KRIEGSMARINE CENTRAL - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

alexi said:
Just got back from Invenio, they have some updates for ships and weapon plans in Imperial Navy sections, but since am more interests into weapons, here's a quick couples i went through for now:
- 15cm/L45 MPL in twin mounts, dated 1920 intended for a replacement cruiser (might related to preliminary twin turreted Emden).
- 15cm/L45 MPLO, anti-air mount designed in 1919 (coastal mounts possibly).
- Twin mount 34cm/L45, at least two and two more hasn't yet digitalized and including one data table.
- Triple mount 34cm/L45 (1911), with data and turret sketches but image quality kinda eh.
- You can find both single and twin 21cm/L45 in Blücher file plans (RM-3 teil 09), single mount wasn't used but have been proposed on some armored cruiser plans.
Click to expand...
alexi said:
Aircraft Carrier B also digitalized too, only the first part (main drawings) and there are two designs (one with island and one full flush-deck, with side exhausts.)
Click to expand...
Very exciting new digitizations I see. I've always read that the 15cm twin open-ended mount for Emden was supposed to be 15cm/55, but that does not make sense given the year that Emden was designed (and from when the twin turret came from - 1920) and the year that design work on the 15cm/55 SK C/28 started.

An anti-air 15cm dates back to the late-war GK proposals, as some of them were to feature AA 15cm/45 guns...not surprising they continued this thought process after the war.

The twin 34cm/45 is present on at least one pre-1910 design IIRC (Schnell und Stark and/or Stortebecker II), but the triple is new to me.

Excited to see the 21cm twin for Blucher...and some interesting plans for AC B I see.
 
I'll thinking about it, except Aircraft Carrier B because their massive file sizes.
The twin 34cm/45 is present on at least one pre-1910 design IIRC (Schnell und Stark and/or Stortebecker II),
Click to expand...
You mean Stortebecker II fast battleship? S&S is Nassau like hull but long, narrow armed with 28cm and 21cm, i might to post the rests and hoping their file sizes bearable.
 
Last edited:
alexi said:
I'll thinking about it, except Aircraft Carrier B because their massive file sizes.

You mean Stortebecker II fast battleship? S&S is Nassau like hull but long, narrow armed with 28cm and 21cm, i might to post the rests and hoping their file sizes bearable.
Click to expand...
Yes. I haven't looked at Stortebecker or S&S in a while so I'd forgotten which had what armament.

This twin 15cm is weird to me. Ersatz Falke was the construction name for SMS Breslau who received eight 15cm guns in place of her 10.5cm armament later in her career. However, this plan suggests than twin 15cm guns were planned early or prior to Breslau's construction - and the general shape of the superstructure around the guns matches that of the Magdeburg-class closely. Perhaps the twin mount plans were labeled 1920 due to their potential use on Ersatz Niobe (Emden) early in her planning. Unfortunately the NIACC would deny the twin 15cm idea and so the 15cm twin never got very far past the earliest planning stages.

(I should also mention that the twin turrets in the Ersatz Niobe plan look almost 1:1 to that of the twin 15cm in the plan provided).
 
Last edited:
alexi said:
Speaking of Stortebecker (aka 27300 tons fast battleship), here's other draft (more detailed characteristics on right side), i must say for an early 1900~ hull, this thing is quite a formidable beast, perhaps for Kaiser wishes to have a large powerful capital ship?
View attachment 705790
Click to expand...
It's one hell of a ship, that's for sure (especially for the time, which I put around 1906-7 or otherwise around the design period of VdT). It's close in concept to the German late-WWI fast battleship (Einheitschiffe) concepts which featured heavy armaments (42cm) and high speeds (24+ kn), but I know for certain that there was always an emphasis on keeping the battlecruisers and battleships separate until that point which is likely why the lighter VdT design was chosen over this one.
 
alexi said:
Aircraft Carrier B also digitalized too, only the first part (main drawings) and there are two designs (one with island and one full flush-deck, with side exhausts.)
Click to expand...
Alexi, can you please give the link to the flush-deck version?
 
Here is some intresting armoured cruiser projects from the Bundesarchive (Ive reduced the size of each file bymyself)
First a some sort of preliminary layout for Fürst Bismarck, then a seriously upgunned (18 15cm !) Prinz Heinrich, and set of 1907 vintage of small (~7000ts) armoured cruisers from the era of battlecruisers. I would really be intressed to find out more of these designs, as they go so much against the main trends of the time and the rather sticky Fleet-law based construction plans.
 

Attachments

  • RM_3_14775_50 percent.jpg
    RM_3_14775_50 percent.jpg
    743.8 KB · Views: 133
  • RM_3_14774_50percent.jpg
    RM_3_14774_50percent.jpg
    847.5 KB · Views: 110
  • RM_3_14773_50 percent.jpg
    RM_3_14773_50 percent.jpg
    929.3 KB · Views: 103
  • RM_3_14772_50 percent.jpg
    RM_3_14772_50 percent.jpg
    975.4 KB · Views: 103
  • RM_3_14771_percent.jpg
    RM_3_14771_percent.jpg
    974.8 KB · Views: 107
  • RM_3_2_0115_50percent.jpg
    RM_3_2_0115_50percent.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 106
  • RM_2_2095_25percent.jpg
    RM_2_2095_25percent.jpg
    668.5 KB · Views: 136
These (armored cruisers) are dated in mid-late 1908, which suggesting they're post-Blücher designs probably.
I would really be intressed to find out more of these designs, as they go so much against the main trends of the time and the rather sticky Fleet-law based construction plans.
Click to expand...
Am vaguely recalled Tirpitz (?) wanting a fleet of commerce raiders, which would have been less costly than building Kaiser luxury fleet of big guns since he's not a fan on big spending.
 
If it was flush-decked, how would it be conned? There doesn't appear to be a bridge structure under the front of the flight deck, where it was located on the flush-decked Japanese carriers.
 
gollevainen said:
Here is some intresting armoured cruiser projects from the Bundesarchive (Ive reduced the size of each file bymyself)
First a some sort of preliminary layout for Fürst Bismarck, then a seriously upgunned (18 15cm !) Prinz Heinrich, and set of 1907 vintage of small (~7000ts) armoured cruisers from the era of battlecruisers. I would really be intressed to find out more of these designs, as they go so much against the main trends of the time and the rather sticky Fleet-law based construction plans.
Click to expand...
Love the look of the German St. Louis. That's a lotta 15cm guns.
 
alexi said:
Ah sorry for misinformation, i was assuming because some minor differences and there's some ducts tapering on the side, so i thought is a flush-decker, that one probably show a different sections of the hull.
Here's island one.
View attachment 705848
Click to expand...
Noting the inclusion of the 15cm secondary battery and unchanged machinery plant...virtually 1:1 GZ 1936. I wonder if there are later revisions of Fzt B.
 
Found a 1917 (actually dated in September 1910 in the prints) diesel battlecruiser studies, looks like Derfflinger with AB-XY turret layout like battleship.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that flugzeugtrager B as it shows trumpeter is at least a bit realistic?
 

Attachments

  • Peter Strasser model 2.jpg
    Peter Strasser model 2.jpg
    179.3 KB · Views: 179
alexi said:
View attachment 705904
Click to expand...
Very much related to Derfflinger I'd say, but it has some aspects to it which shows its age and that while it may be related to the class, this derivative study was drawn up quite early (1910 makes sense).
Each of these engines was capable of 12,000 hp and given the number it is expected that this is a fast diesel battlecruiser study. A horrible shame that a study is all this ever was.
 
Pirate Pete said:
Any statistics to go with this design?
Click to expand...
Typically if there were any statistics they would have been written in the margins, but otherwise such things might be written in logs and journals detailing design histories...no idea if such things have survived this long. I have never even heard of this design before, much less expected a full set of plans like this, so perhaps there is more to it that we do not have yet.
 
Here is my speculation for the recently posted diesel battlecruiser study.
Looking at the design history of Kreuzer K (Derfflinger), one can see pretty much exactly where this design comes from in the process.

But first, as usual, diesel history:

One of the good things about Admiral Tirpitz was his strong interest in diesel engines and his insistence that they be implemented in the latest battleship and battlecruiser designs. From 1909 and until the push for them was defeated in late 1910, diesel engines played a major factor in the design process of Kreuzer K, and the Chief of Construction Department for Engine Installations had been working closely with MAN for a large marine diesel engine; and in late 1909 the RMA formed a development contract with MAN for the construction of a 6-cylinder, 12,000 hp engine. However:
"Six of the engines would be needed to produce the 70,000 hp (52,199 kW) required for the latest German battleships. Given the uncharted territory MAN was traversing, a three-cylinder engine would be built first to prove that a six-cylinder engine could meet the desired specifications. Other companies were also contracted to build competing engines."
The 3-cylinder test engine contract was formed on 28 February 1910. It was expected to produce 6,000 hp and serve as a proof-of-concept for the RMA. From this test engine a 6-cylinder engine would be produced and be capable of 12,000 hp. Of note is the other companies that were contracted, and you can see the work of companies like Junkers with their 1912 diesel battleship proposal.

More descriptions of the engine:
"MAN’s design was an inline, two-stroke engine that used double-acting cylinders. Each of the closed cylinders had a combustion chamber at its top and bottom. Originally, each combustion chamber had four intake valves, four fuel valves, and two safety valves that were also used for air-starting the engine. The safety valves were located at the center of the combustion chamber. The locations of the remaining valves were split between passageways that branched off from either side of the upper combustion chamber. With the exception of the safety valves, the valves for each side of each combustion chamber were actuated by a single underhead camshaft. This configuration had a total of 20 valves for each cylinder and four camshafts for the engine. The final (seventh) combustion chamber design retained the four intake valves but had only two fuel valves and one safety valve (located in the upper combustion chamber). The changes lowered the number of valves per cylinder to 15. Exhaust ports were located in the middle of the cylinder and were covered and uncovered by the piston.

The double-headed piston was constructed of two parts. The lower part was connected to a non-articulating piston rod, and the upper part of the piston was bolted to the lower part. The piston rod was connected to the connecting rod via a cross head. The cross head slid in vertical channels on both sides of the inner crankcase. Oil was circulated through the piston to cool it. The oil flowed up through passageways in the piston rod and into the lower part of the piston. The oil then flowed to the upper part of the piston and down the center of the piston rod. The upper and lower combustion chamber sections were bolted to the center section of the cylinder, and the assembly was attached to the crankcase. A water jacket surrounded the cylinder. The center section of the cylinder and of the upper combustion chamber were made of cast iron. The crankcase, piston, lower combustion chamber, and many other components were made of cast steel. Each complete cylinder assembly was around 12 ft (3.5 m) tall, and the engine was over 24 ft 3 in (7.4 m) tall.

Each cylinder had a 33.4 in (850 mm) bore and a 41.3 in (1,050 mm) stroke. Since the piston was double-acting and there was a lower combustion chamber, each cylinder’s displacement was nearly doubled, as if it were two conventional cylinders. The upper combustion chamber displaced 36,359 cu in (595.8 L). However, the connecting rod passing through the lower combustion chamber took up around 3,021 cu in (49.5 L) of volume. Displacement for the lower combustion chamber was approximately 33,337 cu in (546.3 L). The cylinder’s total displacement was around 69,697 cu in (1,142 L). The three-cylinder test engine displaced 209,094 cu in (3,426 L), and the six-cylinder engine displaced 418,187 cu in (6,853 L). The engine drove three double-acting air pumps to scavenge the engine. Each air pump had a 52.0 in (1,320 mm) bore and a 31.5 in (800 mm) stroke."

The engines are absolutely gigantic, which explains why they can produce so much power with such a low piston number.

The 3-cylinder test engine was first run on 11 March 1911. As expected from such a technology - practically in its infancy as far as marine use goes, and especially at this size and power output - technological difficulties were encountered and subsequently there were severe delays. Worse still, an incident in January 1912 caused by a failure in the engine saw the intake manifolds explode, killing 10 workers. Further delays could be expected and this perhaps damaged the trust of the RMA in this new technology as a whole.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned Chief of Construction Department for Engine Installations (Geheimrat Veith) changed his mind by September of 1910, stating that large diesel engines were "not yet ripe" for installation aboard Kreuzer K. This was no doubt caused by the slow progress of development with the 3-cylinder engine (it had not even been run yet in Sept 1910), but Geheimrat Veith is not incorrect with his remark either. 6-cylinder engines of the required power would never be ready in time for Kreuzer K, and thus were really and truly not yet ripe. An undesirable consequence of this is that large marine diesel engines would only see limited use aboard large surface warships following this decision, ensuring the near-absolute dominance of the steam turbine in the German Navy. Tirpitz's grand beliefs and proclamations on diesel engines, that they would put them "a real leap ahead of other navies", would never see the light of day.

It would not be until June 1913 that the 3-cylinder test engine would reach the specified power output, producing 5,400 hp at 90%. Derfflinger would commission the next year. Work on the 6-cylinder engine would, regardless of the decision with Kreuzer K, follow.

So where does that leave this Study design?

I strongly believe this is a Kreuzer K derivative, drawn up early in development and obviously is the most radical of the Kreuzer K proposals. In 1910, there was still the debate about 30.5cm vs 28cm, diesel and steam, and even whether Kreuzer K should be a sister to Kreuzer J (Seydlitz) or its own design....considerations for diesel as the main method of propulsion would no doubt have not gone beyond the initial design phase.
So, the chances are that this study is one of the early competing designs for Kreuzer K, or a one-off of those supposed to satisfy Tirpitz's mad desires for diesel propulsion. This one is not strictly just some derivative of Kreuzer J Design IVe given the stronger similarities to aspects of Kreuzer K Design 1 and Design 3. The official name of the study is Studientwurf No. Ic, so we might surmise that this is Design 1c and place it somewhere between Design 1 and Design 3 for Kreuzer K...which tracks given that while the casemate is recessed inboard from the hull sides like Design 3, it is still at the weather deck like Design 1, and also keeps the forward and aft hull-mounted guns as in Design 1, yet has a centerline arrangement and a declining similarity to the Kreuzer J-esque looks of Design 1...just as Design 3 does.
At the very least it exists somewhere during the development of Design 1 and 3. That much I believe.

What characteristics can we discern from the design?
That depends on a lot of factors. I would prefer to know the length and beam, which is impossible given the current image quality. I would also like to know the exact date of the design, which may even cause me to revise my entire hypothesis. This is also dashed by image quality. For now, I can play around with the machinery - arguably the most interesting part.
While 6 6-cylinder engines were required to power new German battleships, this design has 8. 12,000 hp was expected from the get-go, and by April 1917 this had been achieved:

"On 24 March 1917, the six-cylinder engine produced 12,200 hp (9,098 kW) at 135 rpm for 12 hours. In April 1917, the engine passed its five-day acceptance test, running at 90% power and producing 10,800 hp (8,054 kW) at 130 rpm."
In 1914, things had been slightly different:

"The six-cylinder engine was first run on 23 February 1914. By September 1914, the engine was producing 10,000 hp (7,457 kW) at 130 rpm."

Shifting priorities caused by the outbreak of war in 1914 saw the development of MAN's 6-cylinder project decline rapidly, and more so as priority again shifted to U-Boat warfare in 1916. Although the Bayern-class battleship Sachsen (and her sister Wurttemburg) had been slated for one of these engines, it was not to be.
Assuming some miracle (typically found in the form of money) allowed the 6-cylinder's progress to progress far more rapidly that it had in this universe, one could expect to see 96,000 hp from these 8 engines. This is not an overload power, but a continuous output...at least for a few days, depending on maintenance/the condition of the engines and a billion other factors. Given that the HSF operated only by short sorties, I see no issue. At worst (10,000 hp 100% output), that is still 80,000 hp - more than what was initially expected for Derfflinger either way.

I'm glad that this design was found. A interesting and unique piece to the history of marine diesel engines overall.

Perhaps they might have been ready for Hindenburg, in a candid world.

Sources:
German Battlecruisers of World War One (Gary Staff)
Dieselmotoren fur funf Deutsche Marinen (Eberhard Moller/Werner Brack)
oldmachinepress.com

MAN Double-Acting Diesel Marine Engines

In the first half of the 20th century, MAN (Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg) developed a number of double-acting, two-stroke, diesel, marine engines, including a V-24 that displaced 224,957 cu in…
oldmachinepress.com oldmachinepress.com
 
lukasgrul said:
Yes the haunebu is just crazy but everything else looks quite good for me.
Click to expand...
The lacking 10.5cm battery, "plated over" 15cm battery sponsons, the general look of "GZ but we removed the 15cm guns"...FzT B would have been practically a subclass compared to something like GZ, assuming what we know was intended for ships later in the class would be applied to B, which is likely.
No 15cm's, period, by design, and diesel engines to extend the lacking range. 10.5cm battery would be no less than 5 - most likely 6 - especially as AA becomes evermore important. The reduction in the AAA battery in this Trumpeter model is weird.
Suppose what matters most is how FzT B's construction progresses...at least that's what I can say about some of the points I've brought up.
 
Yes , I agree with you. The reduction of SL-6 rangefinders and 105mm guns is weird. But plating over 150mm casemates might indicate bigger hangar, or at least I think so. Or when germany didn´t need GZ for original role they would uninstall the 150mm guns to save weight and space for other AA ammo. Everything is only my idea, so don´t take it so seriously please, I am just wondering why trumpeter did these modifications.
 
Super cool I didn´t know anything like this germans would propose. I don´t understand placement of this rangefinder. It is always much lower.
 

Attachments

  • 20000t carrier cruiser.png
    20000t carrier cruiser.png
    3 KB · Views: 119
It screams low-profile when you look at it, short island height and single hangar (20-22 aircraft) and an pick up crane to recover spotter plane?, don't think its an actual proposal nor any serious design, it definitely designed by one of the many committees who works on hybrid battleship-carriers.
 
alexi said:
Here's the recently digitalized 20000 tons hybrid cruiser-carrier with 12.8cm DP, no specifications and seems to be inspired from Prinz Eugen hull.
View attachment 706016
Click to expand...
128s are in Drh L C/38's, but the elevation is much higher than the 65 degrees on the production model. Maybe an altered design with greater elevation. Still odd...only in were 1942 was diesel-only designs considered, and of course only in 1940 was there V-engine designs such as this one...the shape of the Drh L C/41 was well-known by this point, so these are certainly Drh L C/38s. I wonder if they are using the SK C/34.
Either way, that's a 10-gun 5" broadside. Enough to make DDs think very carefully, and with that elevation aircraft should also be wary. Well, I would say that if the 10.5cm/65 wasn't a vastly superior AAA weapon to pair with those SL triaxial directors, unless modifications to the Drh L C/38 suddenly include triaxial stabilization.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I wonder if this design features the V12Z 42/58 or the 32/44? Given the sizes, probably the 32/44...in which case 120,000 hp at 10,000 hp 100% output to be expected around 1942. No different than the steam plant, yet offers greatly increased range and survivability.

What a beautifully odd duck this is. You've been doing wonderfully well with these finds recently Alexi. However, an RM number posted along with it would be helpful in my search for them later.
 
lukasgrul said:
Yes , I agree with you. The reduction of SL-6 rangefinders and 105mm guns is weird. But plating over 150mm casemates might indicate bigger hangar, or at least I think so. Or when germany didn´t need GZ for original role they would uninstall the 150mm guns to save weight and space for other AA ammo. Everything is only my idea, so don´t take it so seriously please, I am just wondering why trumpeter did these modifications.
Click to expand...
I suspect Trumpeter believes that FzT B would be practically 1:1 GZ, at least until it was past the point of construction where the 15cm sponsons had already been added...from there the usual idea that they would be removed comes into play...while removing the ammo storage for alternative use would be a good idea, the 15cm twins actually do not take up much internal space themselves. Maybe some sort of story revolving around increasing aircraft fuel capacity by reducing ammo storage is in play here...but I definitely would not do that by removing 10.5cm AAA.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom