This is amazing. Thank you so much! This thing should slaughter any 8" cruisers and will require the British to deploy battlecruisers to kill it. Just as planned!
AHC: Different Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe for Reichsmarine
- Thread starter Kantai Kessen
- Start date
Perhaps if they just stuck with diesels after the Panzerschiffe instead of trying high-pressure steam propulsion, which was horrible on the Hippers and problematic on the Scharnhorsts, they could have had a far better and more available raiding fleet at the expense of 1-2 knots of speed?
The 'actual' purpose is to kill the cruisers of the Russian Baltic Fleet/French Atlantic Fleet so that the light cruisers and torpedo boats can slip through the screen and kill the battleships.
The 'foreign POV' purpose is, obviously, to raid overseas - which will freak the British/French out.
Think even scarier Deutschlands that can actually do their job.
Historical context - 20,000 ton design
What I'm thinking about when I ask for a 20,000 design is the following:
- The Treaty of Versailles gets negotiated differently. Instead of six 10,000 ton ships with two in reserve, Germany is allowed three 20,000 ton ships with one in reserve. This is so that the Reichsmarine may have more of a counter to the Russian Ganguts, which nobody likes because hey, they're communist.
- As a result, in the post-war environment Germany gets to keep Nassau, Westfalen and Posen (Rheinland got badly damaged in 1918 and so will not be around). The rest of the fleet is unchanged.
- All these girls were laid down in 1907, so assuming a 20-year-delay on replacement, the replacements should start construction in 1927, which is around when designs for the OTL Panzerschiffe were being finalised.
- The overall objective for the new ships is the same as OTL. It's just that they will be far, far better at the job.
- Due to economic constraints, in the 1929-1932 period, where Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee were laid down, only two of these CBs are laid down - one at Wilhelmshaven, one at Kiel. Let's just call them Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
- A similar reaction is caused in Britain and France to what happened IOTL.
- After Hitler comes to power, the Kriegsmarine decides to build the two remaining ships they are allowed. The Allies are not down with this - they won't have enough fast capital ships to contain them AND the Italian and Japanese navies at the same time. In a similar logic to the OTL Anglo-German Naval Agreement, Germany is allowed 35% of Britain's capital ship tonnage, i.e 183,750 tons standard, so that they stop building such freakish vessels.
- The two CBs deducted, this leaves 143,750 tons - enough to build four 35,000 ton battleships instead of the two OTL Scharnhorsts and two OTL Bismarcks. So basically, we can get four Bismarcks with some give or take (perhaps not putting resources into the Graf Zeppelins and making the Hippers a less ambitious design). Construction on these starts in 1935-1936.
- A side effect is probably that HMS Tiger gets to be kept by the British come the LNT, which in turn means that the USA gets to keep USS Wyoming in active service, and Japan keeps the Hiei in active service. I don't know how the French/Italians may be affected by the Treaty.
- The pre-war RN modernisations focus on the fast capital ships to counter the German vessels.
- Thus, although Barham is refitted 1931-1934 as IOTL, Repulse's OTL 1933-1936 refit is now a full rebuild, and instead of Warspite, Renown is rebuilt in 1934-1937 along the same lines.
- Once Repulse and Renown come out, Hood, Tiger and Warspite are rebuilt in the 1936/1937 building cycles. Hood gets the full rebuild we all love (http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm - see the Renown-style builds) - Tiger gets new 14" guns and is massively overhauled, making her a match for the Twins - Warspite gets something like what Valiant had IRL. This takes the place of the OTL rebuilds of Renown, Valiant and Queen Elizabeth.
- This should put the RN's fast line in a much better place come WW2, although the slow battleships aren't in such a good shape - only Warspite has got a full rebuild. Additionally, I think it likely that Hood will end up like Queen Elizabeth and have a delayed rebuild, meaning she doesn't enter service until January/February 1941 (she is a big girl after all). The Tiger rebuild may also delay the KGVs but about this I am less sure.
thaddeus
Donor
they planned a whole class of minelayers (approx. 6,000t) that they could have built in the interim with diesel power, where they were not mounting large caliber guns and the absolute top speed would not have been so critical? (akin to the British Adventure)
they also had the historical Dithmarschen-class of diesel powered tanker/supply ships they could have used as test-bed for (any) experimental diesel engines (they could have probably been modified to handle seaplanes also?)
This is actually quite reasonable. The Nassaus weren't great ships, so they aren't threatening to the RN, and it is more of a deterrent to the USSR. There seemed to be some sort of idea of using Germany as a shield against the USSR while paring them down. For replacements, we can do much better on 20k, closer to what you want. Honestly on 20k, I'd make a solid attempt at 8x 28 cm guns.
Naturally. More so, with them being larger.
I'd say more give then take. The allies will probably be looking a lot closer. That said, there's now at least some experience with large(ish) vessels. Giving up a little armament, I'm sure you could get quite an acceptable vessel with 8 35 cm guns that runs in the neighborhood of 30 knots. Diesel (Experience) might be possible. If one of the Nassaus is tested to destruction, a better armor scheme isn't out of the question either. So while I'd say that cheating is still on the table, I wouldn't go so much. Maybe 40k tons.
Scharnhorst, Germany Cruiser laid down 1930
Displacement:
15,756 t light; 16,591 t standard; 20,000 t normal; 22,727 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
650.00 ft / 650.00 ft x 69.00 ft x 28.00 ft (normal load)
198.12 m / 198.12 m x 21.03 m x 8.53 m
Armament:
8 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (4x2 guns), 665.50lbs / 301.87kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1930 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
12 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (6x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,436 lbs / 3,373 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 9.67 ft / 2.95 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 150.00 ft / 45.72 m 9.67 ft / 2.95 m
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 118 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 24.90 ft / 7.59 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 99,295 shp / 74,074 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,137 tons
Complement:
840 - 1,093
Cost:
£7.333 million / $29.331 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 930 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 4,646 tons, 23.2 %
- Belts: 1,586 tons, 7.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 921 tons, 4.6 %
- Armament: 877 tons, 4.4 %
- Armour Deck: 1,166 tons, 5.8 %
- Conning Tower: 95 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 3,009 tons, 15.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,071 tons, 35.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,244 tons, 21.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25,178 lbs / 11,421 Kg = 37.8 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 3.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.98
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.557
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Mid (50 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m (17.15 ft / 5.23 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.15 ft / 5.23 m
- Stern: 17.15 ft / 5.23 m
- Average freeboard: 22.58 ft / 6.88 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 119.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.8 %
Waterplane Area: 31,519 Square feet or 2,928 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs/sq ft or 662 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.52
- Overall: 0.99
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
How does that look for your cruiser? I know it needs more anti-air, but that can be added and wasn't greatly appreciated at this time.
Last edited:
Kantai,
You might find this thread interesting
NavWeaps Forums-Alternate Versailles ScenariosLooking for designs
Im looking for design ideas in an alternate version of the Versailles Treaty/post-Great War Germany. I have a few different scenarios, so too keep t
Some of the designs' texts were corrupted by the move from Yuku to Tapatalk, so you might have to read around the gibberish.
The scenario for my 'alternate-Versailles' revolves around a 'what if' stalemate in the Russian civil war. The Whites control southern Russia, Ukraine, the Black Sea states , also including the Turkic states east of the Caspian, while the Reds control most of Russia. The Red conflicts with Poland and the Finns has the western allies concerned the next spot to export the revolution might be Germany, so Versailles is less harsh. The three E. Yorcks are completed for France as reparations (with French 13.4in guns), while the US has provided low-interest loans to keep some industries going, including ship yards, to minimize the number of unemployed workers who might otherwise be willing to listen to talk of revolution.
The various scenarios in the link were used to gather options of what folks on the NavWeaps Design board thought would be possible in different treaty environments.
Regards,
Last edited:
Hello - thanks for the comment!
The cruiser looks great, but if we're allowed 20,000 ton replacements - there was one such design earlier in this thread, a 3x3 28cm ship that could do 29 knots on diesels, had Panzerschiffe range, and was fully protected against 8" and potentially up to 10" shellfire. Why don't you have a look at that?
But thanks for the design anyway! Hell this thing displaces about the same as a Hipper and is so, so much better.
Now that looks fascinating. I'll have a look!Kantai,
You might find this thread interesting
NavWeaps Forums-Alternate Versailles ScenariosLooking for designs
Im looking for design ideas in an alternate version of the Versailles Treaty/post-Great War Germany. I have a few different scenarios, so too keep twww.tapatalk.com
Some of the designs' texts were corrupted by the move from Yuku to Tapatalk, so you might have to read around the gibberish.
The scenario for my 'alternate-Versailles' revolves around a 'what if' stalemate in the Russian civil war. The Whites control southern Russia, Ukraine, the Black Sea states , also including the Turkic states east of the Caspian, while the Reds control most of Russia. The Red conflicts with Poland and the Finns has the western allies concerned the next spot to export the revolution might be Germany, so Versailles is less harsh. The three E. Yorcks are completed for France as reparations (with French 13.4in guns), while the US has provided low-interest loans to keep some industries going, including ship yards, to minimize the number of unemployed workers who might otherwise be willing to listen to talk of revolution.
The various scenarios in the link were used to gather option of what folks on the NavWeaps Design board thought would be possible in different treaty environments.
Regards,
McPherson
Banned
1. The rule of thumb is if the hull strength is below unity, in the Springsharp simulator, then the ship is "unacceptable" and unseaworthy.
is the red flag on this condition.
2. There are several strategies to deal with this problem.:
a. cut speed by a knot or two.
b. thin the armor.
c. adjust the hull block coeffecient.
d. select a lighter (more modern) or different more lightweight propulsion system (turbines instead of diesels.)
e. Reduce the armament to a less top-weight intensive type. (10 inch guns instead of 11 inch guns for example.)
3. As for the cramped machinery spaces, the only cure for that is to change the B/L/D ratios to increase internal hull volume. I usually try to increase beam first to see if that helps. The downside is that you may add 2,000-3,000 tonnes standard displacement to get the volumes, speeds and block coefficients desired. Springsharp is NOT perfect, but it is a good off the shelf teaching tool as to what compromises a shipwright faces when he tries to create a viable vessel in the period of 1890 to 1950.
McPherson
Banned
In my field of knowledge that would be this horror show;
Credit in photo, retrieved from here: 水雷艇『千鳥型』 Chidori class Torpedo Boat : MONOCHROME SPECTER
HIJMS Tomozuru... turned turtle and was towed in as a lesson learned in how not to build a ship. 100 men DIED because some slide rule fools deliberately miscalculated the float reserve and hull block coefficients wrong in an attempt to treaty cheat and fashion on 660 tonnes what should have taken about 900 tonnes.
KMS Koenigsberg had thin deck armor and was poorly compartmented. AFAIK, the Skuas that got her bounced her when her crew were at stand-down and they never put up an effective AAA defense. She was Tirpitzed by three 227 kg SAPPYs, one which punched through the whole ship and dudded below the keel. I do not know if she was subject to the same frail hull syndrome as the Tomozuru. She apparently stayed afloat long enough (~ 3 hours), for her crew to abandon with minimal casualties. Maybe 20 killed out of ~ 500 crew?
Oh lord, it's the Tomozuru. Whenever I see her I feel a violent urge to wash my eyes. Jesus what a crap design.In my field of knowledge that would be this horror show;
Credit in photo, retrieved from here: 水雷艇『千鳥型』 Chidori class Torpedo Boat : MONOCHROME SPECTER
HIJMS Tomozuru... turned turtle and was towed in as a lesson learned in how not to build a ship. 100 men DIED because some slide rule fools deliberately miscalculated the float reserve and hull block coefficients wrong in an attempt to treaty cheat and fashion on 660 tonnes what should have taken about 900 tonnes.
KMS Koenigsberg had thin deck armor and was poorly compartmented. AFAIK, the Skuas that got her bounced her when her crew were at stand-down and they never put up an effective AAA defense. She was Tirpitzed by three 227 kg SAPPYs, one which punched through the whole ship and dudded below the keel. I do not know if she was subject to the same frail hull syndrome as the Tomozuru. She apparently stayed afloat long enough (~ 3 hours), for her crew to abandon with minimal casualties. Maybe 20 killed out of ~ 500 crew?
As for Königsberg - well she was at anchor in harbour, so that helped. She wasn't underway. In any case her length to beam ratio is enough to give me nightmares.
Yes, I made a mistake and missed that.
Scharnhorst, Germany Cruiser laid down 1930
Displacement:
15,759 t light; 16,593 t standard; 20,000 t normal; 22,725 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
650.00 ft / 650.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 28.00 ft (normal load)
198.12 m / 198.12 m x 21.34 m x 8.53 m
Armament:
8 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (4x2 guns), 665.50lbs / 301.87kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1930 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
12 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (6x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,436 lbs / 3,373 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 9.67 ft / 2.95 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 150.00 ft / 45.72 m 9.67 ft / 2.95 m
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 118 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.80" / 46 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 24.90 ft / 7.59 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 1.80" / 46 mm, Conning tower: 5.00" / 127 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 99,167 shp / 73,979 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,132 tons
Complement:
840 - 1,093
Cost:
£7.331 million / $29.324 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 930 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 4,429 tons, 22.1 %
- Belts: 1,586 tons, 7.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 829 tons, 4.1 %
- Armament: 877 tons, 4.4 %
- Armour Deck: 1,057 tons, 5.3 %
- Conning Tower: 79 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,005 tons, 15.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,295 tons, 36.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,241 tons, 21.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25,591 lbs / 11,608 Kg = 38.5 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 3.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.93
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.549
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.29 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Mid (50 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m (17.15 ft / 5.23 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.15 ft / 5.23 m
- Stern: 17.15 ft / 5.23 m
- Average freeboard: 22.58 ft / 6.88 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 118.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 145.0 %
Waterplane Area: 31,738 Square feet or 2,949 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 140 lbs/sq ft or 682 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.57
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Has that functionality been implemented on springsharp now? I have springsharp 3.0 and the sliders are there for lightweight/heavyweight propulsion but they don't do anything.
McPherson
Banned
The slider has nothing to do with engine mass, but with workload throughput. It gives the % chance of breakdown under maximum torque load.
I'd say the side effect is that Tiger isn't only retained but gets to be replaced effectively ending the Battleship Holiday.
Sinking merchant ships at sea was usually done with either boarding parties or 37 mm AA guns, which could penetrate the hull along the waterline at normal ranges. A few dozen punctures along the length of the waterline wouldn't be an issue for a warship with damage control crews, but could easily sink an unmanned merchant.