AHC: Different Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe for Reichsmarine

[Kantai Kessen]

Alright, new post. Would it be possible for the Reichsmarine to build a 3 x 3 11" ship in 1929 with a standard displacement of 20,000-25,000 tons, stated officially to be 20,000 tons? The requirements are:

• A top speed of at least 29 knots (to keep pace with Emden at the minimum)
• Same range as on the Panzerschiffe (pick one). From Wikipedia:

Deutschland could carry up to 2,750 t (2,710 long tons) of fuel oil, which provided a maximum range of 17,400 nautical miles (32,200 km; 20,000 mi) at a speed of 13 knots (24 km/h; 15 mph). An increase in speed by one knot reduced the range slightly to 16,600 nmi (30,700 km; 19,100 mi). At a higher speed of 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph), the range fell to 10,000 nmi (19,000 km; 12,000 mi). Admiral Scheer carried 2,410 t (2,370 long tons) and had a correspondingly shorter range of 9,100 nmi (16,900 km; 10,500 mi) at 20 kn. Admiral Graf Spee stored 2,500 t (2,500 long tons) of fuel, which enabled a range of 8,900 nmi (16,500 km; 10,200 mi).

• Diesel engines using last 1920s tech.
• Full protection against 8" shellfire, according to German armour doctrine. DO NOT implement a full anti-capital ship scheme.
• Decent torpedo defence, for 1920s standards.
• No DP secondaries. The 5.9" anti-ship and AA guns must be distinct.
• No TTs allowed. None (good idea this).
• Minimum of two aircraft and aircraft storage.
• Flagship capabilities and space for upgrades

If anybody could Springsharp this, I would love to see it. Thank you!

 

[McPherson]

Not possible.

The Deutschlands, as they were IOTL, were pretty much the extreme edge of what was possible with the technology of the time , and they had nowhere near the capabilities listed.

Making a ship with that firepower, speed, range and armament on less than 15000tons empty was not really possible even in the 1940, so in the mid 1920 when the Panzershiffe were designed, no way.

As some other have said, to have what you want, you will need to design a 20000+ tons ship, and Germany trying to build that before 1930 would have caused immediate retaliation by France and Britain, and I don't mean them building heavy ships in answer, I mean invasion and occupation.

OTOH, building a long range heavy cruiser with 6-8 8" guns in 2 turrets, All or Nothing armor protecting only vitals, very long range, top speed 30kts and very high cruise speed (think a Suffren class with a different gun layout and better range) could have been an option, and would have been far less controversial. (I think such a ship would have been a very good long range commerce raider and would not have worried the French or Brits until too late, and so, overall a better option for Germany)

The Germans do not have a 20.3 cm gun before 1934.

Germany 20.3 cm/60 (8") SK C/34 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

The existing choices are:

Germany 21 cm/45 (8.27") SK L/45 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Germany 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

The desired parameters for a ship are 3,500 tonnes short of RTl practical. The best compromise is a 2 x 3 Dunkerque with 28 cm bore battery and thin armor and good speed.
The only DP gun of the era that can be developed in time is this:

Germany 8.8 cm/78 (3.46") SK C/31 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[thaddeus]

Alright, new post. Would it be possible for the Reichsmarine to build a 3 x 3 11" ship in 1929 with a standard displacement of 20,000-25,000 tons, stated officially to be 20,000 tons?

thought this was the reason D-Class cruisers/armored ships morphed into the Scharnhorst-Class, trying to add the third turret being the biggest issue, followed, in my understanding by add. armor over the Deutschland-Class?

 

[Kantai Kessen]

The Germans do not have a 20.3 cm gun before 1934.

Germany 20.3 cm/60 (8") SK C/34 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

The existing choices are:

Germany 21 cm/45 (8.27") SK L/45 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Germany 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

The desired parameters for a ship are 3,500 tonnes short of RTl practical. The best compromise is a 2 x 3 Dunkerque with 28 cm bore battery and thin armor and good speed.
The only DP gun of the era that can be developed in time is this:

Germany 8.8 cm/78 (3.46") SK C/31 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

And the king has arrived

I will say that that 21cm gun is WW1 vintage, used on just the Blücher, and so probably won't be selected anyway.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

thought this was the reason D-Class cruisers/armored ships morphed into the Scharnhorst-Class, trying to add the third turret being the biggest issue, followed, in my understanding by add. armor over the Deutschland-Class?

It was, but I don't want Scharnhorst-level armour. This is a Treaty cruiser-killer.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It was, but I don't want Scharnhorst-level armour. This is a Treaty cruiser-killer.

That's the idea behind the I class battlecruisers of WWI. Ships that like to go boom.

 

[marathag]

That's the idea behind the I class battlecruisers of WWI. Ships that like to go boom.

Poor flash protection.
Germans noticed this and changed after Dogger Bank when Seydlitz lost her rear turrets to 13.5" shellfire, saving the ship with a last second flooding of the magazine

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I've read that Invincible took a hit in the magazine rather than flash reaching it. As part of the Grand Fleet rather than Beatty's Battlecruiser force she'd have had to obey the ammunition handling regulations.

 

[Gudestein]

I guess the problem is the Germans made a capable design in OTL. It could outrun almost everything it couldn’t outgun (and those opponents were much bigger) and outgun all the British cruisers. It just couldn’t comfortably beat a pack of them.
improving on that could be speed to disengage or further power to beat a cruiser group comfortably. But you are asking for both. That is possible with multiple pods and a somewhat bigger ship or a lot bigger ship.
But when why not just make two of them and let them hunt together?

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I guess the problem is the Germans made a capable design in OTL. It could outrun almost everything it couldn’t outgun (and those opponents were much bigger) and outgun all the British cruisers. It just couldn’t comfortably beat a pack of them.
improving on that could be speed to disengage or further power to beat a cruiser group comfortably. But you are asking for both. That is possible with multiple pods and a somewhat bigger ship or a lot bigger ship.
But when why not just make two of them and let them hunt together?

Hence I refer you to post 41.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

That's the idea behind the I class battlecruisers of WWI. Ships that like to go boom.

That was when they were fighting enemy BCs. The ship I want here must NOT do that - that will be part of the captain's orders. If they see an enemy capital ship they are to run away.

Basically, I'm thinking of these ships (I'll just call them CBs because why not - Alaska and all) being a part of the Reichsmarine's Baltic strategy:

• The CBs slaughter enemy cruisers with impunity and force the Russian dreadnoughts to come out.
• The CLs lead TB flotillas and gun down destroyers on the approach to the dreadnoughts.
• The TBs kill the Russian dreadnoughts with torpedoes and screen the big ships after doing so.

RIP the Baltic Fleet, hopefully. As for the French, the CBs will serve a role similar to what the Panzerschiffe did IRL.

 

[thaddeus]

Alright, new post. Would it be possible for the Reichsmarine to build a 3 x 3 11" ship in 1929 with a standard displacement of 20,000-25,000 tons, stated officially to be 20,000 tons? The requirements are:

• A top speed of at least 29 knots (to keep pace with Emden at the minimum)
• Same range as on the Panzerschiffe (pick one). From Wikipedia:

• Diesel engines using last 1920s tech.
• Full protection against 8" shellfire, according to German armour doctrine. DO NOT implement a full anti-capital ship scheme.
• Decent torpedo defence, for 1920s standards.
• No DP secondaries. The 5.9" anti-ship and AA guns must be distinct.
• No TTs allowed. None (good idea this).
• Minimum of two aircraft and aircraft storage.
• Flagship capabilities and space for upgrades

thought this was the reason D-Class cruisers/armored ships morphed into the Scharnhorst-Class, trying to add the third turret being the biggest issue, followed, in my understanding by add. armor over the Deutschland-Class?

It was, but I don't want Scharnhorst-level armour. This is a Treaty cruiser-killer.

I guess the problem is the Germans made a capable design in OTL. It could outrun almost everything it couldn’t outgun (and those opponents were much bigger) and outgun all the British cruisers. It just couldn’t comfortably beat a pack of them.
improving on that could be speed to disengage or further power to beat a cruiser group comfortably. But you are asking for both. That is possible with multiple pods and a somewhat bigger ship or a lot bigger ship.
But when why not just make two of them and let them hunt together?

believe what is being described impossible?

think it would require steam engines, at least some hybrid arrangement or the ship grows (and grows), the beam is wider it has to be made longer, ad infinitum?

you are "waving away" what they considered historically, DP gun (albeit this was considered later) while requiring diesel engines and third turret?

 

[weasel_airlift]

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 would do a reverse Dunk because these are commerce raiders. The only time I really plan to use the 11 inch guns is when I'm running from something stronger than me. 15 cm are fine for plugging merchants. The layout would be rough to balance, I admit, but I have it thought out primarily as defensive.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

believe what is being described impossible?

think it would require steam engines, at least some hybrid arrangement or the ship grows (and grows), the beam is wider it has to be made longer, ad infinitum?

you are "waving away" what they considered historically, DP gun (albeit this was considered later) while requiring diesel engines and third turret?

Do you have evidence for the DP gun claim? The Germans never got aroudn to making one.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

I would do a reverse Dunk because these are commerce raiders. The only time I really plan to use the 11 inch guns is when I'm running from something stronger than me. 15 cm are fine for plugging merchants. The layout would be rough to balance, I admit, but I have it thought out primarily as defensive.

But the thing is, I don't want this to be ovious

 

[Sargon]

The only way to get anywhere near close to what the OP of this thread postulates are massive "fitted for, but not with" shenanigans.

So, you ship two triple 8" turrets, one forward one aft, but the rings can accommodate triple 11" in the future. The 8" turrets would look suspiciously small though as you're going to be designing a hull to take the larger turrets and the other stuff you won't be putting on until later.

Such as space allocated for embarking and stowing two floatplanes and a catapult (but not installed). 6x 5.9" single secondaries in light shields with two superfiring forward and aft and the other 4 on each beam (but like the main turrets with the ability to replace with heavier twin turret versions later on). A few light AA guns. Obviously a decent DP would be nice later on but no one's thinking much about that. No torpedo tubes, torpedoes or reloads carried, but space allocated for them. Armour only to protect from 6" fire, but installed in such a way to be fairly uncomplicated to be removed and replaced with that to protect against 8" fire later. Engines designed to go at 30 knots after everything is added, but faster without in the early design. Dodgy fuel and ballast setup to make it look like the thing is lower in the water than it should be for the early configuration so it doesn't look like it's supposed to have more stuff added later or something. As for the other stuff, ring-fence a suitable budget allowing for inflation and cost overruns and have it made later with better tech and kept ready for installation.

Even then it's almost impossible. You'll have a weird looking ship foreign observers are going to be wondering about and probably raising suspicions just why such an odd ship was built. And "uncomplicated to be removed" and "armour" are not terms that go together that well. Plus the political statement is lost as well, unless you want to get a laugh out of other countries about what a mess of a ship you've apparently built. But then I guess the builder will be hoping for the last laugh later.

Aye, probably not worth the effort and not happening.


Sargon

 

[Kantai Kessen]

The only way to get anywhere near close to what the OP of this thread postulates are massive "fitted for, but not with" shenanigans.

So, you ship two triple 8" turrets, one forward one aft, but the rings can accommodate triple 11" in the future. The 8" turrets would look suspiciously small though as you're going to be designing a hull to take the larger turrets and the other stuff you won't be putting on until later.

Such as space allocated for embarking and stowing two floatplanes and a catapult (but not installed). 6x 5.9" single secondaries in light shields with two superfiring forward and aft and the other 4 on each beam (but like the main turrets with the ability to replace with heavier twin turret versions later on. A few light AA guns. Obviously a decent DP would be nice later on but no one's thinking much about that. No torpedo tubes, torpedoes or reloads carried, but space allocated for them. Armour only to protect from 6" fire, but installed in such a way to be fairly uncomplicated to be removed and replaced with that to protect against 8" fire later. Engines designed to go at 30 knots after everything is added, but faster without in the early design. Dodgy fuel and ballast setup to make it look like the thing is lower in the water than it should be for the early configuration so it doesn't look like it's supposed to have more stuff added later or something. As for the other stuff, ring-fence a suitable budget allowing for inflation and cost overruns and have it made later with better tech and kept ready for installation.

Even then it's almost impossible. You'll have a weird looking ship foreign observers are going to be wondering about and probably raising suspicions just why such an odd ship was built. And "uncomplicated to be removed" and "armour" are not terms that go together that well. Plus the political statement is lost as well, unless you want to get a laugh out of other countries about what a mess of a ship you've apparently built. But then I guess the builder will be hoping for the last laugh later.

Aye, probably not worth the effort and not happening.


Sargon

Thanks for that. I reconsidered as a result, and my new request is in post 41.

Also, great seeing you here! Loved what you did with my girl Warspite in Hippodrome.

 

[1Big Rich]

Kantai,

When Warship Projects 3.0 was active, our member Jefgte posted several panzarschiffe alternative models he scratchbuilt in our Never-were Models forum.
Warship Projects no longer exists (it was hacked and destroyed) but I recently found Jef had also posted on The Ship Model Forum. I cannot view his images on those threads, but if you are interested, you can get some idea of his alternate panzarschiffe ideas from these threads:

The Ship Model Forum • View topic - 1/700 Panzerschiffes Study 2 ,6 & 8

The Ship Model Forum • View topic - 1/700 Pocket Battleships Study 14 & 15

He included a spring sharp sim of his Study 5 in this thread

The Ship Model Forum • View topic - What-if Deutschland WW2 Panzerschiffe

Regards,

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I've read that Invincible took a hit in the magazine rather than flash reaching it. As part of the Grand Fleet rather than Beatty's Battlecruiser force she'd have had to obey the ammunition handling regulations.

Latest thoughts on the loss of the [sadly neglected] Indefatigable is that the first, fatal hits penetrated the rear deck and hit a magazine, blowing the bottom out of the hull, removing the stern and generating a blast wave that probably killed everyone on board (with a couple of exceptions). As no hits were observed on the rear turret a magazine penetration seems more likely. The coup-de-grace hits on A turret probably did set off a flash explosion, but Indefatigable was already observed to be sinking by the stern, and there probably weren't many left alive at that stage to be immolated.

 

[thaddeus]

you are "waving away" what they considered historically, DP gun (albeit this was considered later) while requiring diesel engines and third turret?

Do you have evidence for the DP gun claim? The Germans never got aroudn to making one.

"The navy considered more elaborate refits (up to fourteen 5in DP replacing the 5.9in and 4.1in guns, an enlarged hull--adding 700+ tons--to gain two knots and correct deficient sea-keeping), but as with most such plans in Germany, no work took place." Fleets of World War II by Worth

argue with the author as to whether their 5in gun was a true DP weapon