AHC: Different Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe for Reichsmarine

[Peg Leg Pom]

On the positive side, the Deutschlands were a huge waste of resources that the Germans might've spent on something actually useful.

Like proper coastal defence ships for service in the Baltic in the case of Soviet aggression, not waving a red flag to rest of the world that they're building commerce raiders.

 

[jsb]

I would drop the requirement for 11" guns and have 9 x 8" in 3 turrets in order to improve the armour and not increase the weight

I would just look more innocent and go for something smaller, say a 24cm (9.4" it's an old German size) gun, so you can get more speed and simply make it an 8" cruiser killer with 6 of them and a secondary battery of 105mm DP/AA guns?

That or just fund fast merchants for the South American trade........

 

[weasel_airlift]

True eggshells with hammers

Right on that. Harwood would still give that thing a run for it's money.

 

[marathag]

On the positive side, the Deutschlands were a huge waste of resources that the Germans might've spent on something actually useful.

Got the French to waste scarce Francs and resources and manpower on the Battlecruisers to counter them, instead of say, making Tanks with two Man turrets and Radios

I think they were a better investment than the Heavy Cruisers

 

[RamscoopRaider]

On the positive side, the Deutschlands were a huge waste of resources that the Germans might've spent on something actually useful.

Not really, the Deutschlands were built under Weimar, where the Germans were limited by treaty rather than by resources, and needed to build something to get experience. The Germans could have built 3 true coast defense ships instead but I don't see how those would be anymore useful. Or they could have built 3 traditional CA, but again don't really see how they would have been more useful, and given how their light cruisers turned out I don't see proper heavies being that good

 

[jsb]

Or they could have built 3 traditional CA, but again don't really see how they would have been more useful, and given how their light cruisers turned out I don't see proper heavies being that good

The advantage is that they dont have to be 8" or 10,000t(standard) the disadvantage is they have not built anything for years and therefore lack good design staff? But a 9.4" 14,000t standard aka 10,000t"VT light" should be fine to beat a normal CA?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The advantage is that they dont have to be 8" or 10,000t(standard) the disadvantage is they have not built anything for years and therefore lack good design staff? But a 9.4" 14,000t standard aka 10,000t"VT light" should be fine to beat a normal CA?

Honestly I'd consider that just a Panzerschiff with a different armament scheme rather than a true heavy cruiser. A pure 24cm battery rather than mixed 28cm and 15cm, maybe slightly faster, but is still going to have to trade off speed compared to contemporary cruisers if not as much

 

[jsb]

Honestly I'd consider that just a Panzerschiff with a different armament scheme rather than a true heavy cruiser. A pure 24cm battery rather than mixed 28cm and 15cm, maybe slightly faster, but is still going to have to trade off speed compared to contemporary cruisers if not as much

I dont really think you could not build a 6 gun 24cm 9.4" with only 105/88mm AA on 14,000t and still be CA fast ie 32+Kn it should be far lighter than 6x 28cm guns? 6x24cm should defeat any CA/CL with say 8 or 9 8" guns if forced to fight?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I dont really think you could not build a 6 gun 24cm 9.4" with only 105/88mm AA on 14,000t and still be CA fast ie 32+Kn it should be far lighter than 6x 28cm guns? 6x24cm should defeat any CA/CL with say 8 or 9 8" guns if forced to fight?

Not that much lighter. You save maybe 150 tons each 28cm mount swapped for 24cm and 25 each 15cm mount, total of 500 tons saved, some of which is eaten by increasing the AA battery (30 tons per extra AA mount), going to want more than just 6 guns for light anti surface work. Only way to get much more speed is to go steam turbines and massively reduce the cruising requirements, which means the ship is no longer a potential global threat that has to be honored

 

[Kantai Kessen]

On the positive side, the Deutschlands were a huge waste of resources that the Germans might've spent on something actually useful.

I would say no.

The Deutschlands achieved several very important functions:

• They gave the Reichsmarine something to look at and work with that wasn't WW1 vintage and/or utterly crap (looking at you K-class)
• They gave German warship builders plenty of experience with new tech, e.g. diesels and welding.
• They scared the crap out of the French who had to build the Dunkerques
• They pressured the British into the AGNA, which overall was a big plus for the Germans in more ways than one.

I would say that was a good thing for the Germans. Of course, how Hitler handled the Kriegsmarine blew a lot of that, but it was a start.

And I maintain that the Panzerschiffe were a much better use of resources than the conventional CAs that followed. Hell, even building a conventional 8" or 9.4" cruiser instead of the ships we got IOTL would not have had the same effect. For one, you don't need an 8 x 13" battlecruiser to kill those things - you can do that with your existing cruiser fleet.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

That sort of speed and armament would surely come at the expense of armor.

That said: I can think of two ideas of limited plausibility.

First would be a reverse-Dunkerque. Have both of the heavy guns in the back, and the 15 cm (Or better if can be had, 12.8 DP) in the front. A couple of each. Secondaries as well, of course. Plan for, but do not install all of the secondaries, or the torpedoes. If possible, plan for, but do not install all of the armor plate. That is to be added after hostilities, so we can pay lip service to treaties.
Seakeeping is to an extent possible with better hullform than the Germans used, though freeboard also helps.
Space for upgrades is dubious; we are pushing the envelope as it is.
Aircraft and facilities is possible, but they should be folding, so as to take up less space.

The other option is what was suggested: 3 triple 8.2" (May as well use it as a base, it was excellent) two aft, and maybe with the option to swap for larger twin mounts. Either way, I think you'll need to not make it completely up to spec, but rather just plan to bring it up in the event of war.

The design was pretty thin on armour. IIRC it had a 3-4" belt. It was however bloody fast and actually pretty well ranged.

Why would you do a reverse-Dunk? I get that it shortens the ship and saves weight, but it would massively reduce the vessel's versatility. Think of the number of tactical situations in which such a layout would not be good. I think one turret forward and one turret aft is the best way to go. There's also the fact that such a layout will not be great for weight distribution, which can hinder seakeeping as a result. I don't think the Germans would risk that.

I agree with most of your other points, except for the 8.2" main armament. That's not enough of a political stimulus, and the Deutschlands were a political tool above all else. But FFBNW is a good way to go.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

The advantage is that they dont have to be 8" or 10,000t(standard) the disadvantage is they have not built anything for years and therefore lack good design staff? But a 9.4" 14,000t standard aka 10,000t"VT light" should be fine to beat a normal CA?

The Germans actually had more experience with the 11" gun than with the 8" gun. Not a single ship was built to 8" calibre under the Kaiserliche Marine - all the armoured cruisers were users of the 8.3"/40 and 8.3"/45 guns. The 9.4" gun dropped out of use way earlier. Whereas the 11" was still in active use to the end of the war. Besides, if all else fails they have the pre-dreads on which to base the gun design

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Not that much lighter. You save maybe 150 tons each 28cm mount swapped for 24cm and 25 each 15cm mount, total of 500 tons saved, some of which is eaten by increasing the AA battery (30 tons per extra AA mount), going to want more than just 6 guns for light anti surface work. Only way to get much more speed is to go steam turbines and massively reduce the cruising requirements, which means the ship is no longer a potential global threat that has to be honored

This.

Also remember that one of the requirements was for the Deutschlands to be able to fight multiple cruisers at once. You're going to want to be able to bring at least eight 5.9" on one side to do that (four guns to engage a single cruiser with an effective firing solution), while the 11" focuses on the other side.

Perhaps eight 5.9" as OTL are used, but in four twin turrets in a diamond arrangement, with two superfiring over the 11" turrets and one on each side. This should also make room for more AA guns and/or TTs.

 

[NoMommsen]

Not on less than 20,000 tonnes. ...

Not possible.
...
Making a ship with that firepower, speed, range and armament on less than 15000tons empty was not really possible even in the 1940, ....
...
As some other have said, to have what you want, you will need to design a 20000+ tons ship, ...

... may I direct your attention to the Des Moines class cruiser ? ... with their 17.532 t standard ?
Themself some upgrade/enlargement of the Baltimore class with a technology - aside the cool autoloading feature of its main artillery - by 'n large available in the thirties already. However such tech isn't needed here. I 'need' her only as a template of weight.

Weaponry
Its 3 turrets weighted together ~1350 t (450 each) and thereby 150 t more than the two turrets of the Graf Spee with their 1200 t (600 t each). If we add them to the 576 t (12x48 t)for the 12 Mark 32 Mod 0 mounted 5" Mk12 DP guns I would assume that there would be well enough tonnage for some german DP-guns in 8 (?) or 10 (?) german double mounts left.
Therefore I would assume about the same (rather somewhat less) weight for armory on this alternate Panzerkreuzer as used by the Des Moins.

Machinery
Unfortunatly I don't have 'exact' numbers for esp. the Des Moines or Baltimore class reagrding its machinery weight. Therefore I have to rely on an estimation. I've once learned that in general machinery weight on cruisers could be estimated at 15-17 % of contruction weight. For our thought experiement 'calculated' on the Baltimore class (as the machinery was essentially the same for Des Moines) machinery weight can be estimated at about 2100 t. The Spee as the last of the Deutschlands had a machinery weight of 2251 t (1651 for the main machinery, its gears and shafts, 650 for the auxilleries to start and maintain airflow into the main engines, as well as some dynamos for electricity).
Now for some 'changes' let's assume the Diesel compoment of our alternative Panzerkreuzer is reduced to 'only' six instead 8 engines. With a dry weight of the single motors (~82 t) and auxillery motors (~44 t) we might have a machinery weight of about 1900 t including the two Vulcan gears that connected the 8 engines and the shafts but not the gears and connections between the 2 omitted main engines and the according auxillery.
The so resulting planned 37.500 shp would still be much more than enough to achieve a cruising speed of 20 kn likely more (the amount of needed shp for a given speed increases (almost ?) logarhythmic, therefore you need MUCH more horse power for accelerating from 25 to 30 kn than from 20 to 25 kn i.e.).
For a 'fighting situation' speed the course taken with the K-class might be assumed for our alternative Panzerkreuzer and so we might need a steam-turbine componet as well. And let us stay with the K class for assuming needs of weight calculating it the same way as done for the DesMoines we land at about 1000 t (given a construction weight of 'truly' about 6750 t) delivering 65.000 shp as planned and on trials regularly 68.000 shp +.
(The Diesel engine component came to the Ks as an afterthought delivering in toto about mere 1800 shp max. (still enough to enable a marching/cruising spee of 10 kn) and therefore didn't added too much to the overall machinery weight IMHO.)

In connecting the steam turbines with maybe an additional reduction gear maybe to the given Vulcan gears thereby reducing the weigth needed for the steam component (different, easier gear as only for top-speed necessary, no 'intermediate steam' turbine, reducing weight for auxillery power as delivered already from the forme Panzerkreizer components, no shafts, etc.) to about 750 t we land at :

1900 t + 750 t = 2650 t in toto​

for a max. output of 102.500 calculated, given the known overperforming of OTL we likely end with available 110.000 shp.​

That might not be enough for the for the DesMoines class claimed 33 kn but would be well enough for the by the OP asked for 30 kn. ... given the 'overperformance' of the Deutschland class in terms of speed (planned 26 kn, all reached 28 kn and above) despite their machineries initially not even living up to planned power output
most likely due to better than estimated hull form (which with the for 1939 planned bow elongation might have even more improved) IMHO a wee bit above 31 kn might also be achievable.
The weight difference of 550 t to the Des Moines' machinery as calculated above could easily be covered by choosing an armor strenght of 80 to 120 mm instead of 102 to 152 mm of Baltimore and DesMoins - at the time of conceiving the Deutschlands rendered sufficient (see Algérie class or York class).

... so much for the immutably needed minimum of 20.000 t.
17.500 would be more than needed.

... If they must have 11" guns then substitute for twin gun turrets ...

At the time conceiving the Deutschland class a target covering salvo was calculated to have 6 rifles at least. The pre-dreads achieved this by fighting in numbers - with their companion 'in the line'.
Therefore a single ship needed 6 rifles at least.

...
The Panzerschiffe caused a bit of an upset ...

upset ... That exactly was the political objective the building of the Deutschland class was aimed at from the moment Zenker decided for the overarmed cruiser type the Dautschland class was.
They were aimed at busting the Washington Treaty classes - therefore also the as much as possible calibre of 28 cm - to make them (esp. the 20.000 t cruisers everyxbody was so keely building) look outdated with its 'inbetween' ablities :

faster than anything better armed and better armed than anything faster.​

For the 'upset' ... the Deutschlands well achied this goal IMHO

It was hoped that to avoid further ships as the Deutschland class the western powers - esp. Great Britain - would include Germany into the Washington Treaty, allowing it a fleet at least in numbers and number of classes way from of anything resembling the ToV-fleet
... and thereby also lever out the military clauses of the ToV at all.
That aim was - as long as there was a Weimar Republik - missed. Once again the Hitler regime harvested the fruits sowed by Weimar.

The Deutschlands were as much a political 'weapon' - if not even mostly - as an operational pieces of equipment however good or bad they functioned as trade raiders or East-Prussia sealine-protector or ...
In 1932 Raeder - despite aming for other vessels already then - went ahead with the 3rd Deutschlnad-class (Graf Spee) being ordered with the words :

"When we start one or two of these rusty bucket again, we can still scrap them later."​

 

[RamscoopRaider]

This.

Also remember that one of the requirements was for the Deutschlands to be able to fight multiple cruisers at once. You're going to want to be able to bring at least eight 5.9" on one side to do that (four guns to engage a single cruiser with an effective firing solution), while the 11" focuses on the other side.

Perhaps eight 5.9" as OTL are used, but in four twin turrets in a diamond arrangement, with two superfiring over the 11" turrets and one on each side. This should also make room for more AA guns and/or TTs.

The 15cms on the Deutschlands were simple pedestal mounts, 25t each, the twin turret version was 108-120t, so you need to find 232-280 more tons to do that at a minimum. Using the lower velocity destroyer 15cm turret, you still need an extra 40 tons at a minimum

 

[Kantai Kessen]

... may I direct your attention to the Des Moines class cruiser ? ... with their 17.532 t standard ?
Themself some upgrade/enlargement of the Baltimore class with a technology - aside the cool autoloading feature of its main artillery - by 'n large available in the thirties already. However such tech isn't needed here. I 'need' her only as a template of weight.

Weaponry
Its 3 turrets weighted together ~1350 t (450 each) and thereby 150 t more than the two turrets of the Graf Spee with their 1200 t (600 t each). If we add them to the 576 t (12x48 t)for the 12 Mark 32 Mod 0 mounted 5" Mk12 DP guns I would assume that there would be well enough tonnage for some german DP-guns in 8 (?) or 10 (?) german double mounts left.
Therefore I would assume about the same (rather somewhat less) weight for armory on this alternate Panzerkreuzer as used by the Des Moins.

Machinery
Unfortunatly I don't have 'exact' numbers for esp. the Des Moines or Baltimore class reagrding its machinery weight. Therefore I have to rely on an estimation. I've once learned that in general machinery weight on cruisers could be estimated at 15-17 % of contruction weight. For our thought experiement 'calculated' on the Baltimore class (as the machinery was essentially the same for Des Moines) machinery weight can be estimated at about 2100 t. The Spee as the last of the Deutschlands had a machinery weight of 2251 t (1651 for the main machinery, its gears and shafts, 650 for the auxilleries to start and maintain airflow into the main engines, as well as some dynamos for electricity).
Now for some 'changes' let's assume the Diesel compoment of our alternative Panzerkreuzer is reduced to 'only' six instead 8 engines. With a dry weight of the single motors (~82 t) and auxillery motors (~44 t) we might have a machinery weight of about 1900 t including the two Vulcan gears that connected the 8 engines and the shafts but not the gears and connections between the 2 omitted main engines and the according auxillery.
The so resulting planned 37.500 shp would still be much more than enough to achieve a cruising speed of 20 kn likely more (the amount of needed shp for a given speed increases (almost ?) logarhythmic, therefore you need MUCH more horse power for accelerating from 25 to 30 kn than from 20 to 25 kn i.e.).
For a 'fighting situation' speed the course taken with the K-class might be assumed for our alternative Panzerkreuzer and so we might need a steam-turbine componet as well. And let us stay with the K class for assuming needs of weight calculating it the same way as done for the DesMoines we land at about 1000 t (given a construction weight of 'truly' about 6750 t) delivering 65.000 shp as planned and on trials regularly 68.000 shp +.
(The Diesel engine component came to the Ks as an afterthought delivering in toto about mere 1800 shp max. (still enough to enable a marching/cruising spee of 10 kn) and therefore didn't added too much to the overall machinery weight IMHO.)

In connecting the steam turbines with maybe an additional reduction gear maybe to the given Vulcan gears thereby reducing the weigth needed for the steam component (different, easier gear as only for top-speed necessary, no 'intermediate steam' turbine, reducing weight for auxillery power as delivered already from the forme Panzerkreizer components, no shafts, etc.) to about 750 t we land at :

1900 t + 750 t = 2650 t in toto​

for a max. output of 102.500 calculated, given the known overperforming of OTL we likely end with available 110.000 shp.​

That might not be enough for the for the DesMoines class claimed 33 kn but would be well enough for the by the OP asked for 30 kn. ... given the 'overperformance' of the Deutschland class in terms of speed (planned 26 kn, all reached 28 kn and above) despite their machineries initially not even living up to planned power output
most likely due to better than estimated hull form (which with the for 1939 planned bow elongation might have even more improved) IMHO a wee bit above 31 kn might also be achievable.
The weight difference of 550 t to the Des Moines' machinery as calculated above could easily be covered by choosing an armor strenght of 80 to 120 mm instead of 102 to 152 mm of Baltimore and DesMoins - at the time of conceiving the Deutschlands rendered sufficient (see Algérie class or York class).

... so much for the immutably needed minimum of 20.000 t.
17.500 would be more than needed.

At the time conceiving the Deutschland class a target covering salvo was calculated to have 6 rifles at least. The pre-dreads achieved this by fighting in numbers - with their companion 'in the line'.
Therefore a single ship needed 6 rifles at least.



upset ... That exactly was the political objective the building of the Deutschland class was aimed at from the moment Zenker decided for the overarmed cruiser type the Dautschland class was.
They were aimed at busting the Washington Treaty classes - therefore also the as much as possible calibre of 28 cm - to make them (esp. the 20.000 t cruisers everyxbody was so keely building) look outdated with its 'inbetween' ablities :

faster than anything better armed and better armed than anything faster.​

For the 'upset' ... the Deutschlands well achied this goal IMHO

It was hoped that to avoid further ships as the Deutschland class the western powers - esp. Great Britain - would include Germany into the Washington Treaty, allowing it a fleet at least in numbers and number of classes way from of anything resembling the ToV-fleet
... and thereby also lever out the military clauses of the ToV at all.
That aim was - as long as there was a Weimar Republik - missed. Once again the Hitler regime harvested the fruits sowed by Weimar.

The Deutschlands were as much a political 'weapon' - if not even mostly - as an operational pieces of equipment however good or bad they functioned as trade raiders or East-Prussia sealine-protector or ...
In 1932 Raeder - despite aming for other vessels already then - went ahead with the 3rd Deutschlnad-class (Graf Spee) being ordered with the words :

"When we start one or two of these rusty bucket again, we can still scrap them later."​

This is a great post, and I love what Raeder said at the end. Thank you!

 

[Kantai Kessen]

The 15cms on the Deutschlands were simple pedestal mounts, 25t each, the twin turret version was 108-120t, so you need to find 232-280 more tons to do that at a minimum. Using the lower velocity destroyer 15cm turret, you still need an extra 40 tons at a minimum

Surely I could save weight by taking off the TTs and only installing them in wartime? In return I would get a much more efficient secondary battery loadout.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Surely I could save weight by taking off the TTs and only installing them in wartime? In return I would get a much more efficient secondary battery loadout.

Not enough, torpedo tubes are fairly light, US 5 tube launchers of the period weighed 20 tons each, so removing the German 4 tube launchers probably isn't quite enough for the most optimistic of figures. Then you have to account for weight distribution issues, which will mean ballasting elsewhere and cost more weight. This goes double if you try superfiring mounts

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Not enough, torpedo tubes are fairly light, US 5 tube launchers of the period weighed 20 tons each, so removing the German 4 tube launchers probably isn't quite enough for the most optimistic of figures. Then you have to account for weight distribution issues, which will mean ballasting elsewhere and cost more weight. This goes double if you try superfiring mounts

Are we taking into account the fact that the Reichsmarine could just lie about the displacement?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Are we taking into account the fact that the Reichsmarine could just lie about the displacement?

Yes, but they did that OTL. You are going to either have to give something up to better arrange the secondary battery, armor, seaworthiness, stability, damage resistance, habitability etc., or have an even bigger ship and more blatant lying