The Ship Model Forum

Steering slightly away from this issue and back towards the Panzerschiffe, let me throw in a question:

I'm toying around with the idea of an alternate design for the Deutschland inside the treaty limits (well, more or less so) geared more to a North Sea vessel. I'd trade in all the 6in guns, airplane as well as four torpedo tubes (perhaps even all of them) for two (or three) additional 88mm AA twins and more protection.

The rationale behind this is that

a) the 6in guns are a waste of weight and manpower, being not very useful in most situations, manpower intensive and poorly protected,

b) as built - or rather as fitted with 88 twins - the ship was substandard in the AA department,

c) protection could have been better in parts,

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

What do you think?

Jorit

_________________

Well all seems logical but then again ship design was never this easy!

So where are you putting the armour? and is their enough merchant men to sink in the North Sea???

If you hold Norway what is this for Artic missions?

I think Churchill was right in that any ship operating singly in the North Sea would need at least a 6-inch armored deck and huge blisters to withstand torpedos and near-miss bombs.

A cruiser is misplaced in the North Sea. Ships there either need to be light craft or Churchill's "armored tortoises".

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

Good!!! Let's see then:

A and B) GUNS - The 5.9' guns proved nearly useless in Graf Spee against the 3 cruisers but then they were not made thinking in fighting stronger numerical and determined enemy naval forces. I would surelly take them off indeed and eventually trade them by a good number of 4.1' AA guns like Graf Spee alone in the class had. I wouldn't go to the 88mm but rather then to the 4.1' double turret. Why? You cut off all the 5.9' secondary battery and with a 4.1' secondary battery you have a very reasonable AA capability and it's a fairly good gun in anti-surface (against destroyers and even cruisers) role. Therefore taking out all the 8 x 5.9' useless guns perhaps you could get some space to put let's say 6-8 twin 4.1' turrets tops...bit like Prinz Eugen distribution style. Do recall that by removing the heavy 5.9' turrets you are saving a good tonnage.

C) ARMOUR - Improve armour belt and decks. Don't know exactly from top of my head his armour scheme (thinking of Graf Spee since it's the one of the class that I know better) but eventually she had 76-114mm tops. Eventually try to improve to 127-152mm.

D) TORPS - Uselessy used by Graf Spee. He failed to hit one of his victims with two torpedoes at very short range and with the target stopped. Feature which was quite amuzing for the seized crew. The merchant had the "honour" of being disposed by the 11' guns. Torpedo tubes on this class are heavilly exposed to anything. A fighter coming down straffing could easily hit those "soft-skinned" torpedo banks and cause a very hazardous situation to the ship. I would get them offboard or get them decent protection...perhaps on the former 5.9' battery deck.

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) MY EXTRA POINTS - A few things that should be considered. If the ship is to be operating on the North Sea then he needs 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. Finally, being in such "closed" waters like the North Sea I would require a bit more of stronger light AA guns (20mm and 37mm).

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher

Here are new photos of my Panzerschiff Study 5























Jef

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

First, as for replacing the 15 cm guns, I don't think the twin 88s would be a good choice as it is my understanding the KM did not find these guns to be successful and consequently replaced them with the 10.5 cm twins. Replacing the 4 single 15 cm guns per side with two twin 10.5s would have left the ship with 8 10.5 barrels available to shoot or either side which might have been helpful for both surface and AA protection. It would appear the most valuable element when fighting destroyers is simply hits rather then shell size and even then many large size shells just passed through DDs. The 10.5s might not penetrate the armored portions of cruisers but they might work well for damaging command and control facilities which were as critical in battles as the size of main guns.

Second, as per the idea of using them in the North Sea, it would appear they would lack a mission that could be realistically expected to be successful. They had fair success as raiders, but in the North Sea I suspect they would become simply targets for Brit subs and planes. The primary failure of the KM surface force was mission concepts that did not fit the changing technology (aircraft and radar) coupled with forces too limited to absorb the consequent losses. The Brits also did not anticipate the impact of aircraft but had the installed base of warships to absorb the pounding they took in Norway and the Easter Med. Also ingrained in the Brits was the concept that even one many be suck, the benefit to attacking is that damaged enemy ships most likely will eventually be sunk re Bismarck and the Italian cruisers. The KM (and Hitler) helped out with overly restrictive rules of engagement such as those that allowed a few destroyers to deter the Hipper and Lutzow at 73 North. Ships have to fit the mission and the mission has to be realistic. Most likely because of the limits towards the resources that could reasonably be expected to be available to the KM; the only hope for a successful surface strategy would have been a paradigm shift towards preparing for a carrier war. Starting the war with 300 or 400 subs might have been just as effective and much less expensive. Once England was out of the war, then what real purpose would a large surface navy have served for the Germans?

Oh well it is still fun to think about alternative designs. Personally I like Jefgte’s 28 cm and 20.5 cm gun combination as cruiser killers. These ships would have worked great up to about 1935. The RN would have had to spend a lot of money on battlecruisers to contain such ships although I think the Brit cruiser captains would still have engaged them as any meaningful damage far from home would eventually destroy such ships, not to mention the tradition of Nelson.

To Jefgte

Lovely model of this design study

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

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

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

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

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

This one Antonio...


Study 15



Jef

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

Ciao Jefgte and all,

YES !!!!!!!!

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 ) 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 .


Ciao Antonio

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.

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




Jef

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

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, T3x280 are German PB


Jef

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

Cia Jefgte and all,

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

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

Ciao Antonio

Here are photos with all my Panzerschiffs Studies







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









































Jef

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

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

_________________
"It is best to remain silent and let others assume you are dumb than to speak up and remove all doubt"

http://nssavannah.wordpress.com/

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

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse

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.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Study5 Drawings

Light


Medium


Full




Jef :MZ:

_________________
Current 1/700 WL
HMS Repulse