KRIEGSMARINE CENTRAL - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

William II's fast battleship design competition series.
STÖRTEBECKER II is B&V's follow-up design. STÖRTEBECKER II B&V - 副本.jpg Nec temere 希肖 - 副本.jpg Volldampf voraus 伏尔铿 - 副本.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1-8.jpg
    1-8.jpg
    79.5 KB · Views: 80
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 84
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 76
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 61
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 66
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 76
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 74
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    31.5 KB · Views: 84
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 127
Most of them have quite good level plans in Bundesarchive, thought scattered around randomly in folders. Those attachments atleast are from Warship International, from Dirk Nottleman's series about IGN. capital ships trought several articles, very good read to all who are intressed of the subject.
 
Last edited:
gollevainen said:
Most of them have quite good level plans in Bundesarchive, thought scattered around randomly in folders. Those attachments atleast are from Warship International, from Dirk Nottleman's series about IGN. capital ships trought several articles, very good read to all who are intressed of the subject.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind can you provide the full sources? i can get those readings on jstor.
Also am glad my random guess on STÖRTEBECKER II fast battleship shipyard designer was Blohm und Voss, their ship stern design are easy to recognize.
 
Aa cant rememmber which article run trough which volume out of spot, but I try to dig the spesific volume later in the evening when i got more time
 
MrMemerMan said:
Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.
Click to expand...
I did go with H-41s armor for this one. Since there is no armor provided for H-40A and H-40B (as they are known, but H-40B was drawn up in 1941), it's impossible at this time to say with any certainty what the armor values would be. Presumably they would be equal to H-39 since these designs are based heavily upon it. However, H-39s overall protective scheme was considered inadequate even after they were laid down. So much so that a complete redesign was seriously considered before the ships were scrapped. The desires of improvement over H-39 mixed with the results of Bismarck led to the H-41. If H-40A/B were ever to be built (as a redesign of H-39), it might have been to these sorts of protection specifications.
H-40A and H-40B are non-serious design studies likely meant to appease Hitler, who desired larger naval guns than 40.6cm. H-40A and H-40B presumably are to carry these 40.6cm+ guns, since no caliber is given in their plans. 45cm perhaps? Hard to say. One can certainly tell that no serious amount of effort was expended for the designs, so it is safe to say that the armor values are highly likely to be equal to that of H-39.
To make a simplification of these two paragraphs, H-40A/B are just gunswapped H-39 with minor changes.
 
I've suspected as such. Around 1906/07, likely leading to the first German Battlecruiser the Von de Tann?
 
They mostly orgins from the Willy's private prize-competion for the shipyards, from may 1906-january 1907. The competition and its relevance to other german capital ship construction is covered in the Dirk Nottleman's article, From Ironclads to Dreadnoughts: The Development of the German Navy 1864-1918: Part VII: "Political Enforcements" That is published in Warship international Vol 53, No.2 (june 2016). As quick summary, this whole competition was part of Wilhelms long lasting fixation of the fast battleship or "combined" large-cruiser/battleship type, and the designs itself had little to nothing to do with the actuall Naval staff process to design Von Der Tann, despite the curious similarities between the competition winner and the actuall ship.
 
The project 3 kinda like proto-Bismarck, i like it minus that weird icebreaker bow.
 
Tzoli said:
I've suspected as such. Around 1906/07, likely leading to the first German Battlecruiser the Von de Tann?
Click to expand...
RMA opposed this competition and did not trust the shipyard's calculations, so these drafts had no chance to be built.
 
alexi said:
If you don't mind can you provide the full sources? i can get those readings on jstor.
Also am glad my random guess on STÖRTEBECKER II fast battleship shipyard designer was Blohm und Voss, their ship stern design are easy to recognize.
Click to expand...
WI 2016
 
I mean when these desigs were ORIGINALLY proposed? 1905? 06? 07?
 
Tzoli said:
I mean when these desigs were ORIGINALLY proposed? 1905? 06? 07?
Click to expand...
Unless I am misreading what you are asking for, I believe gollevainen said they were created for a competition made by the Kaiser lasting from May 1906 - January 1907. Since trust in the shipyards was low, and their calculations under doubt as a result, none of the ships went beyond a very basic design phase.
Stortebecker II I know for certain has a plan dated 1907 in the Archives.
 
Nec Temere large armored cruiser is dated 1905 according to invenio, the competition must have started earlier than i expected.
 
speaking of Invenio, I seem to be having hard time geting it work... I get (sometimes) to the folders, but cannot procede to the files themselves anymore, so I was wondering if anyone else has had this proplem. I trying to reach it from Finland (i also tried with VPN set to germany) and with chrome and edge.
 
533 mm battleship guns... just, what do you know about insanity? And that was long before late H-series behemoths.

Somewhat off-topic, but what info do you have about Flottentorpedoboot 1942 and Zerstörer Typ 32 designs mentioned in the starting post?
 
00-PureEvil-00 said:
533 mm battleship guns... just, what do you know about insanity? And that was long before late H-series behemoths.

Somewhat off-topic, but what info do you have about Flottentorpedoboot 1942 and Zerstörer Typ 32 designs mentioned in the starting post?
Click to expand...
No different than the projects of other nations for guns of similar caliber throughout the early 20th century. Just as impractical, one must admit. I assume the turret was created either at the behest of Hitler or as an interesting little project.

Flottentorpedoboote 1942 only has a couple of plans out, but it's the earliest design for the Type 1942 (Z-51). From what is seen on what has been gathered so far, it is by and large the same basic design.
"Typ 32" is a self-made designation for the "never-built" Type 1932 destroyer - more specifically, the initial 1932 specifications and the Vulcan/Schichau proposals for what would become the Type 1934 destroyer.
If either of these interest you, I can provide more information.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
I did go with H-41s armor for this one. Since there is no armor provided for H-40A and H-40B (as they are known, but H-40B was drawn up in 1941), it's impossible at this time to say with any certainty what the armor values would be. Presumably they would be equal to H-39 since these designs are based heavily upon it. However, H-39s overall protective scheme was considered inadequate even after they were laid down. So much so that a complete redesign was seriously considered before the ships were scrapped. The desires of improvement over H-39 mixed with the results of Bismarck led to the H-41. If H-40A/B were ever to be built (as a redesign of H-39), it might have been to these sorts of protection specifications.
H-40A and H-40B are non-serious design studies likely meant to appease Hitler, who desired larger naval guns than 40.6cm. H-40A and H-40B presumably are to carry these 40.6cm+ guns, since no caliber is given in their plans. 45cm perhaps? Hard to say. One can certainly tell that no serious amount of effort was expended for the designs, so it is safe to say that the armor values are highly likely to be equal to that of H-39.
To make a simplification of these two paragraphs, H-40A/B are just gunswapped H-39 with minor changes.
Click to expand...
Oh I see! Yeah that makes sense. Thanks!
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Correction on the caliber: based on the turret provided in the drawings, it could still be 40.6cm ('f' turret model).
That's all I got, and np.
Click to expand...
The only alleged armor I have for H-40B is it's main belt would have been 250mm and it's upper belt 170mm. Armor for H-40A would allegedly have been the exact same as H-39. I'm not sure if this is right however. Seawarpeace (a Russian website) is the only source of this information. So it could be some strange translation error or just pure speculation.
 
Torsionbar said:
William II's fast battleship design competition series.
STÖRTEBECKER II is B&V's follow-up design.
Click to expand...

Are the Blohm @ Voss, Schichau-Werke and AG Vulcan designs are separate from the data table's 8 designs or these are these shipyard's offers to those projects?
 
Been looking at the Marinearchiv forum despite my complete lack of knowledge in German and having to rely on Google Translate on all things, but on this thread from 2013 I saw something that got me curious. Here's the original German, by the user RePe:

Hallo Admiral Kummetz,

das Ausonia-Projekt war bekanntlich zeitlich dem Ende des WK I zuzuordnen. Es ist wohl kaum vorstellbar dass zu dieser Zeit die Marine sich
mit einem "Großträger"-Projekt befasst hätte. Also gehe ich davon aus, du meinst Projekte der Kriegsmarine betreffend Flugzeugträger
grösser als die Graf Zeppelin.
Dazu gibt es einige Zeilen im Buch von Mike J. Whitley "Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe", S. 88/89:

"Trotz der Entscheidung für die Wiederaufnahme der Bauarbeiten auf der GRAF ZEPPELIN hegte das Quartiermeisteramt der Skl. immer noch
beträchtliche Befürchtungen hinsichtlich der Geeignetheit des Entwurfs und drückte im Verlaufe des Jahres 1942 in einer Denkschrift über den
Aufbau der Flotte nach dem Kriege die Notwendigkeit aus, den Grundentwurf vollständig zu überarbeiten. Der neue Entwurf sollte folgende
Parameter aufweisen: 12,7-cm-Mehrzweckgeschütze, einen Fahrbereich ähnlich der Schlachtschiffe, die Geschwindigkeit eines Kreuzers
und gute See-Eigenschaften für eine atlantische Verwendung. (Es könnte sich hierbei um die Entwurfs-Spezifizierung unter dem Decknamen
"Lilienthal" handeln, die 1943 in den Kriegsspielen der Kriegsakademie eine Rolle spielte. Sie fasste folgendes ins Auge: 58.000 t, zwanzig
12,7-cm-Luft/Seeziel-Geschütze, ein Flugdeck mit 100-mm-Panzerung und imstande, 100 Flugzeuge zu führen.)
Click to expand...

And here translated to English by Google's best efforts:

Hello Admiral Kummetz, as is well known,

the Ausonia project was assigned to the end of WWI. It is hardly conceivable that the Navy would have been involved
in a “ large carrier ” project at this time. So I'm assuming you mean Navy projects regarding aircraft carriers
larger than the Graf Zeppelin .
There are a few lines about this in Mike J. Whitley's book "Deutsche Grosskampfschiffe", p. 88/89:

"Despite the decision to resume construction work on the GRAF ZEPPELIN, the Skl.'s quartermaster's office still had
considerable fears about the suitability of the ship design and expressed the need to completely revise the basic design in a memorandum on the
structure of the fleet after the war in the course of 1942. The new design should
have the following parameters: 12.7 cm multi-purpose guns, a driving range similar to that of battleships , the speed of a cruiser
and good sea characteristics for Atlantic use. (This could be the design specification under the code name
"Lilienthal", which played a role in the war games of the War Academy in 1943. It envisaged the following: 58,000 tons, twenty
12.7 cm air-to-sea guns, a flight deck with 100 mm armor and capable of carrying 100 aircraft.)
Click to expand...

The bolded part is what got my attention. Can anyone corroborate what Whitley said?
 
Tzoli said:
Are the Blohm @ Voss, Schichau-Werke and AG Vulcan designs are separate from the data table's 8 designs or these are these shipyard's offers to those projects?
Click to expand...
I have currently found 4 designs, Schichau、Vulcan and Wilhelmshaven designs are the same as in the table，but B&V's STÖRTEBECKER II is separate from the table. Although Weser won the competition, William preferred B&V, which led to the emergence of the more powerful STÖRTEBECKER II in 1907.
 
Torsionbar said:
I have currently found 4 designs, Schichau、Vulcan and Wilhelmshaven designs are the same as in the table，but B&V's STÖRTEBECKER II is separate from the table. Although Weser won the competition, William preferred B&V, which led to the emergence of the more powerful STÖRTEBECKER II in 1907.
Click to expand...
Probaly Sörtebecker I is the design from the list
 
Torsionbar said:
1000mm Übergroße Granate？
Click to expand...
I would translate "Übgs.Gr. Modell" as "Übungsgranate, Modell", meaning a model of a training round. Interesting maybe is the note on the drawing "Maße sind in Vielfachen von D eingetragen" (dimensions are written down as multiples of diameter". So, there are no absolute dimensions on this drawing !
 
Jemiba said:
I would translate "Übgs.Gr. Modell" as "Übungsgranate, Modell", meaning a model of a training round. Interesting maybe is the note on the drawing "Maße sind in Vielfachen von D eingetragen" (dimensions are written down as multiples of diameter". So, there are no absolute dimensions on this drawing !
Click to expand...
All right, but don't know how much D is
 
I assume, this type of training rounds were built for different calibres.
 
Here is a sort of preliminary for the 1916 grosses torpedoboot, that I found while back from the invenio. Since I decided not to draw it to my Shipbucket vanity projects this time, I liked to share it to you. The actual file was really poorly lighted so i adjusted the curves little bit to get more out of it.

​

 

Attachments

  • RM_3_16923_Entwurf für ein großes Torpedoboot_edit.jpg
    RM_3_16923_Entwurf für ein großes Torpedoboot_edit.jpg
    3.9 MB · Views: 81
Force Lord said:
Been looking at the Marinearchiv forum despite my complete lack of knowledge in German and having to rely on Google Translate on all things, but on this thread from 2013 I saw something that got me curious. Here's the original German, by the user RePe:



And here translated to English by Google's best efforts:



The bolded part is what got my attention. Can anyone corroborate what Whitley said?
Click to expand...
Lilienthal is referenced in Whitley's German Capital Ships of WWII, in the Graf Zeppelin section. Outside of this sole reference, I have not seeing anything else regarding the "Lilienthal". However, given the stats provided, it must have been at least somewhat sketched out. There is probably a design of it somewhere, if it survives. I'm rather certain one was at least made.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
Nice work; well done! This does practically everything to confirm that the caliber of the SK C/36 'g' turret is, indeed, 53cm.
Click to expand...
The SK C/36g turret was dated 1937, and the g/Psgr. L/4,9 shell was dated 1943. Do they match with each other? Or the shell was for the Gerat 36 (L/52) ?
 
donnyjie said:
The SK C/36g turret was dated 1937, and the g/Psgr. L/4,9 shell was dated 1943. Do they match with each other? Or the shell was for the Gerat 36 (L/52) ?
Click to expand...
The Gerat 36 is actually, according to NavWeaps, a 1938 design gun. This would account for the differences between the SK C/36g and the finalized design of the gun with a /52-caliber overall length.
As for why this round is dated 1943? It could be an updated version. Alternatively, this AP round could have just been developed at a later date, with only HE in service prior. There is only one 53cm gun ever designed or put "into service" for Germany that I am aware of, so it would only make sense that this 53cm round would be directly connected to the 53cm gun+turret from 1937.
Just my 2c.
 
Hello, I wanted to ask if you could recommend any book or online archive on German battleship designs, preferably from the first decade of the 20th century (1908-1911).
I am investigating the negotiations between German companies (Blohm & Voss, Germaniawerf, Schichau, Vulcan, Weser, etc.) with Argentina or Brazil; and although I have details of some of the proposals, I have not yet been able to find all the schemes.

In particular, I am obsessed to find a proposal for battleships for Argentina by Blohm & Voss, offered circa July 1909 and called "Design G." Its characteristics were:
- Displacement: 20,165.
- Medium draft: 8.1 meters.
- Power: ~24,500 hp.
- Machinery: Turbines.
- Speed: 22.0-20.5 ks.
- Belt: 230 mm.
- Main guns: 15 (5x3) 305mm/50cs.
- Secondary guns: 12 (12x1) 152mm/50cs.
- Tertiary guns: 12 (12x1) 75mm/50cs.
- Torpedo launchers: 4 (4x1) ~533mm tt.

Thank you very much for your attention. regards.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom