document: the next order was to build a medium cruiser with a displacement of over 8,000 tons.
The earlier sources I cited didn't mention it was a medium cruiser, there's a difference.
Now I am writing to you what I see in the document, and a few posts above I directly quoted information about the cruiser from the document, and you can find my post here.
In one of the tables I see a Hosyo-class aircraft carrier and a North Carolina-class battleship, and in one of the boxes next to the name North Carolina it is entered 115,000 HP.
Sources https://fow.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?p=170272&hilit=lotniskowiec+eskortowy#p170272 , and for plan M https://pism.org.uk/online-document-catalogue/
Maybe I will write about Plan M itself another time.
Conclusions.
So, the case with Hosyo can be said to be true, but as for Casablanca, it cannot be ruled out that this class of aircraft carriers would be chosen, but there is nothing in the document confirming that these 6 aircraft carriers are the Casablanca class.
Apparently, in the book Lotnictwo Polskiej Marynarki Wojennej w latach 1945-1963 authored by Mariusz Konarski, 6 aircraft carriers similar to the Casablanca class were mentioned, but I cannot verify this because I do not have this book.
For the first time, I read about 6 aircraft carriers similar to the Casablanca class and Plan M somewhere on the Internet a few years ago, but I don't remember where, on another website where I read about Plan M, there was a photo of a Casablanca class aircraft carrier (if I remember correctly).
It seems that this could have misled me, so if I write about the Casablanca, in the context of the Polish war, then speaking directly, the Casablanca class is simply bad, although I do not exclude that they could have opted for this class of aircraft carriers, of course, if Poland was a free country, about as I wrote above, and if anything, we should talk about aircraft carriers similar to the Casablanca class in the context of Plan M.
This is a short explanation of where the confusion with casablanca comes from.

 

[USSEssex]

Well then.
Let me just say that I read the Plan M fleet expansion program for the first time on December 23.
So what guns were available in the late 1930s, since we already know from the document that it was a medium cruiser?
(as far as I know, it's probably a british design because the order was supposed to be from an English shipyard, I also wrote about it here).
I came across this name for the first time while reading the document I wrote about above and I was a bit surprised because I didn't understand what a medium cruiser meant, that's why I asked about it earlier.
To be sure, I checked Polish magazines from the 1930s to see if a heavy cruiser was sometimes called that, but no, I didn't come across anything like that, at least the ones I found.

 

[Dilandu]

So what guns were available in the late 1930s, since we already know from the document that it was a medium cruiser?

You mean, intermediate guns between 155-mm and 203-mm? Well, for British-build ships it would most likely be 190-mm/45 guns from Hawkins-class (BL 7.5-inch Mk VI). Since Hawkins-class were slated for retierment already, a significant number of barrels would be available.

 

[Dilandu]

And I read this Plan M, I don't see any mention of Casablanca-class aircraft carriers there, but the 6 aircraft carriers were supposed to have a displacement of 8,000 tons, the 3 battleships that are there have a displacement of 35,000 tons each.

I wonder, if Poland remain so... naval ambitious in post-war era, would Polish admirals plan for a several Stalingrad-class cruisers of their own?

 

[USSEssex]

I wonder, if Poland remain so... naval ambitious in post-war era, would Polish admirals plan for a several Stalingrad-class cruisers of their own?

I don't know that.

Any ideas as to what kind of cruiser is being sought and what it is in general, looking at cruiser classification and displacement?
Maybe it's important, but I wrote earlier that the cruiser was not included in the 1936-1942 naval program, so I assume it was later, probably in 1937/39, but I would be careful with this date.

 

[Dilandu]

Any ideas as to what kind of cruiser is being sought and what it is in general, looking at cruiser classification and displacement?
Maybe it's important, but I wrote earlier that the cruiser was not included in the 1936-1942 naval program, so I assume it was later, probably in 1937/39, but I would be careful with this date.

Well, "medium" cruiser for Polish Navy of 1930s most likely meant 7000-ton - 8000-ton ship with up to six 190-mm guns. An enlarged variation of "Arethusa"-class seems most likely. Imagine something like export-build "La Argentina"-class, but with dual 190-mm guns instead of triple 152-mm guns and reduced range.

 

[USSEssex]

Why did the Poles choose a medium cruiser, especially in the late 1930s, when there were cruisers with 203 mm guns and light cruisers with 152 mm guns?

 

[Dilandu]

Why did the Poles choose a medium cruiser, especially in the late 1930s, when there were cruisers with 203 mm guns and light cruisers with 152 mm guns?

Politics, most likely. Due to ties with Britain, such cruiser would almost inevitably be ordered from British shipyards. And Britain wasn't exactly very keen about the idea of building heavy cruisers for export. They feared that it could erode the British-favorable system of naval limitation treaties, by motivating other nonaligned nations to obtain heavy cruisers of their own. Which could be used by other great powers as excuse to reject any further suggestions about cruiser fleet limitations (which was a MAJOR concern for Britain, since heavy cruisers were too costly for Royal Navy to mass-produce). So the full-scale 8-inch heavy cruiser for Poland would likely be out of question.

About the 6-inch light cruiser - I suppose it was rejected due to two main reason. First, from military point of view such cruiser may be inefficient as counter to Kirov-class ships. After all, the whole idea of 180-mm guns on Project 26 cruisers was to get a significant range advantage over 6-inch cruisers. Of course, the inferiority of 6-inch cruiser wasn't guaranteed, but it was probable.

The second reason was internal politics. Real combat capabilities notwithstanding, the general population would almost certainly be dissatisfied with 6-inch cruiser, viewing it as "inferior" because "its guns are smaller than on Kirov". Explaining to commoners that size of guns is not the most important parameter would be a major headache, not guaranteed to actually change the public opinion. And Polish navy simply could not afford to antagonize the population; especially over costly projects of dubious value.

So the medium cruiser with intermediate guns represented the military & political optimum. It wasn't "too escalatory", so it probably could be ordered from Britain. It wasn't dangerously inferior to potential opponents. And it was looking good enough to satisfy the general population desire for "big ships with big guns".

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The 1930 London Treaty prevented the construction of 8-inch gun-armed heavy Cruisers beyond certain quantitative limits, and as a result, given Britain was a signatory of said treaty, it could not build those warships for export either.

 

[Dilandu]

The 1930 London Treaty prevented the construction of 8-inch gun-armed heavy Cruisers beyond certain quantitative limits, and as a result, given Britain was a signatory of said treaty, it could not build those warships for export either.

Actually it didn't. There were nothing at all about export in 1930 London Treaty. And Washington Treaty permitted export shipbuilding. I suspect that actual reason was Article 21 of Part III:

If, during the term of the present Treaty,the requirements of the national security of any High Contracting Partyin respect of vessels of war limited by Part III of the present Treatyare in the opinion of that Party materially affected by new constructionof any Power other than those who have joined in Part III of this Treaty,that High Contracting Party will notify the other Parties to Part III asto the increase required to be made in its own tonnages within one or moreof the categories of such vessels of war, specifying particularly the proposedincreases and the reasons therefor, and shall be entitled to make suchincrease. Thereupon the other Parties to Part III of this Treaty shallbe entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categoriesspecified; and the said other Parties shall promptly advise with each otherthrough diplomatic channels as to the situation thus presented.

I.e. British probably feared that Japan or USA may use export-build cruiser as excuse to demand an increase in their own cruiser quotas - dragging Britain into new and costly arm race.

 

[Tzoli]

And Japan did built two 20cm armed well... warships, actually coastal defence ships the Sri Ayutha and Dhonburi. Ordered in 1934/35, laid down in 36, launched in 37/38 and delivered in 38.
I never knew what was the WNT and LNT's take on special purpose ships like Monitors and Coastal Defence vessels.

 

[Dilandu]

And Japan did built two 20cm armed well... warships, actually coastal defence ships the Sri Ayutha and Dhonburi. Ordered in 1934/35, laid down in 36, launched in 37/38 and delivered in 38.
I never knew what was the WNT and LNT's take on special purpose ships like Monitors and Coastal Defence vessels.

As far as I knew - there weren't anything about such ships in any naval treaty. They weren't a significant naval factor, and there were no reason for any of great powers to build them, since they would cut into their capital ship (WNT) or cruiser (LN-1930) tonnage.

 

[Dilandu]

I never knew what was the WNT and LNT's take on special purpose ships like Monitors and Coastal Defence vessels.

Speaking about those treaties - it's interesting to note, how different was attitude toward export construction in participating nations. Italy and Japan apparently didn't give a damn about any possible political considerations; clients were willing to pay, they were willing to build (like Tashkent for USSR). France took more moderate approach, but was still willing to build warships as long as political agreememtn could be reached with French government (which wasn't simple!)

American naval export, as far as I could understood, was seriously hampered by the limitations, imposed by USN on modern military technology - so American shipyards were generally unable to offer competitive designs to their clients. And Britain essentially paralyzed its own export efforts by constant whataboutism among the military and politicians, like "if we build a cruiser for this country, its neighbor may also order a cruiser... AND THEN THOSE DASTARDLY YANKEES WOULD SOMEHOW EXPLOIT THIS TO CRASH THE TREATY, AND WE DID NOT HAVE MONEY FOR NEW ARM RACE!!!"

P.S. All IMHO, of course. I'm not exactly specialist in this matter, so my opinion here is puerly subjective.

 

[USSEssex]

On the subject of the cruiser, I will say that in Józef Rybak's naval program from 1929, there was one light cruiser with a displacement of 6,000-7,000 tons, a speed of 33-35 knots, armed with 6x 19 cm caliber guns, the estimated construction cost was PLN 51 million.
In addition, there was a minelayer cruiser with a displacement of 5,000 tons.
These 2 cruisers were intended to fight against the Germans.
But this is just a reminder.
If anyone asks, this maritime program was mentioned in Morze Statki i Okręty Wydanie Specjalne 4/2014 article Najpiękniejszy okręt II Rzeczpospolitej i jego konkurenci by Jan A. Bartelski.

 

[USSEssex]

About the modernization of the Wicher-class destroyers.

I remind you of my post about the planned modernization of Wicher destroyers for 1941-1942, I have just updated it and you have all the variants I found, and there are as many as 8 of them.
You will find this post on page 3, the second post after the Grom destroyer variants, in which I posted a variant with 8 120 mm guns.

 

[red_october]

I'm curious, what happened to ASW gear on most destroyer proposals? There doesn't seem to be DC rack let alone a thrower, seems to be very much of an afterthought, instead focusing on minelaying capability.

Also, is there even any ASW sensor like hydrophone on any of these projects or IRL Grom/Blyskawica? (Do Brits or other powers even export them?) or do they rely on mk.i eyeball of their lookouts to spot periscope?

 

[USSEssex]

I'm curious, what happened to ASW gear on most destroyer proposals? There doesn't seem to be DC rack let alone a thrower, seems to be very much of an afterthought, instead focusing on minelaying capability.

Also, is there even any ASW sensor like hydrophone on any of these projects or IRL Grom/Blyskawica? (Do Brits or other powers even export them?) or do they rely on mk.i eyeball of their lookouts to spot periscope?

Yes, Grom-class destroyers had a hydrophone manufactured by the American company Multispot.
I checked it in Niszczyciele Polskiej Marynarki Wojennej by Witold Koszela who writes about hydrophones on page 66.
And in a book like this Wielki Leksykon Uzbrojenia Wydanie Specjalne 3/2021 ORP Grom i ORP Błyskawica authors Maciej Tomaszewski and Andrzej Ciszewski, page 40.
I didn't want to refer to Polish Wikipedia because it's not a good source of information, so I checked the above books, which I also have.

 

[USSEssex]

1. On the topic of cruisers, I would say that in Żółty Tygrys Nawodne Bliźniaki, a book from 1985 writes that in the late 1930s, construction plans for the first Polish cruiser were developed, which unfortunately have not survived.
The author of the book, Józef Dyskant, refers to the memories of Włodzimierz Steyer, these memories were published in 1960.
2. I heard that once on the Warship Projects Discussion Boards, there was a discussion about the Polish cruiser in the topic of the Polish Navy, and probably also about some recent projects that tzoli posted, among others, here, a link https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/viewtopic.php?p=20081#p20081 , and also wrote in the topic about project 1047 here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ser-royal-netherlands-navy.34280/#post-400950 .
And now a question for you, does anyone remember this?
I'm asking about this discussion and where this information about these two projects comes from, because I thought it was from Sigfried Breyer's book.
3. A few years ago, I think PT Dockyard asked about a cruiser that Poland was considering building.
And I want to know where it was written about, so that I know which one it is about. Here https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=230756 .
4. Now I will tell you about the 8,000-ton cruiser that I once mentioned, no, not the one that was to be ordered from one of the English shipyards.
And it was like this: a few years ago on the World of Warships forum, in the Polish section, there was a topic about the Polish line of destroyers, the creator of the thread was, as far as I remember, the user Luki1223, during this discussion there were various suggestions from players, in the proposals on the list of premium ships there was even OF Paris, a would-be battleship for Poland.
In this thread, during this interesting discussion, there were also proposals for ships for Poland, read offers, for example an attempt by the British to transfer a cruiser to Poland, American battleships, and I remember that there was a case of a light cruiser with a displacement of 8,000 tons, which in 1938 KMW was considering its construction but it was abandoned.
This cruiser is from 1937-1938, something like that.
As far as I remember, it was supposed to be a cruiser allegedly designed by Aleksander Potyrała, but I'm not sure about it.
The last thing I remember about this cruiser is that there were no details about it or any drawings.
It ended with a second topic about Polish destroyers, and the proposal for a branch of Polish destroyers was ignored by WG.
I even remember that in one topic ORP Gryf was proposed as a cruiser for T3, Polish gunboats for T2, and torpedo boats for T1, because when creating my tree I was initially based on the information that appeared there and also at least partially on the proposals that were made there, such as the ORP Kujawiak Hunt-class destroyer as a T4 light cruiser, that's why initially my CL line included cruisers such as Almirante Cervera and it probably also appeared there in this topic because I added it to the tree originally and I didn't read too much, but in 2021 I read this topic, both of them , because I had very little information and, over time, also on information from the Internet, only with the passage of time did I start reading books and articles and trying to reach sources and verify information such as Aleksander Potyrała's projects.
Coming back to this, currently wargming has closed the forum section, and earlier, from 2022, when I wanted to read this topic again, there was some mistake, and it didn't work, but other topics on the forum worked.
Also, information about this cruiser is lost.
The only thing I currently have from this cruiser in this topic is the history of this cruiser in my CL line.
I wrote about him like this:
historically: a Polish cruiser project
History:
In 1938, a project of a Polish cruiser was created, which was to be armed with 152 mm guns, this project was created by Potyrala.
Ultimately, its construction was withdrawn, and there were such plans.
I don't have his profile or sketches.

I also know that Witold Koszela in his book Krążowniki Polskiej Marynarki Wojennej on page 66 wrote that Włodzimierz Steyer in his memoirs had in mind one of the cruiser designs of Aleksander Potyrała, who made slightly more detailed construction plans of one of his cruisers.
It is true that in my line I treated the 8000-ton cruiser from 1938 and the information about the design plans of the Polish cruiser as two separate ships, but... well, it is certain, but no matter how you look at it, it may actually be the same ship, the date is correct. , 1937-1938 is actually the end of the 1930s, but it depends on where the source of such precise data regarding the years is and the consideration of it by KMW.
Because I don't have anything else about him, and I don't remember anything about him now, and it was a long time ago.

 

[USSEssex]

Update to case number 4 from the previous post.
I just reached one of the topics from the world of warships forum that I mentioned, it was a topic started by user Radeckij here link https://web.archive.org/web/2020102...ships.eu/topic/79831-polskie-drzewko-rewizja/ .
In this topic there was information about the cruiser project by Aleksander Potyrała, whose construction was withdrawn for 5-10 years after the signing of the Polish-British alliance.
I didn't get to the previous topic, so that's all I found.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

These appear to be Landing Fire Support ships based upon the Project 775 Ropucha, does anybody know anything about these designs?

 

[Tzoli]

Do we know the armaments of these designs? Or any other data? They seem like the Soviet copy (and improvement) of the USS Carronade

 

[ptdockyard]

3. A few years ago, I think PT Dockyard asked about a cruiser that Poland was considering building.
And I want to know where it was written about, so that I know which one it is about. Here https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=230756

I will have to go back and check. It was very brief and with no detail whatsoever. There was mention on the same site of the Polish built Blyskawica destroyers which was what I was looking for at that time.

Dave

 

[Dilandu]

These appear to be Landing Fire Support ships based upon the Project 775 Ropucha, does anybody know anything about these designs?

The only data I managed to find is that it was planned to be a fire support version of Project 767 "Lublin" amphibious/minelayer ship. Looks like they were supposed to carry Grad-M naval MRLS, like larger Soviet amphibious assault units. The Project 768 weren't laid up due to collapse of USSR.

 

[Dilandu]

Do we know the armaments of these designs? Or any other data? They seem like the Soviet copy (and improvement) of the USS Carronade

Actually probably not. USSR preferred to install MRLS (the Grad-M MRLS, with autoloaders and magazines) on large amphibious assault ships themselves. But apparently Polish-build medium assault ships were too small to carry both Grad-M and useful load. So Project 768 was most likely devised as forced measure.

 

[riggerrob]

Part 2 about aircraft carriers.

4. Apparently, during the Battle of the Atlantic, there was an idea to transfer escort aircraft carriers to the Polish Navy. ….

5. Another Polish thread with an aircraft carrier concerns Captain Stefan P. Wesołowski.
In November 1943, Wesołowski received an offer to become the deputy commander and then commander of the auxiliary aircraft carrier USAT Ganandoc.
This ship was supposedly built in 1940 as an iron ore carrier, but was to be converted into an auxiliary aircraft carrier at the Brooklyn Naval Yard.
There were to be 65 fighters on the lower deck, with 30 fighters on standby on the flight decks.
One day USAT Ganandoc was damaged during the invasion of Normandy, so until it was repaired Stefan Wesołowski served on another ship, was again in command of USAT Ganadnoc in March 1945 after it was repaired, and served on it until the end of the war. …

Some of the ships were supposed to be from allies, including Great Britain.
So it is possible that the aircraft carriers would be British, and maybe they would be aircraft carriers similar to the Casablanca.

As an aside: Lend-Lease agreements prevented the (British) Royal Navy from transferring ships to any other nation. Hence CVN Willapa CVE-53, (Bougue. class aircraft carrier) was built in Seattle and transferred to the Royal Navy. She promptly sailed to Vancouver to be retrofitted to RN standards. She was called HMS Puncher (D-79) while serving the RN.

Puncher was crewed by Royal Canadian Navy sailors and officers until the end of World War 2, BUT shortages of Canadian pilots forced the RN Fleet Air Arm to provide aircrew for her Grumman Martlets/Wildcats and Fairey Barracuda airplanes.
HMS Nabob was another RN aircraft carrier that was also crewed by Canadian sailors.
This was part of a bigger scheme to train RCN personnel in anticipation of the RCN operating aircraft carriers after WW2: HMCS Warrior (1950s) and HMCS Bonaventure (retired 1969).

I suspect that plans for Polish sailors to crew a British aircraft carrier faced the same Lend-Lease legal restrictions during WW2.

 

[USSEssex]

This is a Project 768 Orłosęp fire support ship, whose origins can be dated back to 1985, when these variants were developed, and was to be the successor of Project 767, developed by the Maritime Technology Center (CTM) for the Polish Navy.
Variant I is the basic variant.
Data for variant I
Full displacement 1627 tons
Length
84.10 m
Length between verticals
78.00 m
Side height 6.10 m
Width 10.80 m
Draft 2.44 m
Armament
A set of 122 mm Grom M unguided missiles consisting of 5 MS-73 launchers
1 x AK-176
2 x AK-630
2 x Fasta-4M
2 x 32-barrel jammer missile launchers
Przepiórka (this weapon was on ORP Tur)
6 x 24-barrel 70 mm Derkacz dummy target launchers (the same armament was on the ORP Tur)
Equipment
1 x NUR-25
1 x MR-123/176
1 x SRN-7453
1 x SRN-443XTA
1 x MP-405E
1 x Nichrom-RR
1 x Nickel-K
1 x PS-73
1 x DWU-2
Drive
3 x eight-cylinder Sulzer-Cegielski 8AT25LD diesel engines with 1,760 kW (2,390 hp)
Speed
17 knots
Variant II does not differ much from variant I, the differences are as follows: Full displacement: 1,500 tons.
Draft 2.38 m.
Armament
3x MS 73 launchers
Speed 17.2 knots.
The differences in variant VI from variant I are as follows
Full displacement 1,458 tons
Draft 2.18 m
Armament
2 x MS-73
Drive
3 x 6AT25LD engines with a power of 1,320 kW (1,800 HP).
Speed 16.5 knots.
The rest remains unchanged.
Variant I, II and VI were to have the same hull shape as in Project 767.
Data for Variant III, IV and IV.
Variant III
Full displacement 1,360 tons
Length
82.30 m
Length between verticals
77.80 m
Width
10.0 m
Side height 5.30 m
Draft 3.30 m
Armament: 3x MS-73
The rest remains unchanged in armament compared to variants I, II and VI.
The equipment in variants III, IV and V remains unchanged.
Drive
2x 16ATV25/30 diesel engines with a power of 3,520 kW (4,780 HP)
Speed
21.6 knots
Differences in variant IV
Full displacement
1,477 tons
Length 83.0 m
Width 11.0 m
Draft 3.28 m
Armament
4 x MS-73
Speed 20.5 knots
The rest remains unchanged.
Differences in variant V
Full displacement 1,480 tons
Draft is the same as in variant III
Length and width the same as in variant IV
Armament: 3 x MS-73
The speed is the same as in variant IV
The rest remains unchanged.
In variant III, the hull is the same as project 620/I.
Variant IV and V had the same hull as project 2231.
The sources I used are Morze Statki i Okręty Wydanie Specjalne 3/2014 article Orłosęp i Jarząbek nieznane okręty dla polskich sił desantowych by Jarosław Cieślak and Militarium https://web.archive.org/web/2016080...ty-dowodzenia-desantem-projektu-769-jarzabek/ .

 

[Dilandu]

This is a Project 768 Orłosęp fire support ship, whose origins can be dated back to 1985, when these variants were developed, and was to be the successor of Project 767, developed by the Maritime Technology Center (CTM) for the Polish Navy.

Thank you for the data!

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

Case of Polish Gneisenau, although more Polish Deutchland, looking at the parameters.

Interesting concept. Although the displacement figure seems... quite optimistic for such armament, armor, and speed. German and Dutch projects with comparable characteristics (late D-class cruiser and Project 1047 respectively) were at least 5000 tons heavier.

 

[USSEssex]

I have already written about the frigate concept, now I will write about the corvette.

The conceptual design of the Bekas-class corvette is an example of a vessel from the rich portfolio of the Remontowa Marine Design & Consulting design office.
A multi-purpose warship with a total length of 90 m, a width of 13.5 m, a draft of 3.6 m and a displacement of approximately 1,700 tons is the optimal choice for fleets looking for a modern vessel that meets the requirements of the 21st century.
The hybrid drive in the CODLOD (COmbined Diesel-eLectric Or Diesel) system allows for long marches at economical speeds or sudden acceleration to maximum speed when the operational situation requires it.
The designed platform allows for the use of various weapons systems (artillery of various calibers, anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, anti-submarine torpedo tubes, two helicopters (one in the hangar and the other on the flight deck)) and sensors (towed sonar and various types of radars), which makes this warship suitable for fulfilling a wide range of tasks intended for ships of its class.

These graphics and the quoted fragment come from Remontowa Marine Design & Consulting post on Facebook.
Source

https://www.facebook.com/RMDCLTD/posts/pfbid0KSjsgeEeD7hwvpYoxtCQ9pJCxWqkscCVBR7USRQ5gQf8XvPXhMW2m2wkY1YK7vnJl

View: https://www.facebook.com/RMDCLTD/posts/pfbid0KSjsgeEeD7hwvpYoxtCQ9pJCxWqkscCVBR7USRQ5gQf8XvPXhMW2m2wkY1YK7vnJl
, or if someone doesn't have Facebook, they can read about it here, for example https://polska-morska.pl/2024/05/10/remontowa-marine-design-consulting-projekt-korwety-typu-bekas/ .
During Defence24 Days, the acquisition of corvettes under the Murena program was announced.
Few people expected the return of this program, previously Murena meant the acquisition or construction of small missile ships. Link to the source I used when writing information about the Murena program https://www.gospodarkamorska.pl/mar...a-korwety-wielki-powrot-programu-murena-77936 .

 

[RedLegion]

Every time I see the name Bekas, I only have Polish comedy animation in my mind.

 

[USSEssex]

Every time I see the name Bekas, I only have Polish comedy animation in my mind.

Why?

 

[USSEssex]

About Polish torpedo boats.
I will focus here on torpedo boat designs.

The tactical and technical requirements for torpedo boats from 1957 specified a displacement of approximately 60 tons, a speed of 55 knots, and the ability to carry two 533 mm caliber torpedo tubes.
Therefore, CBKO no.2 developed four variants of the torpedo boat design study: projects 653, 655, 657 and 660, codenamed Osa, which were received by the Technical Committee on November 7, 1958.
Now I will tell you about these projects.
We'll start with project 653.
The dimensions of this project are 25.8 x 6.8 x 1.53 m
Normal displacement is about 70 tons
Armament is it
2xII 25 mm and 4 533 mm torpedo tubes.
It was to have two 20KVD25 diesel engines with a nominal power of 1,850 HP each.
And one gas turbine with a capacity of 7,000 HP.
3 shafts
Speed
marching speed 30 knots
maximum 51 knots.
According to detailed data, project 653 was to have 7 watertight compartments and one wide funnel with air inlets.
I have attached a drawing below.

The data for project 655 is as follows
Dimensions 28.9 x 6.58 x 1.52 m
Normal displacement is about 82 tons
Armament: 2 xII 25 mm guns and 4 533 mm torpedo tubes
Drive
1 diesel engine type 20KVD25 with a nominal power of 1,850 HP
2 gas turbines with a power of 6,000 HP each.
3 shafts.
Speed
marching speed 20 knots
maximum 53 knots.
The hull was to have 8 compartments, and just like before, 3 shafts, it was to have 2 funnels that were placed in parallel, their dimensions towering over the superstructure.

Data for project 657.
Dimensions 23.52 x 6.48 x 1.42 m
normal displacement about 57 tons
Armament
2xII 25mm gun and 2x 533mm torpedo tubes
Drive
1 diesel engine type 20KVD25 with a nominal power of 1,850 HP and 2 gas turbines with a power of 3,000 HP each
3 shafts
Speed
marching 24 knots
maximum 48 knots.
The hull was to have 8 compartments, and again, as in the previous proposal, it was to have 2 funnels, but this time they were smaller, and as I write, they were placed next to each other.

The last of the 4 projects was project 660, it was the largest of all 4 proposals.
Dimensions
28.8 x 6.0 x 1.53 m
Normal displacement is approximately 84 tons
Armament
2xII 25 mm gun and 4 533 mm torpedo tubes
Drive
2 diesel engines type 20KVD25 with a nominal power of 1,850 HP each, and 1 gas turbine with a power of 7,000 HP
Speed
marching 24 knots
maximum 51.2 knots.
It was to have 4 shafts, 6 watertight bulkheads, and 1 small funnel.

Since the performance of the gas turbine was unknown and it was still being developed, various power figures were given.
None of these projects gained the favor of USSR specialists, and in the end they remained just a project.
Also in the discussion it was stated that it is not possible to achieve a speed of 55 knots, but at most 51 knots, so later the requirements were reduced by 4 knots.
Since it's late now, I'll write part two later.
The source I used to write this part is Morze Statki i Okręty 1/2006 article polskie kutry torpedowe od idei do prototypu by Robert Rochowicz.
Because originally I was planning to write one post about all the projects of Polish torpedo boats, but as I write I ran out of time.
I will tell you that project 664 was not the last torpedo boat project, but I will tell you more in the next part.

 

[USSEssex]

Part 2.
After the discussion in October 1958, new parameters were defined, they wanted a torpedo boat in the size of project 655 and project 660, the parameters were as follows:
displacement was to be 82 tons, 4 torpedo tubes, propulsion was to consist of diesel engines and a gas turbine, maximum speed of about 50.6 knots.
Everything specified in the parameters was repeated in the official tactical and technical requirements in February 1959, only the speed was increased to 51 knots.
CKBO no. 2 presented the next two projects in 1959, they were project 662 and project 663, visually they are the same, basically they differ only in the drive.
It is not known when they were assessed, because there is no such information in the documents. It probably happened on June 6, 1959, when the preliminary design was presented during the Technical Committee meeting and the choice of engines was decided.
Now I will move on to discuss these projects.
The dimensions for both designs are the same 25.45 x 6.0 x 1.48 m
The normal displacement for the 662 project is about 83.1 tons
for project 663 that's about 82.5 tons
The armament for both designs is also the same
2xII 25 mm gun and 4 torpedo tubes.
Drive for project 662
2 20KVD25 diesel engines with a nominal power of 1,875 HP each and 1 gas turbine with a nominal power of 5,950 HP.
Speed
marching 28 knots
maximum 51 knots
for project 663
Drive
4x M 50F diesel engines with a nominal power of 900 HP each and 1 gas turbine with a nominal power of 5,950 HP.
There are 4 shafts in both designs.
Speed
marching speed 28 knots
Maximum 50.6 knots.
Below is a drawing of both projects.

Then, when the variant with M 50 F engines was accepted, we built a torpedo boat project 663D ORP Błyskawiczny.
Below is the graphic of the 663D project that I managed to find, at the moment I have not found any more graphics of this project, but if I find something more, I will add another one or replace it.
Source for this graphic project 663D https://modelwork.pl/topic/2168-kuter-torpedowy-projektu-quot664quot/ .

Work on the ORP Błyskawiczny had barely begun when the first ideas for the appearance of the project 663 serial torpedo boats were already being introduced, which, unlike the project 663D, was to be created as a modified project, designated project 663M.
What you see in the drawing below is project 663M from September 1961.
It has 2 M 503 engines and a TM 1 gas turbine with gear, and 2xII AK 230 guns.

All work led to the construction of eight project 664 torpedo boats, in the documents this designation appears around 1965, in 1966 the torpedo boat project was numbered 664, and codenamed Sroka II, Sroka was for project 663D, the designer of the project 664 torpedo boats was Eng. Dionizy Wiśniewski from Skarżysko Kamienna.
Below is the graphic for project 664.
The source of the graphic https://forums.airbase.ru/2024/02/t...roekta-664-polskaya-narodnaya-respu.4720.html , if I find something better, I will change it.

As with the project 663D, I haven't found many graphics at the moment.
Back to the topic.
After building project 664 torpedo boats and gaining experience with project 663D, Poles worked on another torpedo boats in the years 1968-1973.
In 1968, the Naval Research Center developed initial tactical and technical requirements for a torpedo boat and an artillery boat.
The requirements were as follows:
displacement for both types of boats was about 200 tons, the torpedo boat was to be armed with 4 533 mm torpedo tubes, and 2xII AK 230 guns or one twin AK 725 caliber of 57 mm, the artillery boat was to have 2 positions of twin AK 725 gun .
The power plant was to be modified in relation to the 663D project, but the CODAG system was retained, i.e. 4 diesel engines and 1 gas turbine.
These ships were to be larger than project 664, and were to be more universal.
The designed torpedo boats were designated project 665, they were to be the successors of the project 664 torpedo boats, the design work was carried out by the team of engineer Sylwester Malinowski at CKBO no. 2.
In July 1973, three conceptual designs of Project 665 were presented, which were designated as Project 665.1, Project 665.2 and Project 665.3.
Data for project 665.1.
Full displacement 203.5 tons
Length 29.7 m
Width 6.75 m
Draft 1.74 m
Armament
2 x II AK-230
4x OTAM-206B 533 mm torpedo tubes
Equipment
1 x MR-102
1 x MR-104
Drive
4x M50F5 diesel engines with a power of 1,200 HP each
Speed
31 knots
Crew
20 people.
Data for project 665.2.
Full displacement 191 tons
Length 35.67 m
Width 5.67 m
Draft 1.52 m
Armament
2 x II AK-230
4x 533 mm torpedo tubes
Equipment
1 x MR-102
1 x MR-104
Drive
3x M503 diesel engines with a power of 4,000 HP each and 1x TM 1 gas turbine with a power of 7,200 HP
Speed
41 knots
The torpedo tubes were to be placed in pairs, one behind the other.
Data for project 665.3.
Full displacement 390 tons
Length 66.4 m
Width 8.25 m
Draft 1.63 m
Armament
2 x II AK-725
4x 533 mm torpedo tubes
Equipment
1 x MR-302
1 x MR-102
1 x MR-103
Drive
4x M503 diesel engines with a power of 4,000 HP each
Speed
36 knots.
No further work was carried out because in the same year when it was assessed, the Naval Command (DMW) considered it pointless to carry out further work, the reason was to draw conclusions from the Israeli-Egyptian-Syrian war in 1967 and the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971.
Sources I used to write this part
Morze Statki i Okręty 1/2006 article Polskie kutry torpedowe. Od idei do prototypu author by Robert Rochowicz, Morze Statki i Okręty 2/2006 article Polskie kutry torpedowe. Jednostki seryjne. author by Robert Rochowicz and Teodor Makowski and militarium.net Następcy jednostek projektu 664 polskie kutry torpedowe projektu 665 https://web.archive.org/web/2015052...ktu-664-polskie-kutry-torpedowe-projektu-665/ .

 

[USSEssex]

Since I have better data about the 15,000-ton cruiser from naval plans, as well as some information, I will write something about it.
In the 1936 naval expansion plan, it was originally supposed to be 1942
1 battleship was to be stronger than the Russian cruiser and faster than Marat
1 heavy cruiser of 15,000 tons, according to the data they wrote that it was supposed to be stronger than German cruisers,
it was supposed to be stronger than German light cruisers of 6,000 tons and faster than Deutschland-class battleships, it was supposed to be stronger than German cruisers of 10,000 tons and faster than German battleships.
So they generally stated that it should be stronger than German cruisers.
It was to be larger than existing German cruisers, and it was thought that it would be larger than the Admiral Hipper class cruisers built at that time.
From other data I have for this ship, the speed was estimated at 33 knots.
8 destroyers
12 submarines
1 minelayer
6 escorts
22 MTB
14 minesweepers
Of which it was supposed to be in the event of a war with Russia
1 battleship
8 destroyers
12 submarines
1 minelayer
6 escorts
In the case of a variant of war with Germany
1 heavy cruiser 15,000 tons
6 destroyers
12 submarines
1 minelayer
6 escorts
22 MTB
Base defense
14 minesweepers
12 MTB
After the reduction in the maritime program accepted for implementation it was
6 destroyers
12 submarines
1 minelayer
12 MTB
12 minesweepers.
The heavy cruiser's task was to tie up as many German forces as possible in the Baltic Sea, so that France would have an easier time, our heavy cruiser was also supposed to support the actions of Polish destroyers.
The admirals were aware of their position, which is why at that time they counted on the help of their ally, i.e. France, and it was known that everything would take place in the Atlantic or the North Sea, not in the Baltic Sea, the Polish Navy was part of the coalition war here, so a heavy cruiser was needed, because if Poland had this cruiser, perhaps the Germans would have brought Deutschland-class battleships, in any case there would have been fewer German forces on the French side, but since it was supposed to be faster than them, it could have escaped from them.
Our tasks in the event of war with Germany included:
1) Binding as many German naval forces as possible in order to distract them from decisive actions in the west.
2) Defense of the Polish coast.
Here, it was assumed that ships and warships would be assigned to the defense of Hel, and the coastal defense troops were to withdraw to Hel, taking up defensive positions there after defending Gdynia, the ships were to be based in Hel, and then the fleet would sail to the high seas, considering Hel as its base.
3) If there was an opportunity, we were to obstruct German sea transport from the Reich to East Prussia (Pilawa was the port for disbanding convoys to Königsberg).
In the event of a war with Germany, there was no need for guns on Hel, at least of a larger caliber.
It was planned to purchase 320 mm guns from Italy but against the Ganguts.
Although the 6-year fleet expansion program document did not state who the attacker would be, it was not in our interest to go to war with Germany because the entire Polish fleet was intended to secure Polish shipping lanes against the Soviet fleet, so in variant N, Polish ships were to avoid clashes with German ships. to survive the fights, to be fully ready to fight Soviet ships, for this the crews were trained and the ships were built.
It was predicted that war with Germany or the USSR would break out after 1942, so they claimed that we had time at least until 1942, but the war came too early, the outbreak of war in 1939 should not be linked with preparations for war with one of the opponents, according to the plans from the naval program because these are 2 different things.
I will add that Grom-class destroyers were designed to fight Soviet leaders.
I will write more about the variant of war with Russia later.
List of sources used for this part. Morze Statki i Okręty 6/2007 article Planowanie wojenne PMW w końcu lat 30 XX wieku by Tymoteusz Pawłowski, and I mainly used the information that Croclik wrote in his posts, mainly data for the heavy cruiser https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=118675&st=0&sk=t&sd=a , https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=119783&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50 , https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=6244&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25 .

 

[able]

Case of Polish Gneisenau, although more Polish Deutchland, looking at the parameters.
The first time I posted this drawing was on one of the Facebook groups, my friend posted it yesterday and I asked him what the source of this drawing was.
I know everything there is to know, so I'll tell you about it.
In one of the issues of magazine Przegląd Morski from 1934 there was an article titled Ships of the Future by Benbow.
The author wrote there about the future of, among other things, battleships, he claimed that in the future there will be two varieties of battleships.
The first of them is a ship armed with VIII to X guns with a caliber of 333 to 406 mm, a displacement of 25,000 to 40,000 tons, and a speed of about 30 knots.
The second type is basically a lighter version of a battleship adapted to closed seas and capable of fighting for the maritime freedom of its country and supporting the actions of its own light forces.
This is a warship with a displacement of 10,000 to 20,000 tons, at a speed of 28-30 knots, the armament of such warships is to consist of VI to IX 280-305 mm caliber guns, and the armor, as the author himself wrote, is to be lighter than typical battleships, but still sufficient an equal opponent, and above all to defend against aircraft at low altitudes. (in the Polish case, it is the Deutchland class, although it had a 28 cm gun, so it is difficult to call it a typical cruiser, so here in this comparison it is an exception, or the Scharnhorst class, and Russian battleships, later at that time also a Kirov, but it was a cruiser, my comment)
The battleship discussed here belongs to the second, lighter type of battleship, what you see in the drawing is concept of a lighter version of the battleship that I wrote about above from the article, of course. ( rys.1, is an abbreviation of the word "rysunek" in English, so it can be translated as a drawing or fig.1, although more specifically it is an illustration of such a battleship. My comment.)
I am posting the data below.
排水量：15,000（18,000）吨
长度： 182 m
宽度： 23.5 m
深度 ： 6.1 m
武器装备：9x 280 mm火炮（3xIII），
14x 102毫米高射炮，
II - 47 毫米火炮，2xI
20x 重机枪 - C.K.M
3架水上飞机：包括一架弹射器
装甲：40-305毫米
反鱼雷保护（凸起）和防空甲板。
发电厂：90,000 马力
航速：30节
航程：6,500海里，12节。
由我翻译。
绘画就在这里
View attachment 718967
可能这篇文章的作者本人就是你在图中看到的军舰的这个愿景/概念的作者。
我发布这幅画是因为有人可能对它感兴趣，他们可以分析它并讨论它。
其中，主炮是100%德国的，因为280毫米炮是三联装炮，当时数量不多，可能只有德国人拥有三联装280毫米炮。
47 毫米火炮可能是 ORP Bałtyk 上使用的火炮，至于 102 毫米火炮，它们可能是基于 Mk XIX 的英国 Mk XVI 火炮，但我不知道现在对他们来说是否为时过早。
来源在这里 Przegląd Morski NO. 68， 1934 如果有人想阅读整个问题，我还 https://bibliotekacyfrowa.eu/dlibra/publication/62401/edition/56600?language=pl 提供了一个链接。

 

[ptdockyard]

Your model (beautiful by the way)...either the German answer to this or a Polish ship captured and incorporated into the Kriegsmarine?

 

[able]

Your model (beautiful by the way)...either the German answer to this or a Polish ship captured and incorporated into the Kriegsmarine?

I use these PICs

 

[USSEssex]

While we're on the concept of the Battleship Benbow, I can mention one more interesting point.
Benbow predicted that light and heavy cruisers could become a new class of ships, which he called the universal cruiser.
According to him, the ship would have a displacement of 6,000 to 8,000 tons, armed with IV-VI 203 mm guns(it was probably about 2xII 203 mm for 4 guns, and 3xII 203 mm for 6 guns, at least that's what logic tells me), relatively in IX-XII 150 mm guns, and would be armored and fast.
I'm going back to the battleship.
Generally, when it comes to battleships, Benbow's predictions were quite true, an example of which was Iowa, which had 9 406 mm guns, although I am not sure if this ship is a good example, but you can find other examples, the exception was probably Yamato, not counting Nagato.
And to be precise, the Polish Deutschland refers mainly to which ship it is closest to, so the Benbow battleship is an equivalent of the Deutschland class rather than the Gneisenau class.
I forgot to write that the 2 seaplanes were supposed to be in the hangar, which is located below the deck.
As for the armor, with such displacement we are probably talking about 102 mm on the belt and 305 mm on the turret face , but even these parameters are optimistic.

 

[USSEssex]

I updated the post about destroyer offers from tenders for future Grom-class destroyers https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/polish-projects.38305/page-3#post-589518 .
I supplemented the data and added new ones based on new sources.
I would like to add that all the pictures you see were found in the Polish archive and were published in various magazines in articles or books, and others on the forum (a destroyer with 4 120 mm guns), not counting the impression of the destroyer of the shipyard de Loire and its simplified silhouette.
There were three tenders, the first one in 1933 - French offers, the second tender in 1934 - Swedish offers and the third tender in 1934 - British offers .
So far, the Yarrow project that was under consideration, as well as the first Samuel White project, have not been found.
The same with the Vickers Armstrong offer.
So this is a short presentation of what we know and what has been found over the years.
If other English or French offers are ever found, I will write about it and explain these projects, because we don't know everything.
If I haven't written about why Grom-class destroyers had 7 guns, I will answer.
Initially, all British offers had 3 twin 120 mm guns, including the Samuel White, but the Poles later wanted 8 guns on the destroyer, see 4xII, to do such a thing further changes were needed in the Samuel White design, modifying the destroyer to 8 guns which initially had 6 In general, the ship would not be able to withstand the guns, as I recall, the destroyer's plating had to be strengthened, and Poland could not afford any further changes in the design, so the compromise was 7 guns, and in this configuration with 7 guns, the Grom-class destroyers were built.
In general, I also published the version with 4 120 mm guns here along with 3 other Samuel White modifications from the PZO documentation, if anyone is interested in it, you can find this post.
I could also write about the evolution of the Samuel White project, but that's in another post.

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

I understand that the article dealing with the Benbow-battleship published in the Polish magazine originally was written in English. Can anybody supply a scan/pdf of the orginal?