Deutschland-class cruisers with three turrets

[Geoffrey de Vere]

The Admiral Graf Spee with a dummy superfiring turret, circa 1939.


What if the Deutschland-class cruisers had 8x 28 cm guns in three turrets instead of only 6x guns in two? Would it add too much weight to the hull and increase displacement way too much?

 

[Dilandu]

What if the Deutschland-class cruisers had 8x 28 cm guns in three turrets instead of only 6x guns in two? Would it add too much weight to the hull and increase displacement way too much?

Well, it basically how the Sharnhorst & Gneisenau were designed; their initial plans were basically "Deutchlands with more guns". And yes, it would be far too much for original design.

 

[Geoffrey de Vere]

Well, it basically how the Sharnhorst & Gneisenau were designed; their initial plans were basically "Deutchlands with more guns". And yes, it would be far too much for original design.

Fair enough. On a related note, the 'pocket battleships' were, in my opinion, very shitty ships that were more useful as political weapons than WNT/LNT cruiser-killers. They had laughable armour and were basically floating magnets begging to be sunk by the Royal Navy's capital ships

 

[Dilandu]

Fair enough. On a related note, the 'pocket battleships' were, in my opinion, very shitty ships that were more useful as political weapons than WNT/LNT cruiser-killers. They had laughable armour and were basically floating magnets begging to be sunk by the Royal Navy's capital ships

They were designed to fit a very specific conditions, that precluded the possibility of building more balanced warships. The alternative was a slow, well-armored coastal defense ship.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd say that the pocket battleships were successful enough given the restrictions put on both their development/construction and their role. The RN/RAN had a total of 15 x 8" gunned cruisers, 18 'modern' 6" gunned cruisers and dozens of WW1 vintage design cruisers. Each PB required 2 x 8" cruisers assisted by 6" cruisers to give the best chance of victory in an engagement, and of course only 2 of every 3 ships could be relied upon to be available. Therefore these 3 ships tied up 2/3 the RN/RANs available 8" cruisers and a good number of 6" cruisers patrolling the South Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, rather than being in Task Forces in the European theatre.

 

[Lascaris]

I'd say that the pocket battleships were successful enough given the restrictions put on both their development/construction and their role. The RN/RAN had a total of 15 x 8" gunned cruisers, 18 'modern' 6" gunned cruisers and dozens of WW1 vintage design cruisers. Each PB required 2 x 8" cruisers assisted by 6" cruisers to give the best chance of victory in an engagement, and of course only 2 of every 3 ships could be relied upon to be available. Therefore these 3 ships tied up 2/3 the RN/RANs available 8" cruisers and a good number of 6" cruisers patrolling the South Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, rather than being in Task Forces in the European theatre.

The enemy wasn't supposed to be The Royal Navy in the first place bu5 a supposed one on one war against France. The French navy of the late 1920s had not a single fast battleship and all of 7 heavy cruisers. If you look at the panzershiff as a slower heavy cruiser with great range, with fair protection against 8in guns and better firepower, a slow cruiser killer effectively it makes a degree of sense. Now of course the very strategic concept of starting a war and Britain staying neutral... while you are doing commerce raiding all over the place...

 

[Rule of cool]

The enemy wasn't supposed to be The Royal Navy in the first place bu5 a supposed one on one war against France. The French navy of the late 1920s had not a single fast battleship and all of 7 heavy cruisers. If you look at the panzershiff as a slower heavy cruiser with great range, with fair protection against 8in guns and better firepower, a slow cruiser killer effectively it makes a degree of sense.

I agree, even with the RN the PBs could only be engaged 1 on 1 with the 3 BCs and 2 on 1 with 5 or 6 groups of 8" cruisers. France could likely only muster 2 (3 at an extreme pinch) groups capable of engaging PBs.

Now of course the very strategic concept of starting a war and Britain staying neutral... while you are doing commerce raiding all over the place...

Steady up now, you're applying too much logic and thought to the situation....

In all seriousness, if you follow the logic of everything all the way to the bitter end you'd never do anything. Dealing with France and worrying about might's and could be's later is reasonable enough when the alternative is doing nothing and not being able to even deal with France as a result.

 

[Geoffrey de Vere]

I agree, even with the RN the PBs could only be engaged 1 on 1 with the 3 BCs and 2 on 1 with 5 or 6 groups of 8" cruisers. France could likely only muster 2 (3 at an extreme pinch) groups capable of engaging PBs.



Steady up now, you're applying too much logic and thought to the situation....

In all seriousness, if you follow the logic of everything all the way to the bitter end you'd never do anything. Dealing with France and worrying about might's and could be's later is reasonable enough when the alternative is doing nothing and not being able to even deal with France as a result.

World War II was a rigged game from the get-go. Thanks, Treaty of Versailles!

 

[Rule of cool]

World War II was a rigged game from the get-go. Thanks, Treaty of Versailles!

I find the war itself mostly uninteresting compared to ww1.