Torsionbar
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 9 January 2022
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 26
If you don't mind can you provide the full sources? i can get those readings on jstor.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.
I was thinking that due to the various elements used in the designs that this is between 1905-1910, about 1907/08 I'd wager.When these fast bb's proposed?
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.Was the H-40 armor the same as H-41? Because in that image it's labeled as H-41.
Harald Fock published in Marine Rundschau 1977a series of articles dealing with the prize-competition includin scetches (edition June)When these fast bb's proposed?
RMA opposed this competition and did not trust the shipyard's calculations, so these drafts had no chance to be built.I've suspected as such. Around 1906/07, likely leading to the first German Battlecruiser the Von de Tann?
WI 2016If 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.
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.I mean when these desigs were ORIGINALLY proposed? 1905? 06? 07?
Nice work; well done! This does practically everything to confirm that the caliber of the SK C/36 'g' turret is, indeed, 53cm.I have found blueprint of 530mm SK C/36 L52 AP shell.
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.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?
Oh I see! Yeah that makes sense. Thanks!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.
Correction on the caliber: based on the turret provided in the drawings, it could still be 40.6cm ('f' turret model).Oh I see! Yeah that makes sense. Thanks!
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.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.
Ah this one is alternative inclined belt proposal for H-class.250mm and it's upper belt 170mm
William II's fast battleship design competition series.
STÖRTEBECKER II is B&V's follow-up design.
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.)
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.)
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.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?
Probaly Sörtebecker I is the design from the listI 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.
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 !1000mm Übergroße Granate?
All right, but don't know how much D isI 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 !
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.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?
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) ?Nice work; well done! This does practically everything to confirm that the caliber of the SK C/36 'g' turret is, indeed, 53cm.
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.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) ?