AHC: improved Deutschland-class cruisers.

if one looks here: and here: one gets a better idea of what I discuss.

505 was a IXC class, way different from VIIA, anf far more crowded than either. More capable, though far behind a Gato

IXC 1939
1120 tons displaced surfaced
Length: 251'
Beam: 22'3"
4300HP 18.2 knots surfaced, 7.3 knots submerged 750 ft max depth
four forward tubes, two stern. 22 carried
105mmL45 deck gun
13,400 nmi at 10kn
52 crew
 
Not so well in the Liberty ships either.

Not arguing against it, but these are instructive; expensive, took years and wasted scarce resources. Module ships also have unforeseen outcomes. The US tried something like it with her WW II oil tanker to CV conversions (insert a spacer to lengthen the T-3 hull; no tank testing?) and screwed up the pitch moment to coincide with the crest trough moment of a Pacific swell. Not too good for carrier ops.
I get your point, The unknown beeing were a shipped designed for an extra module would fit in. Not as the Italian example, but in principle as a Liberty ship- that ship probably beeing the first of the class however.
I did play with it in shipshard and it is quite difficult to make the 3x3 11 inch Work under any circumstances on 12000 tons, so it would a best be a faster, better armored 2x3 11 inch type.
 
505 was a IXC class, way different from VIIA, anf far more crowded than either. More capable, though far behind a Gato

IXC 1939
1120 tons displaced surfaced
Length: 251'
Beam: 22'3"
4300HP 18.2 knots surfaced, 7.3 knots submerged 750 ft max depth
four forward tubes, two stern. 22 carried
105mmL45 deck gun
13,400 nmi at 10kn
52 crew

I'm familiar with the Chicago example of a Type IX. I'm not so familiar with this:


but the point still remains?
 
Last edited:
But as I pointed out, much of the new KM was 20 years out of date, new on the launching slips. Besides the Battleships, Graf Zeppelin was filled with design flaws that the USN, IJN and RN had discovered in the '20s

Other than Operating Depth, the VII class U-Boats were hardly as good as the US WWI era S-Boats
But as I pointed out, their knowledge would be not just 20 years out of date, but rusty. It's not realistic to call up a cohort of middle-aged and elderly men, give them the same jobs, rank, and assignments as they had 20 years ago and expect them to work at the same efficiency on day one. You need a couple of months at a minimum, more likely a year or two, before everyone settles in.
 
The point of the Versailles Treaty limitations was to hobble the Germans for a generation, an effect that we cannot dispel. And I think the lessons from WWI naval warfare are not so cut and dry either. The Germans had to re-learn a lot, in addition to rebuild, the reality was that for something as complex as a Blue-water Navy to be reborn is not unforgivable as to its failings here, it is Hitler's rush to war that tripped him. Thus these ships are more about learning than we might suspect. The discussion herein demonstrates how Germany needs a capability to affect a blockade of British and French sea lines to the West of the British Isles. That can only be done with a far better long-range submarine, but even that needs better reconnaissance and a better mastery of modern signals warfare. I am grateful to the insights gained here when I try to ponder an Imperial Navy not hobbled by Treaty but more prosaic things like budget, inertia and bias. I wonder if that Navy might build a similar purposeful commerce raider or pursue a true submarine. I can see why the British hated this style warship, it had the potential to put the commerce war just this side of Germany's favor. And I want to believe the Germans pursue a better auxiliary cruiser and fleet oiler. Now I need to consider how the Germans pursue some solution to the fast at sea sea plane tender or develop a light carrier solution.
 
@hx87 Yep, that was one of the mayor "bottlenecks" of the K-department IOTL.


Yeap I gather that's why the 37mm flak was such a m


Thought experiment.



Step 1. for heavy ships.

Step 2. for FACs and torpedo boats.

Step 3. Engines for FACs.

Step 4. Engines for large warships.



Brief discussion.

The idea of unit machinery lends itself to certain interesting marine engineering solutions. My own thoughts on this subject here are heavily influenced by American turbo-electric machinery of the 1920s, but read me out. Consider a baseline 5000 kW diesel/electric generator set. that is about ideal for a submarine if one can build it. The same motor/generator set can be ganged up in a configuration to supply power to surface ship electric motor final drives. No backing engines. No specialized turbine sets for destroyers, cruisers, or battleships. Specialized electric motor final drives per shaft (4,700 kW, 9,400 kW, 18,800kW) but one gets the point? Downside is that all these power plants arrangements (1 motor/generator final drive, 2 motor/generator/final drive, 3 motor/generator/final drive,) can result in diesel powered cruisers and battleships as well as subs. All of these types will be noisy. The three classes should be long-ranged and most definitely (except for subs) fuel economical.



If we are after cruiser/raiders then we are in disagreement. The sustained speed in a seaway is critical. Armament is also a disagreement. C-28 guns with a long-rod ACR base fuse shell designed is acceptable, but 4x2 is my preferred. (See above previous for why.). Torpedo battery, given the time period is also problematic. The torpedoes available to the KM are worse than the US Mark 11s!
Based on tech, no more than a pair of quad H-8s and that more for psychology than for effectiveness. Armor is either all or nothing. 20 cm belt will be swiss cheesed by contemporary US or UK 8 inch guns at effective battle ranges (4-15 km), so nothing. Put the tonnage into sustained speed. I agree with a 8 cm deck. Bombs and plunging shells have to be stopped so the raider has a chance to flee. A turtle deck (protected cruiser) scheme may be appropriate.



That works out to 35,000 tonnes. Better opt for 38 cm/45 (14.96") SK L/45 (3x2/3 twin mounts). These are known quantities and Krupp knows how to build them in 1927. NO TORPEDOES! More Flak. See my comments above; especially about Wurzburg organs and 10.5 cm twins. Germany can build 4 or maybe 5 before 1940. No more than these. Not enough slips, not enough time, not enough resources.

Can't accept any of this. The further you deviate from the historical track the more unlikely things will even work , let alone workout the way you imagine. Best approach is to change as little as possible & just tweaking only were you have too. The basic German fuel supply is unlikely to increase but you can produce different types, like less bunker fuel for more diesel fuel or AVGAS etc. If coastal fleet is built around coal powered steam vessels [ like WW-I MBOOT 1914] not only does this free up 1/3 million tons of diesel fuel per year, but they can also be mass produced through the historical SBOOT - RBOOT shipyards .

Mean while the thousand MFP/MNL etc vessels can instead build coal powered patrol vessels, like the WW-I Max Kochan. This frees up the marine diesel industry- to instead build a much smaller number of larger diesels [ few 6000hp diesels vs many diesels 1250-2500hp] . Enough to equip over a dozen fast Pocket battle cruisers, because you can't build any larger warships until the late 1930s.

The KM plan for war exploited prewar spy penetration of allied naval/merchant codes to provide ocean wide surveillance of allied communications. They knew if it worked they could track allied shipping tracking even naval traffic. Remarkably this worked well enough through 1943, so they were able to map out allied shipping routs by 1941 and detected 1/2 of all allied convoys until 1944. The hard part was to then locate & attack these detected convoys. Ocean was huge [15 million nm^2] and almost impossible to find any convoys let alone attack it.

Even with the U-Boat building spree, they never had enough groups to sweep/locate and attack the convoys until mid war. If they had enough long rang patrol aircraft- they could be dispatched to locate detected convoys and broadcasting its location to waiting wolf packs. KM needed a number of large fast surface raider's to attack and breakup convoy flow- in order to disrupt flow of resources to the UK and slow down the allied war effort. It turns out that a pair of radar equipped surface raider @ 20 knots can sweep as much sea in a day as a wolf pack can.

Not only that the only guns you can build are the 11"C28 or 6"L60 guns , because anything else will not even be available until 1938/40....too late. This gun industry could bulk produce maybe 65-70 * 11" guns by 1939 plus the 6 III turrets on the Deutschland class there is more than enough for these 13 PBC. In addition to the above there would be the 11 larger warships also laid down during this period. These would be patterned on the Pzschiffe 1934 D3c design and would be 27,000 tons INCLUDING the 6000t armor tonnage.

To get them finished by 1941/42 , they need over half by the end of 1939. There are no big guns to equip such ships until the early 1940s, so in the short term the 18 * 12"SKL50 guns have be use with the remaining ships each armed with 3 III 11" C28 gun turrets.. For the Pzschiffe 1934 D3c 13" guns , the tonnage would have to come initially from the 11 army prewar 11" K-5 production , and enough can be scrapped up from the historical naval gun industry to build enough 13" guns by 1941. In all these PBC/Pzschiffe designs the torpedoes would be mandatory to sink MV since far too much shells are needed to sink any vessel even a simple MV. The main gun battery are for main enemy heavy ships and the secondary flak for air defence.

BTW BRITISH 8" gun can only penetrate 7" at less than 12,000 yards.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Britain.htm
 
Last edited:
Can't accept any of this. The further you deviate from the historical track the more unlikely things will even work , let alone workout the way you imagine. Best approach is to change as little as possible & just tweaking only were you have too. The basic German fuel supply is unlikely to increase but you can produce different types, like less bunker fuel for more diesel fuel or AVGAS etc. If coastal fleet is built around coal powered steam vessels [ like WW-I MBOOT 1914] not only does this free up 1/3 million tons of diesel fuel per year, but they can also be mass produced through the historical SBOOT - RBOOT shipyards .

1. The main German bottleneck to industrial warfare in all forms is POL. No petroleum products. However, Germany has hydroelectric reserve potential and coal. How does one convert that potential into useable seapower? Germany is going the synthetic oil route anyway, might as well take advantage of historic trends by more emphasis on that historical probity, earlier.

2. Coal powered (actually steam turbine coal fired vessels) are intensely man-power wasteful, take forever to warmup to operating parameters (poor for quick reaction forces) and register a heat bloom and funnel smoke that is hard to mask. Diesels have their problems, (noise, but can be muffled) but can be warmed up quickly, are fuel economical and mated to electric final drives, very efficient over the speed range. Besides the Germans by the late 20s know how to build them well. My only reason for the gas turbine engines for the FACs is that the Germans know how to build these engines as well, and I don't want to waste coal liquefaction byproduct as the Germans did in the OTL.

That would be 300,800,000 liters of natural gas or about 600,000 tonnes wquivalent of POL product. There is your Luftwaffe and at least 4 Panzer divisions.

Mean while the thousand MFP/MNL etc vessels can instead build coal powered patrol vessels, like the WW-I Max Kochan. This frees up the marine diesel industry- to instead build a much smaller number of larger diesels [ few 6000hp diesels vs many diesels 1250-2500hp] . Enough to equip over a dozen fast Pocket battle cruisers, because you can't build any larger warships until the late 1930s.

Or you could have seaplanes and coastal minesweepers powered by DB 501a and DB 620 diesels at one end and use the 5000 kW marine power eggs at the other end to rationalize a brown water navy program. I prefer gas turbines for the short ranged stuff, but I could even live with the diesel schnellboots provided that it is synthetic heacy oil instead of coal-fired propulsion.

The KM plan for war exploited prewar spy penetration of allied naval/merchant codes to provide ocean wide surveillance of allied communications. They knew if it worked they could track allied shipping tracking even naval traffic. Remarkably this worked well enough through 1943, so they were able to map out allied shipping routs by 1941 and detected 1/2 of all allied convoys until 1944. The hard part was to then locate & attack these detected convoys. Ocean was huge [15 million nm^2] and almost impossible to find any convoys let alone attack it.

Getting into elint takes us away from the hardware discussion, but let me say this about it. The Germans never allotted enough attention as to how to gather radio-intelligence in wartime. Having agents in the European neutrals and sympathetic South American regimes bleed across English merchant marine codes was a starter, but once war breaks out the information will break down as codes change and convoy discipline kicks in. The Germans had a HUFFDUFF (RDF) platform of their own they never used with efficiency. That would be ye-olde U-boat. Stick an antenna up and listen. Do the old triangulate and locate; report, and clear datum immediately. The US tried something like this in the Pacific. It was spotty and often too late, but it was better than nothing, because merchant mariners love that radio and cannot keep off it.

Even with the U-Boat building spree, they never had enough groups to sweep/locate and attack the convoys until mid war. If they had enough long rang patrol aircraft- they could be dispatched to locate detected convoys and broadcasting its location to waiting wolf packs. KM needed a number of large fast surface raider's to attack and breakup convoy flow- in order to disrupt flow of resources to the UK and slow down the allied war effort. It turns out that a pair of radar equipped surface raider @ 20 knots can sweep as much sea in a day as a wolf pack can.

Surface raiders meet US light or UK medium cruisers and destroyers SAG. Life expectancy of KM ship is mere minutes. Better torpedoes and air scouting support helps multiply allied torpedo/gun power here. The Germans need to think about that factor when convoy kicks in.

Not only that the only guns you can build are the 11"C28 or 6"L60 guns , because anything else will not even be available until 1938/40....too late. This gun industry could bulk produce maybe 65-70 * 11" guns by 1939 plus the 6 III turrets on the Deutschland class there is more than enough for these 13 PBC. In addition to the above there would be the 11 larger warships also laid down during this period. These would be patterned on the Pzschiffe 1934 D3c design and would be 27,000 tons INCLUDING the 6000t armor tonnage.

Read what the British research determined about the German 38 cm, 42.4 caliber Naval gun. The foundry and milling capacity and the knowledge base for this type ordnance remains in German inventory (as do spare barrels). Otherwise Krupp could not build the "refined" 38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 so quickly when the Bismarks are authorized.

As to the ersatz Ersatz Elsass and Ersatz Hessen, these designs could not be stretched efficiently to obtain your desired results. What you propose is something akin to Raeder's idea of a pair of triple turreted Lutzows. I still maintain that building these types of armored cruisers is a mistake. Either build to a 15,000 tonne fast raider pattern or go all in and build the true battleships.

To get them finished by 1941/42 , they need over half by the end of 1939. There are no big guns to equip such ships until the early 1940s, so in the short term the 18 * 12"SKL50 guns have be use with the remaining ships each armed with 3 III 11" C28 gun turrets.. For the Pzschiffe 1934 D3c 13" guns , the tonnage would have to come initially from the 11 army prewar 11" K-5 production , and enough can be scrapped up from the historical naval gun industry to build enough 13" guns by 1941. In all these PBC/Pzschiffe designs the torpedoes would be mandatory to sink MV since far too much shells are needed to sink any vessel even a simple MV. The main gun battery are for main enemy heavy ships and the secondary flak for air defence.

--Not enough slips.
--Not enough cold rolling armor plate machinery (Expect US capacity here? Not even the US has that much cold rolling machinery. Maybe the UK. The US has to build the mills for the North Carolinas and South Dakotas and use some left over WW I plate to finish the emergency 1937 program.)
--30.5 cm/50 (12") SK L/50 is a good choice, but why would these not be a violation of your own argument against the 38 cm, 42.4 caliber Naval gun?

BTW BRITISH 8" gun can only penetrate 7" at less than 12,000 yards.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Britain.htm

British data is for SAPI against British plate. US armor PP data also says 6.7 inches. Our plate is better than Britain's? German plate is 8 inches PP. So I am naturally suspicious? And what about armor piercing capped shells? The British had them.
 
Last edited:
1. The main German bottleneck to industrial warfare in all forms is POL. No petroleum products. However, Germany has hydroelectric reserve potential and coal. How does one convert that potential into useable seapower? Germany is going the synthetic oil route anyway, might as well take advantage of historic trends by more emphasis on that historical probity, earlier.

2. Coal powered (actually steam turbine coal fired vessels) are intensely man-power wasteful, take forever to warmup to operating parameters (poor for quick reaction forces) and register a heat bloom and funnel smoke that is hard to mask. Diesels have their problems, (noise, but can be muffled) but can be warmed up quickly, are fuel economical and mated to electric final drives, very efficient over the speed range. Besides the Germans by the late 20s know how to build them well. My only reason for the gas turbine engines for the FACs is that the Germans know how to build these engines as well, and I don't want to waste coal liquefaction byproduct as the Germans did in the OTL.

That would be 300,800,000 liters of natural gas or about 600,000 tonnes wquivalent of POL product. There is your Luftwaffe and at least 4 Panzer divisions.



Or you could have seaplanes and coastal minesweepers powered by DB 501a and DB 620 diesels at one end and use the 5000 kW marine power eggs at the other end to rationalize a brown water navy program. I prefer gas turbines for the short ranged stuff, but I could even live with the diesel schnellboots provided that it is synthetic heacy oil instead of coal-fired propulsion.



Getting into elint takes us away from the hardware discussion, but let me say this about it. The Germans never allotted enough attention as to how to gather radio-intelligence in wartime. Having agents in the European neutrals and sympathetic South American regimes bleed across English merchant marine codes was a starter, but once war breaks out the information will break down as codes change and convoy discipline kicks in. The Germans had a HUFFDUFF (RDF) platform of their own they never used with efficiency. That would be ye-olde U-boat. Stick an antenna up and listen. Do the old triangulate and locate; report, and clear datum immediately. The US tried something like this in the Pacific. It was spotty and often too late, but it was better than nothing, because merchant mariners love that radio and cannot keep off it.



Surface raiders meet US light or UK medium cruisers and destroyers SAG. Life expectancy of KM ship is mere minutes. Better torpedoes and air scouting support helps multiply allied torpedo/gun power here. The Germans need to think about that factor when convoy kicks in.



Read what the British research determined about the German 38 cm, 42.4 caliber Naval gun. The foundry and milling capacity and the knowledge base for this type ordnance remains in German inventory (as do spare barrels). Otherwise Krupp could not build the "refined" 38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 so quickly when the Bismarks are authorized.

As to the ersatz Ersatz Elsass and Ersatz Hessen, these designs could not be stretched efficiently to obtain your desired results. What you propose is something akin to Raeder's idea of a pair of triple turreted Lutzows. I still maintain that building these types of armored cruisers is a mistake. Either build to a 15,000 tonne fast raider pattern or go all in and build the true battleships.



--Not enough slips.
--Not enough cold rolling armor plate machinery (Expect US capacity here? Not even the US has that much cold rolling machinery. Maybe the UK. The US has to build the mills for the North Carolinas and South Dakotas and use some left over WW I plate to finish the emergency 1937 program.)
--30.5 cm/50 (12") SK L/50 is a good choice, but why would these not be a violation of your own argument against the 38 cm, 42.4 caliber Naval gun?



British data is for SAPI against British plate. US armor PP data also says 6.7 inches. Our plate is better than Britain's? German plate is 8 inches PP. So I am naturally suspicious? And what about armor piercing capped shells? The British had them.


Hitler demanded 110,000 tons armored steel in the WESTWALL , which was finished in 1940. Those plates consumed 2600 tons of Nickel and a similar amount of Chrome.That was 3 times the amount in the PANZER forces upto 1940 and almost as much Krupp armored steel as had been invested in the KM warships built from 1934-1940. As a matter of interest, that's enough nickel /chrome to build 30,000 Ju-004A jet engine hot sections.

The 18 * 12" SKL45 were salvaged from WW-I , NO OTHER GUNS BIGGER THAT 12" WERE SALVAGED.

As to the ersatz Ersatz Elsass and Ersatz Hessen Panzerschiffe 1934 D3C was just one step out of 18 design steps from AGS to SCHARNHORST. No more stretching than had historically been done.

Surface raiders meet US light or UK medium cruisers and destroyers SAG. Life expectancy of KM ship is mere minutes. Better torpedoes and air scouting support helps multiply allied torpedo/gun power here. The Germans need to think about that factor when convoy kicks in.

I know of only couple of cruisers sunk "in mere minutes" one after a American deluge of 2500 American shells on a Japanese warship and the other an American cruiser sunk by waves of LONG LANCE TORPS.


Regarding elint.
KM had cracked most allied naval codes b4 WW-II. The allies changed the codes , but B-Dienst had little problem cracking the follow on code traffic until Norway invasion. After that B-Dienst made great inroads to the MERCHANT CODES , and read most traffic through 1943, before Admiral King was convinced by the British in mid 1943 .

The fuel consumed by LW was something like 1 million raising to 2 million tons AVGAS per year, most of which was produced by hydrogenation. Petrol consumption about 2 million tons per year, which came from all sources. while diesel was 1.5-1.7 million per year. Problem was every year 700-900,000 tons of bunker fuel was also produced when the bulk of consumption in this ATL is going to be Diesel. Through the war 1/3 million tons of fuel could be refined into any type , allowing the progressive conversion of MOST bunker fuel production into diesel production.

BTW diesel production plus kerosene production = JP-2 JET FUEL.
 
Last edited:
Well standing by my earlier posts I'll make two shipssharp designs. First is the Deutschland they'll build and the second is the deutschland they would make after inserting a 40 m's midsection and allow it to run 1 m deeper.
Note that the 3b3 engine slider doesnt Work and the engines weigh 2x what they would IOTL. Thus actual speed would be 26 knots and 30,5 knots. The post mod design would be rather heavy. Ive taken the Liberty of 55 cal guns as on the twins and lots of Shells.
Post-mod She could outrun British BC's and beat them in a long range fight. Shrug off 8'' easily.

Note, ferasibility has been questioned. Not a small thing. Maybe if would Work if they did similar Work on their existing light cruisers first....? Still, if the mod is beeing prepared its a huge provocation against th french (intentional) and British.

FIRST:

Kaiser Deutschlamd, Germany Pocket Battleship laid down 1929
Displacement:
11.642 t light; 12.615 t standard; 13.773 t normal; 14.700 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(556,49 ft / 524,93 ft) x 72,18 ft x (22,97 / 24,19 ft)
(169,62 m / 160,00 m) x 22,00 m x (7,00 / 7,37 m)
Armament:
6 - 11,14" / 283 mm 55,0 cal guns - 746,46lbs / 338,59kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1929 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
10 - 5,91" / 150 mm 45,0 cal guns - 103,86lbs / 47,11kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1929 Model
9 x Single mounts on side ends, majority aft
16 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,57lbs / 0,71kg shells, 1.000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1929 Model
8 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
8 raised mounts
32 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 3.000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1929 Model
8 x Quad mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
8 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 5.550 lbs / 2.518 kg
Main Torpedoes
6 - 21,7" / 550 mm, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m torpedoes - 1,188 t each, 7,125 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5,91" / 150 mm 295,28 ft / 90,00 m 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
Ends: 1,97" / 50 mm 262,47 ft / 80,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 87 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1,77" / 45 mm 492,13 ft / 150,00 m 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 52,49 ft / 16,00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,84" / 250 mm 5,91" / 150 mm 5,91" / 150 mm
2nd: 3,94" / 100 mm 1,97" / 50 mm 1,97" / 50 mm
5th: 0,79" / 20 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3,94" / 100 mm
Forecastle: 0,79" / 20 mm Quarter deck: 0,79" / 20 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 7,09" / 180 mm, Aft 4,33" / 110 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 16.244 shp / 12.118 Kw = 19,40 kts
Range 4.000nm at 19,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.085 tons
Complement:635 - 826
Cost:
£4,362 million / $17,447 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.539 tons, 11,2 %
- Guns: 1.525 tons, 11,1 %
- Weapons: 14 tons, 0,1 %
Armour: 4.826 tons, 35,0 %
- Belts: 1.575 tons, 11,4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 741 tons, 5,4 %
- Armament: 898 tons, 6,5 %
- Armour Deck: 1.471 tons, 10,7 %
- Conning Towers: 141 tons, 1,0 %
Machinery: 499 tons, 3,6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4.778 tons, 34,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.132 tons, 15,5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
27.425 lbs / 12.440 Kg = 39,7 x 11,1 " / 283 mm shells or 6,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,09
Metacentric height 3,6 ft / 1,1 m
Roll period: 15,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 98 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1,05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,82
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
an extended bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,554 / 0,561
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22,91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 39 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30,00 %, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Forward deck: 20,00 %, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Aft deck: 30,00 %, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Quarter deck: 20,00 %, 18,04 ft / 5,50 m, 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
- Average freeboard: 20,60 ft / 6,28 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144,1 %
Waterplane Area: 26.542 Square feet or 2.466 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 139 lbs/sq ft or 680 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,94
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather


Post modifications:

Kaiser Deutschlamd, Germany Pocket Battleship laid down 1929
Displacement:
16.488 t light; 17.783 t standard; 21.985 t normal; 25.346 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(685,83 ft / 656,17 ft) x 72,18 ft x (26,25 / 29,58 ft)
(209,04 m / 200,00 m) x 22,00 m x (8,00 / 9,02 m)
Armament:
6 - 11,14" / 283 mm 55,0 cal guns - 746,46lbs / 338,59kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1929 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
10 - 5,91" / 150 mm 45,0 cal guns - 103,86lbs / 47,11kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1929 Model
8 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck centre
1 raised mount
16 - 4,13" / 105 mm 45,0 cal guns - 35,63lbs / 16,16kg shells, 500 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1929 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck forward
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
4 double raised mounts
16 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,57lbs / 0,71kg shells, 1.000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1929 Model
8 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
8 raised mounts
32 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 3.000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1929 Model
8 x Quad mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
8 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 6.120 lbs / 2.776 kg
Main Torpedoes
6 - 21,7" / 550 mm, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m torpedoes - 1,188 t each, 7,125 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7,87" / 200 mm 393,70 ft / 120,00 m 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
Ends: 1,97" / 50 mm 262,47 ft / 80,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 1,18" / 30 mm 393,70 ft / 120,00 m 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1,77" / 45 mm 590,55 ft / 180,00 m 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 52,49 ft / 16,00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,84" / 250 mm 5,91" / 150 mm 5,91" / 150 mm
2nd: 3,94" / 100 mm 1,97" / 50 mm 1,97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0,79" / 20 mm 0,39" / 10 mm -
5th: 0,79" / 20 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3,94" / 100 mm
Forecastle: 0,79" / 20 mm Quarter deck: 0,79" / 20 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 7,09" / 180 mm, Aft 4,33" / 110 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 66.283 shp / 49.447 Kw = 26,51 kts
Range 11.700nm at 19,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7.562 tons
Complement:
902 - 1.173
Cost:
£6,121 million / $24,483 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.674 tons, 7,6 %
- Guns: 1.660 tons, 7,5 %
- Weapons: 14 tons, 0,1 %
Armour: 6.674 tons, 30,4 %
- Belts: 2.683 tons, 12,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 889 tons, 4,0 %
- Armament: 854 tons, 3,9 %
- Armour Deck: 2.054 tons, 9,3 %
- Conning Towers: 193 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 2.036 tons, 9,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6.105 tons, 27,8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5.497 tons, 25,0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
34.230 lbs / 15.526 Kg = 49,5 x 11,1 " / 283 mm shells or 6,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 3,9 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 15,4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 66 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,17
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
an extended bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,619 / 0,633
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,09 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30,00 %, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m, 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
- Forward deck: 30,00 %, 18,04 ft / 5,50 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Aft deck: 25,00 %, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00 %, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
- Average freeboard: 17,49 ft / 5,33 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83,1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 116,4 %
Waterplane Area: 35.258 Square feet or 3.276 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 134 lbs/sq ft or 653 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,03
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
 
Hitler demanded 110,000 tons armored steel in the WESTWALL , which was finished in 1940. Those plates consumed 2600 tons of Nickel and a similar amount of Chrome.That was 3 times the amount in the PANZER forces upto 1940 and almost as much Krupp armored steel as had been invested in the KM warships built from 1934-1940. As a matter of interest, that's enough nickel /chrome to build 30,000 Ju-004A jet engine hot sections.

The fuel consumed by LW was something like 1 million raising to 2 million tons AVGAS per year, most of which was produced by hydrogenation. Petrol consumption about 2 million tons per year, which came from all sources. while diesel was 1.5-1.7 million per year. Problem was every year 700-900,000 tons of bunker fuel was also produced when the bulk of consumption in this ATL is going to be Diesel. Through the war 1/3 million tons of fuel could be refined into any type , allowing the progressive conversion of MOST bunker fuel production into diesel production.

BTW diesel production plus kerosene production = JP-2 JET FUEL.

what is the increase in SHP output from 9-cyl. MAN diesel engines? noticed on at least one site there was 50% increase in number of engines but 300% increase in output? http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp1/tech.html (maybe an error)

regarding bunker fuel, what is swept away, the class of M-boats using fuel rather than coal, torpedo boats, and destroyers, as well as light and heavy cruisers and battleships?
 
Hitler demanded 110,000 tons armored steel in the WESTWALL , which was finished in 1940. Those plates consumed 2600 tons of Nickel and a similar amount of Chrome.That was 3 times the amount in the PANZER forces upto 1940 and almost as much Krupp armored steel as had been invested in the KM warships built from 1934-1940. As a matter of interest, that's enough nickel /chrome to build 30,000 Ju-004A jet engine hot sections.

What was the quality of the steel? Using American specs here I mean? How much A, B , C and STS? Are you sure those Hitler figures do not include high carbon rebar for concrete, For shutter doors, for gun mounts, in other words, how much of that was actually plate?

The 18 * 12" SKL45 were salvaged from WW-I , NO OTHER GUNS BIGGER THAT 12" WERE SALVAGED.

Aside from Battery Pommern. Anyway Krupp still knew how to make them and could.

As to the ersatz Ersatz Elsass and Ersatz Hessen
Panzerschiffe 1934 D3C was just one step out of 18 design steps from AGS to SCHARNHORST. No more stretching than had historically been done.

Uhm. Was the Scharnhorst actually an updated WW I battlecruiser design?

Surface raiders meet US light or UK medium cruisers and destroyers SAG. Life expectancy of KM ship is mere minutes. Better torpedoes and air scouting support helps multiply allied torpedo/gun power here. The Germans need to think about that factor when convoy kicks in.
I know of only couple of cruisers sunk "in mere minutes" one after a American deluge of 2500 American shells on a Japanese warship and the other an American cruiser sunk by waves of LONG LANCE TORPS.

Kolambangara, Savo Island, Tassafaronga, Rennell Island, Empress Augusta Bay, First and Second Guadalcanal, Samar, Palawan Passage (US submarines there. Kurita had to swim for it.) Lots of cruisers (unfortunately many US) died in seconds. As for Long Lances, I think some Australians blame a Mark 15 for the loss of the Canberra. (USS Bagley?).

Regarding elint.
KM had cracked most allied naval codes b4 WW-II. The allies changed the codes , but B-Dienst had little problem cracking the follow on code traffic until Norway invasion. After that B-Dienst made great inroads to the MERCHANT CODES , and read most traffic through 1943, before Admiral King was convinced by the British in mid 1943.

From ONI that was into 1944 and it was the other way around. Merchant captains still would not get off the radios.

The fuel consumed by LW was something like 1 million raising to 2 million tons AVGAS per year, most of which was produced by hydrogenation. Petrol consumption about 2 million tons per year, which came from all sources. while diesel was 1.5-1.7 million per year. Problem was every year 700-900,000 tons of bunker fuel was also produced when the bulk of consumption in this ATL is going to be Diesel. Through the war 1/3 million tons of fuel could be refined into any type , allowing the progressive conversion of MOST bunker fuel production into diesel production.

600,000 tonnes additional is still 600,000 tonnes additional.

BTW diesel production plus kerosene production = JP-2 JET FUEL.

No Inconel means 20 hour operating life jet engines. So the JP-2 is wasted.
 
Well standing by my earlier posts I'll make two shipssharp designs. First is the Deutschland they'll build and the second is the deutschland they would make after inserting a 40 m's midsection and allow it to run 1 m deeper.
Note that the 3b3 engine slider doesnt Work and the engines weigh 2x what they would IOTL. Thus actual speed would be 26 knots and 30,5 knots. The post mod design would be rather heavy. Ive taken the Liberty of 55 cal guns as on the twins and lots of Shells.
Post-mod She could outrun British BC's and beat them in a long range fight. Shrug off 8'' easily.

Note, ferasibility has been questioned. Not a small thing. Maybe if would Work if they did similar Work on their existing light cruisers first....? Still, if the mod is beeing prepared its a huge provocation against th french (intentional) and British.

Good designs - but they bare only a passing resemblance to German design philology. The main belt should be about 2/3 of the ship length so the first design needs a belt of 120m length , while the second design should be ~ 145m belt length. To compensate the main belt depth will have be reduced to 4 meters in the first model and 4.5m in the second model . Next ship hull is 14.5 hull height in the second , with belt armor 4.5 + 2m = 6.5m high , which leaves main belt armor extending only a 1 meter below the water line. Shells will get underneath the main belt into the engine room/magazine. The upper armor plate could work if it was 20mm thick and 4m high, which would extend the main belt 3 m below the water line.

The torpedo bulk head needs to be as high as the ship hull to represent the internal armored bulk heads...13-14 high in the second model and 12-13m high on the first model. The main belt armor thickness should be reduced to compensate.


BTW in Spring Sharp diesel efficiency is miss represented , it should be twice the endurance @ 14 knots. This then reflects an endurance of 8,000nm @ 19knots
 
what is the increase in SHP output from 9-cyl. MAN diesel engines? noticed on at least one site there was 50% increase in number of engines but 300% increase in output? http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/panzerschiffe/kreuzerp1/tech.html (maybe an error)

regarding bunker fuel, what is swept away, the class of M-boats using fuel rather than coal, torpedo boats, and destroyers, as well as light and heavy cruisers and battleships?


Maybe an error. The main diesels on the AGS was 8 x 6-7,000hp opposed diesels geared through two separate shafts. The move to the advanced diesels the power increased to 12,500hp maximum. So eight should amount to ~ 100,000hp max. Some designs envisaged three groups of four diesels. arrange two side by side and one tandem behind.... taking advantage of the massive beam of big ships [2 x 12m rooms side by side plus TBH depth 4m on each side adds up to 32m ]. Alternatively it could just be three 31m long rooms all in tandem, but that limits turret baskets [3 x 22m] plus bow & stern equal over 250m length...which implies 175-180m belts.

Bunker fuel would not be swept aside since maybe 1/2 million tons at most could be converted to diesel, leaving enough for a line of 150-180 1000t Flottentorpedoboot instead of the M-BOOT production through out the war. EVEN 60-70 larger DD size escorts could be fueled....given expected 70% survival rate.
 
What was the quality of the steel? Using American specs here I mean? How much A, B , C and STS? Are you sure those Hitler figures do not include high carbon rebar for concrete, For shutter doors, for gun mounts, in other words, how much of that was actually plate?

MY REPLY IN BOLD
The 110,000t was Krupp armored steel
The WEST WALL CONSUMED 1.7 MILLION TONS regular steel plates.

Aside from Battery Pommern. Anyway Krupp still knew how to make them and could.



Uhm. Was the Scharnhorst actually an updated WW I battlecruiser design?

Germans didn't really see Battle cruisers, they just saw the need for bigger and faster cruisers "Grob Kreuzer".

Kolambangara, Savo Island, Tassafaronga, Rennell Island, Empress Augusta Bay, First and Second Guadalcanal, Samar, Palawan Passage (US submarines there. Kurita had to swim for it.) Lots of cruisers (unfortunately many US) died in seconds. As for Long Lances, I think some Australians blame a Mark 15 for the loss of the Canberra. (USS Bagley?).

Rough deal for the yanks -but most battles were in shallow seas with islands at night = ambush. The Atlantic was open and different.

From ONI that was into 1944 and it was the other way around. Merchant captains still would not get off the radios.

No idea what ONI was?

600,000 tonnes additional is still 600,000 tonnes additional.



No Inconel means 20 hour operating life jet engines. So the JP-2 is wasted.

Yes well
Tinidur of JU-004A [1942- 31% nickel] survived couple of 250 hour bench tests , suggesting 80 hours service life.
Cromadur of JU-004B [1944- no nickel] several 100 hour bench tests suggest 35 hours service life .
Vanidur of improved JU-004 engine [1945- 11% nickel] survived 500 hour bench test suggesting ~150 service hours.

"Messerschmitt Me-262 Jet Fighter" John Foster.....PART II power plant'

Trouble with Cromadur JU-004B was the 35 hours service life included 60 turbine blades in production model, then another 60 blades after 10-12 hours field service followed 12 service hours and X-ray with another 60 turbine blades. Several million blades per year . But in the collapsing economy they never even got past the first refit in the field. The best they could muster was 5000 turbine blades a month in august 1944.
 
Yes well
Tinidur of JU-004A [1942- 31% nickel] survived couple of 250 hour bench tests , suggesting 80 hours service life.
Cromadur of JU-004B [1944- no nickel] several 100 hour bench tests suggest 35 hours service life .
Vanidur of improved JU-004 engine [1945- 11% nickel] survived 500 hour bench test suggesting ~150 service hours.

"Messerschmitt Me-262 Jet Fighter" John Foster.....PART II power plant'

Trouble with Cromadur JU-004B was the 35 hours service life included 60 turbine blades in production model, then another 60 blades after 10-12 hours field service followed 12 service hours and X-ray with another 60 turbine blades. Several million blades per year . But in the collapsing economy they never even got past the first refit in the field. The best they could muster was 5000 turbine blades a month in august 1944.

That's a good reply. Let me explain in a little detail why I asked my questions starting with the jet engines..

1. Inconel was a British developed nickel steel alloy for turbine blades and plenum chamber parts for jet engines. it would allow for "conventional" milling and jet engine service life roughly comparable to piston engines ~ 150 hours

Germans didn't really see Battle cruisers, they just saw the need for bigger and faster cruisers "Grob Kreuzer".

Scharnhorst rode wet bow and stern, so that was not a true "cruiser" hull. The Germans put an Atlantic nose on her. Not too much wrong here in that fix so far. Tail control (rudders) was screwed up so she heeled and kicked hard and slow in the turn.

SH13-Paderbornfinal.jpg


uss_alaska__cb_1____1945_by_colosseumsb-d7p55fo.png


Dunkerque.jpg


Of the three, the Dunkerque is probably the best sea-boat in an Atlantic swell. Both the German and the American are "wet". The Dunkerque has a "cruiser" hull.

Rough deal for the yanks -but most battles were in shallow seas with islands at night = ambush. The Atlantic was open and different.

One answer; with the odds against the British; River Plate 13 December 1939. How long did Graf Spee fight? 0618 fire commences by 0647 Exeter had ruptured Graf Spee's fuel lines. 29 minutes in relatively shallow water and near a coast in an "ambush situation". Graf Spee could intern, or scuttle. at that point.

No idea what ONI was?

[USN] Office of Naval Intelligence. Spies.
 
And that is also a fine reply. Great images!
Wish I could do that.:frown:

With Scharnhorst, we must always remember her design origin was a 20,000t Panzerschiffe D...They could reasonably stretch that hull to 28,000tons , but 38-39,000t was pushing it.

AGS at Plate was "iffy" since interning was command mistake from Langsdorff. Some say his judgement suffered from shrapnel wounds that brought out the old torpedo boat skipper in him...and he made repeated mistakes after that dodging phantom torpedo attacks etc. The HMS AJAX skipper never understood why he didn't just finish them off at that point.

Some sources dispute the damaging effects of the "crippling" 8" shell hit, and follow on models put those oil filters under MAD. Reconstructed ship diary mentions damage to the filtration unit, but not crippling. Apparently Argentine engineers differ on examination of AGS damage.

O'Hara claims after that first clash, AGS could still manage 16 days at cruise speed , while 2 of the 3 British cruisers could not even manage 16 hours, before they ran out of fuel.
 
Last edited:
Scharnhorst rode wet bow and stern, so that was not a true "cruiser" hull. The Germans put an Atlantic nose on her. Not too much wrong here in that fix so far. Tail control (rudders) was screwed up so she heeled and kicked hard and slow in the turn.

Of the three, the Dunkerque is probably the best sea-boat in an Atlantic swell. Both the German and the American are "wet". The Dunkerque has a "cruiser" hull.

always thought the Admiral Hipper-class would have made a nice knock-off of Dunkerque with the 2x3 11" gun turrets forward facing? gives up quite a bit of firepower to French ship but should be quite a bit faster?

that would have been well within German capability to build and gives up diesels so acceptable to British?
 
Top