The Ship Model Forum

[quote="GMG4RWF"]
F) I believe they were 28knts - not much but significant.[/quote]

(oops...) & range was for long range raiding, all the way to the Indian ocean! (they had trouble with that in WWI)

[quote="Filipe Ramires"][quote="JWintjes"]
a) the 6in guns are a waste of weight and manpower, being not very useful in most situations, manpower intensive and poorly protected,

d) the tactical thinking behind the fitting of such a large number of torpedo tubes was dubious, to say the least and

e) for employment mainly in the North Sea an aircraft isn't really necessary
[/quote]

A and B) GUNS - The 5.9' guns proved nearly useless in Graf Spee against the 3 cruisers.

D) TORPS - Uselessy used by Graf Spee.

E) PLANE - I wouldn't drop off the Arado. They are always useful even in the North Sea. I've rather prefer to have one onboard rather then go out in mission and cry for one and I don't have it.

F) ....speed which they didn't have (26 knots tops). Also no need to have that huge range they had. Eventually I would sacrifice some of the range to better speed.[/quote]

these ships were designed as independent raiders:
A) the 15cm guns were intended for sinking merchies, they had more range than the 88/105s but had much more ammo than the limited # of 28cm rounds.

D) the torps served 2 functions: 1} they could be used to attack a group of merchies or quickly finish off one in a hurry if help arrived 2} there were some ships (Hood, Repulse...) that could both out run & out gun them, these gave them a weapon that could be used to defend against them (& mounted aft to discourage pursuit)....{the fact that they were defective, as with US torps, didn't come into design thinking}

E) planes were for spotting independent merchies (the ocean is a big place).

and F) I believe they were 28knts - not much but significant.

The 28cm guns are too big and the replacement should do the task of the 28cm and 15cm. It will need to out shoot the 8" (aka 20.3cm) on treaty cruisers. The 21.5cm I suggested months ago might be a little weak. The Royal Navy had 9.2 inch on the Lord Nelson class and they were capable of penetrating enemy armor at short range. By the 1930s radar controlled fire control should make them accurate at long range and able to defeat any Treaty cruiser.

Three triple 23.5cm primary, four twin 12.7cm, four twin 8.8cm flak, four twin 3.7cm flak.

Don't know the history but the 12.8cm flakzwilling 40 would have been a fierce weapon for a ship (was it originally a ship's weapon, for that matter?) Two 12 round a minute guns with powered fuse and feed.

I had considered this question once. I kicked around a few designes in a computer program that I downloaded. I decided to buck convention and came up with a ship sort of like this:

Main armament: three triple 21.5cm guns (8.46"). The barbetts armored against 8" AP shells, turrets. All or nothing deck armor against 8" shells.
Secondary three twin 12.7cm DP guns. (a DD gun that the KM did develop)
6 twin 37mm AA Flak

diesel engines
21" torpedos

My reasoning was that the armor against 8" would be sufficient against treaty heavy cruisers, and the 21.5cm would allow for AP shells with a significant weight advantage over treaty ships armor against 8" shells.

Its less glamorous than the actually built ships. I suspect that it will do just as well as a raider and probably better at the River Plate.

Good on you, following up your theories with actaul kit building.

Beaucoup nice work!

Study5 Drawings

Light
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7524/std5topprofillightiv2.jpg[/img][/url]

Medium
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9199/std5topprofilmediumai8.jpg[/img][/url]

Full
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/584/std5topprofilfullbm2.jpg[/img][/url]



Jef :MZ:

I love the studies you've done, Jef. And the other works on Panzershiffes posted here is just spectacular. Either today, or in the next few days, I'll be getting the Fujimi Scheer kit. I have plans for a modified construction, akin to a P-Class, with some additional modifications. I'll be sure to post and show her off once I've got something substantial.

Additionally, some time later, I'll have a heavy Japanese-style Panzerschiffe I'll be posting which will have a rather unique appearance.

Avery Boyer wrote:
"So your finished with all of your new studies? How many do you have. Look forward to progress on the rebuilt Von der Tann"

Actually, I have 9 Panzerschiffs Studies
Kostenko & Von der Tann are made in 2005 All other are made in summer 1980.

I have still 2 Studies to scratch.
Study 20 & 21 - These 2 studies are the ultimate evolution of the 1980' Studies.


Jef :wave_1:

So your finished with all of your new studies? How many do you have. Look forward to progress on the rebuilt Von der Tann! :big_grin:

:wave_1:

Here are photos with all my Panzerschiffs Studies



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6644/1021865os7.jpg[/img][/url]



Von Der Tann is going to be rebuilt on a new hull for her integration in the "Baltic Squadron"

[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1599/1021866sy3.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4494/1021867zl5.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5053/1021868nl8.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9373/1021869ov9.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2355/1021870mw2.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7774/1021871fa6.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9230/1021872jz8.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1430/1021873cm8.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9318/1021884ro9.jpg[/img][/url]



[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/501/1021885qw3.jpg[/img][/url]



Jef :wave_1:

Cia Jefgte and all,

no problems,.. go ahead with your studies,.. it was just a suggestion.... OK :thumbs_up_1:

Of course I full respect your opinions and works too,.... and as you can see I am better on working on the real ones, ... :cool_2:

Ciao Antonio :surfer:

In the same spirit,
Most of my PB studies are with T3x280 (exept Std2 & 6)


I could change to
T2, T3, T4...
254, 240 or 210mm guns...

No, [b]T3x280 are German PB [/b]


Jef :thumbs_up_1:

Well,
Sorry Antonio, I disagree

1 - German never install 127mm guns on their BB & BC.
Just on their DD

2 - In 1928...1934, they use 88mm or 105mm to repulse DD or aircrafts

3- The 127mm was use by USN & IJN
European Navies did'nt use currently this caliber.
They prefer:
88,90,100,102,105,120,130,150,152...

So, in the spirit of the German Navy,
I never install 127mm (T1 or T2) on a 1930-40 BB, BC...PB

(T2x128mm could be use in 1944 & later)

-------------------------

No offense, Just my opinion...You could choose what you want

:thumbs_up_1: :lol_spit_1: :thumbs_up_1: :lol_spit_1:


Jef :wave_1:

Perhaps you can delete the rear 6" turrets and put a single 6" turret where the after most 4" gun is. That way you still have 4 6" guns coverage and room to add a total of 4 4" guns.

Ciao Jefgte and all,

YES !!!!!!!! :thumbs_up_1:

Very good,...that should have been the best solution for them,.. reworking all 3 ships that way,..and the twin as well as planned with 3 by twin 15 inches turrets.

Only modifications I will suggest.. just as the Tirpitz secondary A/A Director Officer ( still alive and healty :cool_2: ) just told me a week ago when we were discussing about those things A/A things,.... will be to have the 127 mm high elevation guns as heavy A/A ones,.. and only 40 mm Bofors instead of either 105mm twins, 37 mm twins or 20 mm vierlings.

So on the ship you will have 3 type of guns only : 380 mm, 127mm, 40 mm :thumbs_up_1: .


Ciao Antonio :surfer:

This one Antonio...


Study 15
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4498/1021371kc5.jpg[/img][/url]


Jef :wave_1:

Here is Jefgte Panzerschiff Study 5 in the 1980 and adjusted with SpringSharp in dec 2005

1/700 Scratchbuilt janv/ feb 2006 - Panzerschiff-Study 5, germany pocket battlecruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
11 569 t light; 12 245 t standard; 14 087 t normal; 15 560 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
587.28 ft / 574.15 ft x 74.80 ft x 23.48 ft (normal load)
180.66 m / 175.00 m x 22.80 m x 7.16 m

Armament:
6 - 11.02" / 280 mm guns (2x3 guns), 669.80lbs / 303.82kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 7.99" / 203 mm guns (4x2 guns), 255.24lbs / 115.77kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
4 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
18 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 12 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 6 158 lbs / 2 793 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 416.67 ft / 127.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 1.57" / 40 mm 104.99 ft / 32.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
52.49 ft / 16.00 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 112 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 416.67 ft / 127.00 m 20.18 ft / 6.15 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.72" / 140 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 4.72" / 120 mm
2nd: 3.94" / 100 mm 1.57" / 40 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.24" / 57 mm, Conning tower: 4.72" / 120 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 55 084 shp / 41 093 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12 000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 315 tons

Complement:
646 - 840

Cost:
£5.595 million / $22.379 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 770 tons, 5.5 %
Armour: 3 136 tons, 22.3 %
- Belts: 734 tons, 5.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 490 tons, 3.5 %
- Armament: 677 tons, 4.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1 176 tons, 8.3 %
- Conning Tower: 59 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1 647 tons, 11.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5 976 tons, 42.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 518 tons, 17.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18 848 lbs / 8 549 Kg = 28.1 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 4.2 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 15.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.18

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.489
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.68 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.96 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 10.53 ft / 3.21 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.74 ft / 7.54 m
- Forecastle (17 %): 21.46 ft / 6.54 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.46 ft / 6.54 m (13.45 ft / 4.10 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 13.45 ft / 4.10 m
- Stern: 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Average freeboard: 17.77 ft / 5.42 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 109.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 127.6 %
Waterplane Area: 28 332 Square feet or 2 632 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 144 lbs/sq ft or 705 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.51
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform



Jef :wave_1:

Laurence wrote:

"Was this design also intended to sink French cruisers just like the 3 built Panzerschiff were?"

...Not specialy French cruisers... but Washington cruisers

With 3T2x11" + 4T2x8", she is a pocket Battlecruiser



Jef :thumbs_up_1:

To Jefgte

Lovely model of this design study :thumbs_up_1:

Was this design also intended to sink French cruisers just like the 3 built Panzerschiff were?