WI Better Kriegsmarine in WW2

[Kantai Kessen]

if you build two sets of the Scharnhorst-class, which would be my vote, but also to continue with the 11" guns, they could be finished fairly early compared to historical? makes more sense than another BB class since they were planning to return to diesel power?

do you think the Admiral Hipper-class too large? (materials and crews) that the KM better off with proper redesign of Leipzig-class? they could reduce the troubled K-class CLs to minelayers like the RN Adventure?

The Hipper-class were too big, but I don't see how the Leipzig-hull could be adapted to CA use...

Your point about the Scharnhorsts is pretty cool though.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
Building 3 15,000t carriers (1/3 45,000t limit) in lieu of 2 23,000t GZ (actual tonnage much more!), GZ took 24 months from laying to launch. Drop this by 2/3, ie 16 months, April 38, completely changes the dynamics of the KM. Flugzeugträger B (Peter Strasser?) launched by August 39, before the halting of the real Flugzeugträger B (Sept 39). Flugzeugträger C (Weser?) would just be starting and likely to continue as smaller carriers did not affect U-boat production as much?

All ships could be faster than current Home fleet vessels except Hood and BCs.View attachment 687307

... INTERESTING ... this small carrier ... is there somewher more info of this design to be found ? ... if so : where ?

... and the catapults never worked. ...

What's the/a/your source for that allegation ?

 

[thaddeus]

if you build two sets of the Scharnhorst-class, which would be my vote, but also to continue with the 11" guns, they could be finished fairly early compared to historical? makes more sense than another BB class since they were planning to return to diesel power?

do you think the Admiral Hipper-class too large? (materials and crews) that the KM better off with proper redesign of Leipzig-class? they could reduce the troubled K-class CLs to minelayers like the RN Adventure?

The Hipper-class were too big, but I don't see how the Leipzig-hull could be adapted to CA use...

Your point about the Scharnhorsts is pretty cool though.

actually I was disregarding the CA part, just speculating on an enlarged CL, with some of the hull fragility solved (or at least addressed), that cruisers the size of the Hippers would be considered for the Plan Z (in the future)

 

[Garrison]

actually I was disregarding the CA part, just speculating on an enlarged CL, with some of the hull fragility solved (or at least addressed), that cruisers the size of the Hippers would be considered for the Plan Z (in the future)

The issue I would see is that those lighter alternatives would be more vulnerable and some ships that survived OTL Norway might go down instead. Hipper survived being rammed by HMS Glowworm would a CL have done the same? Obviously they might be a bit more agile, but that will depend on the design.

 

[McPherson]

... INTERESTING ... this small carrier ... is there somewher more info of this design to be found ? ... if so : where ?

Weser aircraft carrier - Kriegsmarine (Germany)

What's the/a/your source for that allegation ?

No record at all of the Germans or Italians being able to get the land based version of the flattop flight deck catapult to work at all. And they tried very hard. The Japanese, who were the tutors, never developed good catapults of their own.

 

[NoMommsen]

Weser aircraft carrier - Kriegsmarine (Germany)

... wrong, I meant the not IOTL design from the attachment provided by @Capt Thunderbolt not rather well known conversion considerations of OTL

No record at all of the Germans or Italians being able to get the land based version of the flattop flight deck catapult to work at all. And they tried very hard. The Japanese, who were the tutors, never developed good catapults of their own.

... and again I would like to ask you for the source of your alledations.
Esp. the part about "tried very hard" for the germans as well as the italians as well as "The Japanesem who were the tutors ..." as the Japanes in 2nd part of the twenties bought not only planes but also their first ship based katapults from Heinkel.

Katapults developed from the twenties
1929

to

in 1937 to launch even the heaviest of planes.

Once again : could you please show me towards the source for your allegations ?

 

[McPherson]

... wrong, I meant the not IOTL design from the attachment provided by @Capt Thunderbolt not rather well known conversion considerations of OTL

The nearest German example as described was the Seydlitz.

... and again I would like to ask you for the source of your alledations.

Navypedia and Global Security.

Esp. the part about "tried very hard" for the germans as well as the italians as well as "The Japanesem who were the tutors ..." as the Japanes in 2nd part of the twenties bought not only planes but also their first ship based katapults from Heinkel.

Katapults developed from the twenties
View attachment 687378 1929View attachment 687379
to
View attachment 687380
in 1937 to launch even the heaviest of planes.

Once again : could you please show me towards the source for your allegations ?

Once time only air bottle launches similar to the way the Germans launched their floatplanes off their cruisers and battleships were used to launch the mail-planes seen in the illustration. I am very aware of why this system was USN rejected and gunpowder charges (rockets) were used to throw US floatplanes off their cruisers . This German system illustrated required 10 minutes or more compressor time recharge of the air tanks in the spigot mortar between shots. The US flattop system was a potential energy flywheel motor setup, called sheave and drum, and was capable of 15 tonne aircraft throws every 30 SECONDS. Not the same thing.

The Japanese used JATO after they could not build a mechanical catapult of their own.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

No record at all of the Germans or Italians being able to get the land based version of the flattop flight deck catapult to work at all. And they tried very hard. The Japanese, who were the tutors, never developed good catapults of their own.

Bold statement....
Considering the IJN didn't use cats until late in war, and hydraulic were not super reliable.

The IJN wasn't very helpful with carriers, if not secretive, and reluntly.

USN until jets, did not rely on cats, and used them sparingly.

The German slotted cat was the bases of V-1 launchers and later steam cats, and the axis carriers never went to sea, you can't say such.

That said, both RN and LW were still tail up trolley launching, something I would have dropped and gone for tail down bridles. Add extra boilers and use steam over compressed air, the KM carriers would be a decade ahead.

 

[McPherson]

USN until jets, did not rely on cats, and used them sparingly.

CAP reinforcement at Coral Sea and Midway was most emphatically examples where that is wrong.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

INTERESTING ... this small carrier ... is there somewher more info of this design to be found ? ... if so : where ?

Title	German Capital Ships of World War Two
Author	M. J. Whitley
Edition	2, illustrated, reprint
Publisher	Cassell, 2000
ISBN	0304357073, 9780304357079

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

CAP reinforcement at Coral Sea and Midway was most emphatically examples where that is wrong.

I don't have the source at had, but 2/3 of launches were deck run USN WW2

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

This German system illustrated required 10 minutes or more compressor time recharge of the air tanks in the spigot mortar between shots. The US flattop system was a potential energy flywheel motor setup, called sheave and drum, and was capable of 15 tonne aircraft throws every 30 SECONDS. Not the same thing.

100% incorrect. 🙂

The limitation was time between strikes.

The slotted cat allowed variations of pressure and smoother acceleration. Hydraulic cats were very harsh on aircraft.

Eighteen aircraft could have theoretically been launched at a rate of one every 30 seconds before exhausting the catapult air reservoirs. It would then have taken 50 minutes to recharge the reservoirs. The two large cylinders holding the compressed air were housed in insulated compartments located between the two catapult tracks, below flight deck level but above the main armored deck. This positioning afforded them only light protection from potential battle damage. The insulated compartments were to be electrically heated to a temperature of 20 °C (68 °F) in order to prevent ice from forming on the cylinder piping and control equipment as the compressed air was vented during launches.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Hipper survived being rammed by HMS Glowworm would a CL have done the same? Obviously they might be a bit more agile, but that will depend on the design.

CL s were usely based on cruiser hulls, so I wouldn't push that line too hard????

 

[McPherson]

I suggest you read this.

USS Enterprise CV6 War History 1941 - 1945

CONFIDENTIAL U.S.S. Enterprise (CV6) War History 7 December, 1941 to 15 August, 1945 The Chief of Naval Operations directs that this report be shown only to those persons to whom the report would be of value in the performance of their duties. Steps shall be taken accordingly to insure that the...

www.history.navy.mil

From your wiki quote"

Two Deutsche Werke compressed air-driven telescoping catapults were installed at the forward end of the flight deck for power-assisted launches. They were 23 m (75 ft) long and designed to accelerate a 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) fighter to a speed of approximately 140 km/h (87 mph) and a 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) bomber to 130 km/h (81 mph).[19]

A dual set of rails led back from the catapults to the forward and midship elevators. In the hangars, aircraft were to be hoisted by crane - a method also proposed for the Essex-class carriers of the United States Navy, but rejected as too time-consuming - onto collapsible launch trolleys. The aircraft/trolley combination would then be lifted to flight deck level on the elevator and trundled along the rails to the catapult start points. When the catapults were triggered, a burst of compressed air would propel moveable slideways within the catapult track wells forward.[20]

As each plane lifted off, its launch trolley would reach the end of the slideway but remain locked in place until the tow attachment cables were released. Once the slideways were retracted back into the catapult track wells and the tow cables unhooked, the launch trollies would be manually pushed forward onto recovery platforms, lowered to the forecastle on "B" deck, then rolled back into the upper hangar for re-use via a secondary set of rails.[20] When not in use, the catapult tracks were to be covered with sheet metal farings to protect them from harsh weather.[19]

Eighteen aircraft could have theoretically been launched at a rate of one every 30 seconds before exhausting the catapult air reservoirs. It would then have taken 50 minutes to recharge the reservoirs. The two large cylinders holding the compressed air were housed in insulated compartments located between the two catapult tracks, below flight deck level but above the main armored deck. This positioning afforded them only light protection from potential battle damage. The insulated compartments were to be electrically heated to a temperature of 20 °C (68 °F) in order to prevent ice from forming on the cylinder piping and control equipment as the compressed air was vented during launches.[21]

It was intended from the outset that all of the Graf Zeppelins' aircraft would normally launch via catapult. Rolling take-offs would be performed only in an emergency or if the catapults were inoperable due to battle damage or mechanical failure. Whether this practice would have been strictly adhered to or later modified, based on actual air trials and combat experience is open to question, especially given the limited capacity of the air reservoirs and the long recharging times necessary between launches.[19] One advantage of such a system, however, was that the Graf Zeppelins could have launched their aircraft without need for turning the ship into the wind or under conditions where the prevailing winds were too light to provide enough lift for her heavier aircraft. They could also have launched and landed aircraft simultaneously.[22]

To facilitate rapid catapult launches and eliminate the necessity of time-consuming engine warm-ups,[Note 1] up to eight aircraft were to be kept in readiness aboard the German carriers on their hangar decks by the use of steam pre-heaters. These would keep the aircraft engines at an operational temperature of 70 °C (158 °F). In addition, engine oil was to be kept warmed in separate holding tanks, then added via hand-pumps to the aircraft engines shortly before launch. Once the aircraft were raised to flight deck level via the elevators, aircraft oil temperature could be maintained, if need be, through the use of electric pre-heaters plugged into power points on the flight deck. Otherwise, the aircraft could have been immediately catapult-launched as their engines would already have been at or near normal operating temperature.[23]

That ideal description is of course bogus. The manual reset would not be 30 sets.

ENDIT.

 

[Garrison]

CL s were usely based on cruiser hulls, so I wouldn't push that line too hard????

Yes but the post I was responding to was suggesting actually smaller ships, apologies for using the CL designation as I am aware that the main difference is armament rather than size.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Yes but the post I was responding to was suggesting actually smaller ships, apologies for using the CL designation as I am aware that the main difference is armament rather than size.

I meant CVL too. My bad

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

I suggest you read this.

USS Enterprise CV6 War History 1941 - 1945

CONFIDENTIAL U.S.S. Enterprise (CV6) War History 7 December, 1941 to 15 August, 1945 The Chief of Naval Operations directs that this report be shown only to those persons to whom the report would be of value in the performance of their duties. Steps shall be taken accordingly to insure that the...

www.history.navy.mil

From your wiki quote"


That ideal description is of course bogus. The manual reset would not be 30 sets.

ENDIT.

Since when are you a moderator?

I didn't quote Wiki, the source 🙂

As said, "and the axis carriers never went to sea, you can't say such".

And
Whether this practice would have been strictly adhered to or later modified, based on actual air trials and combat experience is open to question, especially given the limited capacity of the air reservoirs and the long recharging times necessary between launches.[

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

suggest you read this.

USS Enterprise CV6 War History 1941 - 1945

CONFIDENTIAL U.S.S. Enterprise (CV6) War History 7 December, 1941 to 15 August, 1945 The Chief of Naval Operations directs that this report be shown only to those persons to whom the report would be of value in the performance of their duties. Steps shall be taken accordingly to insure that the...

www.history.navy.mil

I've read them all, RN and USN.

Have you 😜

What's your point??

Landings on Tulagi and Guadalcanal, 7-9 August
D4-1. Following Midway, ENTERPRISE had a short availability at Pearl Harbor, during which the forward auxiliary elevator, the two catapults on the main deck and the remaining .50 cal. machine guns were removed. A 1.1-inch anti-aircraft mount was added at the extreme bow on the forecastle deck and forward fire control radar installed

..Electrical damage was extensive. A total of 75,000 feet of power, lighting and communication cable was disabled by fragments and flooding forward of frame 50. Power cable for the catapults was severed on the starboard side of the second deck.

Other alterations included fitting 60-pound STS plating around trunk D-304-T between the second and third decks leading to the after
magazines; installation of internal degaussing cables; addition of several radars; replacement of the two forward flight deck catapults with units of a later design; and an increase of armament by the addition of 8 - 40mm twin mounts and several 20mm guns.

 

[thaddeus]

actually I was disregarding the CA part, just speculating on an enlarged CL, with some of the hull fragility solved (or at least addressed), that cruisers the size of the Hippers would be considered for the Plan Z (in the future)

The issue I would see is that those lighter alternatives would be more vulnerable and some ships that survived OTL Norway might go down instead. Hipper survived being rammed by HMS Glowworm would a CL have done the same? Obviously they might be a bit more agile, but that will depend on the design.

we were posting-replying to the idea of simply building 2 more Scharnhorst-class instead of developing the Bismarcks for the speed of completion, just my view they would have more reasonable project to build additional CLs. (they possibly could have completed 5 - 6 light cruisers)

 

[Kantai Kessen]

we were posting-replying to the idea of simply building 2 more Scharnhorst-class instead of developing the Bismarcks for the speed of completion, just my view they would have more reasonable project to build additional CLs. (they possibly could have completed 5 - 6 light cruisers)

Yes, but said light cruisers wouldn't have been much against the RN. I think the Kriegsmarine had the right idea with going for heavy cruisers. It's just that their designs were kinda crap.