Polish Projects

Kingpin6100

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
73
Reaction score
116

This thread is organized by ship type when information is available, and includes general plans when unavailable. It starts with Destroyer plans, moves to Battleship plans, then to Cruiser plans, and finally to Aircraft Carrier plans, followed by lists of various war demands and fleet building plans.



Destroyers
Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire proposal downscaled.png


Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire Proposal

Modified Le Fantasque. 5x1 130mm [40 caliber Mod. 1924, as in Burza and Wicher], 2x1 40mm on the main deck, one on each side behind the rear funnels, 2x2 Hotchkiss 13.2mm MG, with one on each side by the bridge. 550mm torpedo tubes in 2 triple mounts
Contre-Torpilleur 1690t Projet A for Poland.png


Normand Shipyard Proposal

Modified Guepard. 5x1 130mm [40 caliber mod 1924], 2 single pompoms behind the second funnel, 2 Hotchkiss twins on each side of the rear tripod, 2x3 550mm. meant to make 36-38 knots

Copy of [1934] Thornycroft T976A.jpg

Thornycroft T976A

3x2 120mm [Bofors], 2 40mm between the funnels. 2x3 550mm

Copy of [1934] Thornycroft T977A.jpg

Thornycroft T977A

3x2 120mm [Bofors], 2 40mm between the funnels. 2x3 550mm. slightly downsized version of T976A

Copy of [1934] Thornycroft T978A.jpg

Thornycroft T978A
(composite image isn't good, c'est la vie)

Same hull as T977A, rearranged masts.

Copy of Norman Shipyard for Poland.jpg
Normand Shipyard Proposal

4x120mm/45, 1x1 76mm/50 AA, 3x2 40mm AA, 2x3 550mm

Huragon blueprints.png

Huragon

Versions of the Blyskawica class to be built domestically in Poland. Slightly different internal arrangement, redesigned bridge and funnel, and another Hotchkiss MG superfiring above the 40mm Bofors behind the funnel.

View attachment Wallsend Shipyard design downscaled.png

Wallsend Shipyard design.jpg

Wallsend/Swan Hunter design

3x2 120mm, 2x1 40mm Port and Starboard on the searchlight platform.

xrmPpNW_d.jpg

Wicher/Burza Modernization

Detailed in Warship Volume IV, this was a planned modernization for Wicher and Burza to standardize armament and profile with the Grom and Blyskawica. They would have carried 5 120mm guns, with the twin in Y position, 2x2 40mm on platforms like the Grom's, and 4?x2 Hotchkiss 13.2mm MGs. They would have kept the 550mm TT and DCRs.



Battleships


"The matter of handing over the American battleships to the Polish Navy was raised only by Jerzy Pertek, who - citing the memoirs of Comdr. Władysław Kosianowski - only outlined the draft of one of the American senators to donate six ships to Poland. However, it did not explain the reasons for the application or the reasons for the rejection of the proposal. The answers to these questions can be found in the documents stored in the Central Military Archives in Rembertów and the Archives of New Records. The sources of the entire history can be found in the events of February 1922, when the Disarmament Conference ended in Washington. , The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan of the treaties on the limitation of armaments at sea. 6 Connecticut type, 5 Virginia type and two Maine type. In connection with their withdrawal from service in the US Navy, the Republican Senator of the State of Maryland - Joseph Irwin France presented a bill on July 5, according to which the President of the United States (Republican Warren G. Harding) would be authorized to hand over to the Republic of ships that - according to the Washington Treaty - they were scheduled for deletion from the lists of the American fleet. " I can write this about the Chilean ship: In 1931, there was an offer to sell the Chilean battleship Almirante Lattore to the Polish Navy. Ultimately, nothing came of it. Also in 1931, the sale of the Spanish-class battleship Espana was offered to Poland, the battleship Espana later renamed Alfonso XIII, and in the same year there was also an offer for a Spanish armored-deck cruiser and a submarine. I read about the fact that Poland was interested in the Revenge battleships on secretprojects.com in the topic of project 1047.

Sources:

https://www.magnum-x.pl/artykul/okrety-ktore-nie-podniosly-bialo-czerwonej-bandery

https://www.magnum-x.pl/artykul/polskaeskadrapancernikow




Graf Spee (1919)

SMS Graf Spee was a Mackensen-class battleship being build in Gdansk while it was part of the German Empire. The ship was eventually scrapped in 1921-1922. No plans to complete it are currently known.





Gangut-class (1921)



As part of the treaty ending the Polish-Soviet War, the Poles originally demanded 2 Gangut Class Battleships. However, they received no naval reparations from the treaty.





25,000t BB (1939)



By 1939, the naval plans had been changed to include small 25,000t battleships. These were planned to have 3x3 305mm, 4x3 152mm, numerous AA guns, 2x3 Torpedo tubes on the deck, as well as 4 shafts outputting 120,000-140,000 SHP for a speed of 30 knots. The maximum armor thickness was planned at 350mm, and the planned cost was 162.5m PLN. The requirements would have been far too much on that displacement, but no more design work is believed to have occurred. (Breyer)





Cruisers


Danae (1920)

Before the Polish-Soviet War, the newborn Polish fleet was to receive cruiser Danae. However the British reneged on this deal due to not liking the peace brought at the end of the war between the Poles and Bolsheviks



Duguay-Trouin (1926)

In 1926 the "small program" of the KMW (the maritime direction) announced over 12 years the commissioning of 2 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats and 12 submersibles, to be completed by 1940. The cruisers were to be copies of the Duguay-Trouin, built in Polish yards. Due to the dissatisfaction with the French yard CNT, which was building the Burza and Wicher, as well as an economic downturn, the cruisers were not realized.



Japanese Offer (1930)



The Japanese offered some vintage cruisers to Poland in July 1930. The ships offered were:

- Tone (1907), a unique armored cruiser

- Chikuma, Hirato, and Yahagi, the last protected cruisers of the Japanese Navy

- Tama, Kuma, Oi, and Kitakami, light cruisers meant to lead destroyers

- Tatsuta and Tenryu, smaller and less capable Kumas




Potyrała Washington Heavy Cruiser (1930)



Engineer Aleksander Potyrala proposed a Washington-style cruiser in 1930, mainly as a thought experiment. Characteristics as follows:

Length: 185 m Draft: 6m

Armament: 9x203mm, 9x120mm in a 9x1 arrangement, several AA mounts. 8 533mm torpedo tubes

Engine: machine power of 120,000 KM

Speed: 35 knots

Armor: 110mm belt, 90mm turrets, 40mm deck, 200mm Conning tower. Estimated construction value of approximately PLN 70 million.








Pocket Battleship Counter (1931)



In 1931, when the general data of the so-called pocket battleships was available, the construction of a 14000t cruiser was proposed by the KMW main staff. No work on such a design is currently known to exist.



Mine Cruiser (1936)

The 1936 plan included a 4,500 ton, 35 knots, 8 x 120 mm armed minelaying cruiser.



Aircraft Cruiser (1936)
An Aircraft Cruiser was provided for in the same plans: 4500 tons, with 8 152mm guns, and 35 knot speed. Eventually it became a design of 6000 tons, 8 152mm, 12 102mm, 12 seaplanes, 2x3 533 TT. No other information is known.


Other Pre-War Cruiser Plans

  • The naval plan for 1936-1942 provided for 1 heavy cruiser that would be faster than pocket battleships and more powerful than German light cruisers, estimated displacement at 15,000 tons and a speed of 33 knots. After the reduction, this was abandoned. Displacement: 15,000 tons; Armament: 203mm; Speed: 33 knots; Engine with a capacity of 120,000 hp
  • Naval Plan 1936/1937 called for 2 heavy cruisers (10,000 tons) with 3x3 203mm, 9 120mm guns, 2x4 torpedoes, 100,000hp engine, 200mm maximum armor
  • Potyrała proposed another heavy cruiser in 1937, with similar characteristics to his other proposals
  • Plans for an 8000t CL were apparently developed before the war, and such a ship was ordered directly before the war, apparently from the United Kingdom. However, no information is known to exist about the ship, as Vickers' customer records for the period and the Polish archives are incomplete. This is mentioned in "Plan M".

Aircraft Carriers

CV 1930

In 1930, a maritime program was drawn up which included a small aircraft carrier. No other information is known.


Casablanca-class (1945)
In April 1945, head of the Navy, Vice Admiral Jerzy Świrski, sent to Maj. Gen. Marian Kukiel, head of the Ministry of National Defense, developed by the KMW Planning Department, a long-term plan for the expansion of the Navy. What was the result of this long term [15 years] plan? Gaining full domination
on the Baltic Sea. It was very unrealistic, but appears to assume a war against the Soviets quickly followed by a return to pre-war 'normalcy'.
With the knowledge of the power of shipborn aviation, the plan included (with British help):

549 aircraft in the following lineup:
a .. 5 long-range reconnaissance squadrons (45 seaplanes);
b. 1st long reconnaissance squadron (24 four-engine land planes);
c. 4 long-range torpedo squadrons (96 aircraft);
d. 3 on-board torpedo squadrons (72 aircraft);
e. 6 on-board fighter squadrons (144 airplanes);
f. 4 squadrons of single-engine fighters (96 aircraft);
g. 3 squadrons of twin-engine fighter planes (72 aircraft).
and over 10,000 people in this formation. What is most interesting, it was postulated to create on-board aviation, the Poles were to obtain 6 escort aircraft carriers of the "Casablanca" type
[length 156 m, width 32.9 m, draft 6.3 m, maximum speed 19 knots, range 10 200 nautical miles at a speed of 15 knots, crew of 860 seamen, armament 1x 127 mm, 8 x 40 mm, 12 x 20 mm , 27 aircraft].





Polish-Soviet War Demands

Prior to the commencement of negotiations with Soviet Russia in September 1920, several options for recovery of the Russian fleet were developed, which were to be used by the Polish side in the negotiations:

Initial variant I (from April 1920) - all cruisers, Bogatyr and Bajan, all destroyers, Lejtnant Belli, Lejtnant Iljin, Braczesław, Fiodor Stretiłat, Priamysław, Mieczysław, Sokoł and Nowik, all submarines, Tigr and Pantera , auxiliary Oka and Borgo

Variant II ("maximum") - 2 battleships, Sevastopol (23,000 t each), 10 destroyers, Mieczysław (1250 t each), 5 submarines, Pantera (800 t each), 10 trawlers 600 t, 2 ships auxiliaries Oka and Borgo (total 7,000 t) = 75,500 t; in addition, ships under construction (2 cruisers t. Svetlana, 7,000 tons each) and 4 heavy-caliber cannon turrets with ammunition and infrastructure, 16 naval guns of 100 mm with a reserve of 150 rounds per barrel, 2000 marine anchor mines and torp nets.

Variant III ("minimium") - 5 destroyers, Mieczysław (1250 t each), 5 submarines, Pantera (800 t each), 5 trawlers 600 t, 1 auxiliary Oka (2000 t), 1 "oil ship "(tanker?) a 1,500 t = 16,750 t; in addition, the cruiser Svetlana (7,000 t), 2 ships of 8,000 t, 7 cannon turrets, 16 100 mm guns and 1,000 mines, is under construction.










Post WW1 Demands

1st variant from Germany: 1 battleship t. Kaiser (24 700 t), 1 battleship t. Moltke (23,000 t), 3 cruisers t. Pillau, Graudenz, Regensburg (4900 t each), 6 destroyers 1500 t each, 7 torpedo boats 600 t = 75,600 t

Variant II from Germany: 1 battlecruiser t. Moltke (23,000 t), 3 cruisers t. Pillau, Graudenz, Regensburg (4900 t each), 3 cruisers t. Konigsberg (5500 t each), 9 destroyers 1500 t each, 12 torpedo boats 600 t, 1 auxiliary ship (750 t) = 75,650 t

Variant III from Germany: 3 cruisers T. Pillau, Graudenz, Regensburg (4900 tons each), 3 cruisers T. Konigsberg (5500 tons each), 3 mine cruisers T. Brummer 3300 tons each, 12 destroyers 1500 tons each, 20 torpedo boats each 600 t, 6 trawlers 600 t, support ships (1,550 t in total) = 75,650 t

from Austria-Hungary: 1 armored cruiser t. Kaiser



Post-War Plans



The naval development plan "Plan M" from December 1944 included:

- 3 battleships, 6 aircraft carriers (Casablanca-type), 6 cruisers, 36 destroyers, 24 submarines, 12 frigates,12 corvettes, 200 subchasers, 2 builders (floating drydock?) minimum, 36 minesweepers

Total fleet tonnage: 325,000 tons



Naval Development Plan 1946

In 1956 the Polish fleet was to include: 5 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 20 submarines, 16 torpedo boats, 90 torpedo boats/minesweepers







Any additions or further information is very welcome. Thank you to @USSEssex for much of this information and translation.







 
Last edited:

alexi

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
26
Gotta love when Pole admiralty asking for big guns when the country have barely any infrastructures to support them.
 

_Sarcasticat_

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
55
The changes some of these foreign ships would have undergone in Polish service - and later German service, had they survived that long - would definitely leave us with an interesting thought experiment. Kumas with 6x2 12cm guns? Graf Spee completed with a new armament? British or Bofors? Ah, all the wondrous ideas one could come up with.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Any additions or further information is very welcome. Thank you to Peter Strasser for much of this information and translation.
Well, from my position I may add that Communist Poland was always interested in having at least one "major" ship in its - generally coastal - navy.

* In 1970s, the Project 56AE guided missile destroyer "Spravedlivy" (rus. "Just") was obtained and renamed "Warsaw"
* In 1986, the Project 61MP large anti-submarine ship "Smelyi" (rus. "Bold") was loaned to Poland, renamed "Warsaw" also (replacing the previous one)

There are some rumors in runet that Polish navy was interested in "something bigger" - a project 1123 helicopter cruiser? - but I wasn't able to find any substance here.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Gotta love when Pole admiralty asking for big guns when the country have barely any infrastructures to support them.
That's was always the problem of Poland high ranks in both military and civilian areas; they overestimated their capabilities to the point of delusion. In many cases - like battleships or oversea colonies - it boiled down to "the other guys have them, so WE MUST TOO!"
 

David Chessum

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
22
Reaction score
25
Website
naval-arms-control-archive.site123.me
With respect to the proposal to transfer US battleships mentioned above, the text of the Bill submitted to the Senate by Joseph France on 5 July 1922 was "A Bill to authorize the President, if he shall deem it consistent with the public welfare and the terms of the treaty obligations of the United States, to donate to Poland six of such ships of our Navy as under the terms of the treaties with Great Britain, France, and Japan will no longer be needed by the United States and are listed to be disposed of." No specific ships were named.
There is no discussion of this Bill recorded in the Congressional Record, and it was referred to the Committee of Naval Affairs by unanimous consent.
I haven't been able to track it down in the Committee of Naval Affairs records yet, however I would imagine it would have gotten a pretty short shift, since the terms of the Treaty explicitly stated "Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the navy of any foreign Power." (Article XVIII)

Do you have any additional information or sources on the 1930 Japanese Cruiser Offer? I would imagine it would have hit a similar obstacle if taken any further.

Regards

David
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Graf Spee completed with a new armament?

Well, "Graf Spee" was actually the most complete of all "Mackensen"-class; she would require about a year to be completed. In pure theory, if Poland attention weren't diverted (for example, if Poland-Soviet war didn't started and both sides agreed on established borders), Poland may claim it as a trophy. But I'm not exactly sure, how much of machinery and armor were installed. If powerplant was reasonably complete and armoring was done, then it would be - theoretically - possible to consider ordering guns from Britain or France to complete her. French 34-cm/45 should fit.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Do you have any additional information or sources on the 1930 Japanese Cruiser Offer? I would imagine it would have hit a similar obstacle if taken any further.
Hardly. Unless someone would specifically stick to the formalities - and there weren't anyone who was actually interested in doing this about selling obsolete Japanese ships to Poland - everybody would just ignore this article. Because, if taken to extreme, this article forbade any transfer of warships at all; even the export building. Even transfer of ancient "D'Entrecasteaux" could be considered as violation.
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
The case of handing over the American battleships is well known in Poland, it is probably about Virginia-class battleships. Poland was to receive these ships for free, but was to pay for their transfer to the Baltic Sea. It was in 1922. Japanese cruisers for Poland are also well known in Poland, they were offered in 1930, talks lasted a year, no price was given. Documents in this case were found simultaneously in Poland and Japan. As I have the nickname Peter Strasser on discord, and I am Polish, I can say that these two topics are true. From myself I can add that the outbreak of the war destroyed the order for a cruiser with a displacement of 8,000 tons
Do you know any export projects (cruisers / battleships) for Poland? e.g. Ansaldo or Vickers from 1920-1939? Or ships like that offered to Poland
Edit
As for the modified Guepard, it is an offer from Ateliers et Chantiers de Bretagne.
As for the cruisers, I have some information and I can post it.
1. Washington cruiser
History: engineer Aleksander Potyrała presented a beautiful concept of a Washington cruiser armed with nine 203 caliber guns, which was used for novel purposes, the concept was not even developed.
2. Potyrała's design for a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser in 1937.
History: In 1937, engineer Aleksander Potyrała designed a heavy cruiser with a displacement of 10,000 tons.
Displacement:
10,000 tons
Armament:
9 guns 203 mm
8-9x120 universal guns,
2 torpedo tubes, 4 x 533 mm tubes,
Armor:
side,
artillery,
command tower 200mm,
Drive:
4 turbines of 120,000 HP
Speed: 32.0 knots
cost PLN 70 million.
3. Heavy cruiser with a displacement of 10,000 tons
History: In the 1930s, engineer Aleksander Potyrała made design assumptions for 2 heavy cruisers for PLN 90 million / 10 000.9X203 x3
Displacement: 10,000 tons
Armament: 9 guns of 203 mm caliber placed in 3 turrets, i.e. 3x3.
In the game:
Main armament:
3x3 203 mm - 9 guns of 203 mm
Drive: engine with a capacity of 120,000 hp
4. Project of the Polish crusader engineer Aleksander Potyrała
History: Engineer Aleksander Potyrała was the author of the design of the so-called crusader( in polish krzyżowiec), the size of a heavy cruiser.( is this true Crusader Project)
5. a project of a Polish cruiser
History: In (1938?) a Polish cruiser was designed to be armed with 152 mm guns, the project was by Potyrała. Ultimately, its construction was withdrawn, and there were such plans.
I don't have his silhouette or sketches.
6. Project of a Polish cruiser
History: In the Gdynia shipyard, plans for a Polish (light) cruiser were created, before the war, probably in 1939, but this is my statement in which year it was, I do not have any further information on this subject now.
The Crusader is a special class of ships introduced in Poland, something between large destroyers and light cruisers.
 
Last edited:

_Sarcasticat_

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
55
Graf Spee completed with a new armament?

Well, "Graf Spee" was actually the most complete of all "Mackensen"-class; she would require about a year to be completed. In pure theory, if Poland attention weren't diverted (for example, if Poland-Soviet war didn't started and both sides agreed on established borders), Poland may claim it as a trophy. But I'm not exactly sure, how much of machinery and armor were installed. If powerplant was reasonably complete and armoring was done, then it would be - theoretically - possible to consider ordering guns from Britain or France to complete her. French 34-cm/45 should fit.
Looking at the appearance of Graf Spee at the war's end, it would appear that all but her turrets (the barbette are installed) and other weapons along with the material required for fitting out are all that's left. Prinz Eitel, nearly twice as far away from completion, already has her machinery installed and a majority of her is already decked over to the weather deck.
Assuming Poland can find the time to claim Graf Spee, the next problem lies in finding turrets that fit the barbette. I had been considering ammunition supply as my main factor in which country would supply the guns, now with the realization of the installed barbettes, it's necessary that other countries be looked at.
Would the French 34cm/45 actually fit?
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
Other ships
Submarines
Submarines from a French shipyard.
Years of construction: 1938
History: In 1938, a tender was announced for new submarines, 3 French shipyards participated in the tender, in the same year a contract for the construction of these submarines was signed, in 1939, 2 Orzeł-type submarines were built in French shipyards, and the third submarine was ordered, they were to be delivered in 1940-1941. These ships were never completed. I do not know what their names were, I think they were: ORP Sokół and ORP Jastrząb. The submarines, those built in France, were to enter service until 1942
The Orzeł type does not mean that they were submarines that were built in Dutch shipyards, they are armaments similar / the same as in the Orzeł class submarines. The submarines built in France were not Orzeł-class submarines built in Dutch shipyards, they were new-build submarines. It was planned to build 7 or 8 such submarines. 4 submarines were postponed to 1944/1945 and would be built in Poland, before that, 1 or 2 submarines would have been built in Poland after the earlier submarines built in France had been built. Thus, a total of 7 such submarines would be built.
Technical data:
Water displacement: 1175 tons
Underwater displacement: 1755 tons
Length: 86.87 m
Length (Waterline): 84.83m
Breadth: 8.00 m
Draft: 5.18 m
Maximum draft 80 m
Surface range: 3,850 miles at 7 knots
Underwater range: 100 miles at 5 knots
Armament:
- 12 torpedo tubes, 533/550 mm caliber (20 torpedoes in reserve)
- 4 double-coupled 40 mm anti-aircraft guns in watertight wells
- Nikol A-2 amphibious aircraft for sea reconnaissance
Drive:
surface speed: 20 knots (two combustion engines with a total power of 5,400 hp)
underwater speed: 9 knots (two electric motors with a total power of 1,200 HP)
Battleships

A battleship with a displacement of 25,000 tons.
History: The naval program for 1942 envisaged a battleship probably with a displacement of 25,000 tons.

a battleship with a displacement of 25,000 tons
History: Aleksander Potyrała's semi-official plan included battleships with a displacement of 25,000 tons

a battleship with a displacement of 25,000 tons.
History: Years ago, the late Admiral Furashita made a drawing of a Polish ship armed with 3 305 mm guns, speeds of 30 knots and a displacement of 25,000 tons, he signed it in his fictional fleet as the Polish Solidarność cruiser.
When we already know what the battleships were supposed to have from the programs, it can be assumed that historically it is a drawing of a Polish battleship from Geneva 1936 or some project.
Tactical and technical data for the battleship from Geneva in 1936:
Displacement 25,000 tons,
Armament 9 guns of 305 mm 3x3 caliber,
speed: 30 knots
Tactical and technical data for this ship signed as Solidarność:
Displacement: 25,000 tons
Armament: 3 x 3 12"
DP + AA
Speed: 30 knots
VTS Rating : 2 3 6
During the negotiations with Soviet Russia in 1920, several preliminary variants were developed for the division of the Soviet fleet. Among them were two Sevastopol-class battleships with a displacement of 23,000 tons each. There is only 1 such a small problem:
a) there were no Sevastopol-class battleships, the only such battleships with this name are the Gangut class and the Petroplavosk class, but the latter of them was long gone because 2 of them had been under water since 1905 and had a displacement of 11,000 tons,
b) Ganguts had a displacement of over 24,000 tons each, besides, there is nothing about Ganguts.
The only battleships weighing 23,000 tons are the Imperatritsa Mariya class battleships, and in my opinion these are the battleships, ie the Imperatritsa Mariya class battleships, but someone entered the wrong name of the ship. Initially, these ships were in the state of the white army, but in 1920 they were already in the hands of the red army. Someone will ask about which ships. Let me explain:
- Imperatritsa Mariya
- Emperor Alexander III
A battleship with a displacement of 25,000 tons.
History: The naval program 1937/38 provided for 3 battleships with a displacement of 25,000 tons.
Tactical and technical data:
25,000 tons,
350 mm belt armor,
engine 120-140.000 shp,
3x3 305 mm guns
4x3 or 6x2 150 mm guns,
2x3 torpedoes

a battleship with a displacement of 15,000 tons
History: In 1931 in Geneva, Poland presented a plan to expand the navy, among the ships there were battleships with a displacement of 15,000 tons.
 

Attachments

  • Francuskie_Orly_-_www-1.jpg
    Francuskie_Orly_-_www-1.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 41
  • Francuskie_Orly_-_www.jpg
    Francuskie_Orly_-_www.jpg
    89.4 KB · Views: 43

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Would the French 34cm/45 actually fit?
A question, yes. The "Naval weapon of World War One" states, that 35-cm mountings of Mackensen-class were -

The DrL C/1914 mounting was similar to that of the Badens, with elevation limits of +20/−5°.

And the Baden's turrets are stated as:

Roller bearing ring diameter was 8.75m and internal barbette diameter 10.0m;

I can't find the data about French barbetter diameter yet, though.
 

_Sarcasticat_

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
55
Would the French 34cm/45 actually fit?
A question, yes. The "Naval weapon of World War One" states, that 35-cm mountings of Mackensen-class were -

The DrL C/1914 mounting was similar to that of the Badens, with elevation limits of +20/−5°.

And the Baden's turrets are stated as:

Roller bearing ring diameter was 8.75m and internal barbette diameter 10.0m;

I can't find the data about French barbetter diameter yet, though.
J.J. French Battleships 1922-56 should probably have our answer. Unfortunately I don't have it with me.
 
Last edited:

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
This link has interesting information that interests me, I will quote an interesting fragment
The battleships and cruisers likely would have been French designs, as occurred in 1926 when Poland finally began work on large modern warships.
Does anyone know about which French battleship and cruiser projects have been mentioned?
and other interesting information
Having built what world naval authorities widely acknowledged to be the finest destroyer design of the time, some of the Polish naval leadership once again became ambitious. Again they sought battleships, and the relationship with Dutch shipbuilders forged by the successful Orzel class submarines led to greater contacts with Dutch shipbuilders and design firms.
The Polish navy asked for two 25,000-ton fast battleships in 1936, plus two heavy cruisers.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,134
Ages ago in the old warship projects forum there was a discussion about the Polish Navy or to be precise what the Polish wanted between the two world wars.

Here is the saved text from it:

1936/37 naval programme (what the polish admirals wanted)
2 Battleships similar to the 1938/39 one probably meant to counter the German Scharnhorsts
2 Heavy cruiser of 10.000tons 3x3 203mm Guns 9x 120mm AA guns 4x2 Torpedoes 10.000shp engine 200mm Armour
9 Destroyers
18 Submarines

1937/38 naval programme (what the polish admirals wanted)
3 Battleships of 25.000 tons 350mm Belt armour 120-140.000shp engine 3x3 305mm Cannons 4x3 or 6x2 150mm Guns 2x3 Torpedoes
1 Aircraft Cruiser probably similar to the Swedish Gotland crusier
12 Destroyers
21 Submarines
Proposed Naval Plan of 1942: (to be start at)
1 Battleship
1 Heavy Cruiser of 15.000tons 3x3 203mm and 9x 120mm Guns
Numerous Destroyers

constructive post from that forum:

" This 150 000 tons fleet is not coincident. It has roots in Geneva Conference where Poland stated programme for such a large navy. It was purely of political reasons and everybody was aware that this was just propaganda and had nothing to do with real programme. In fact before Geneva Conference Polish Navy prepared 6 versions of the programme ranging from the most realistic ones to the totally s-f. The so called A programme stands for 18 500 t fleet, B for 25 000 t, C for 70 500 t (1 BB, 2 CA), D for 100 000 t (2 BB, 2 CA), E for 150 000 t (3 BB, 6 CA) and F for fantastic 210 000 t (4 BB, 8 CA). It was proposed to present in Geneva one of the versions D, E, F as 'official plans' and to show Polish ambitions for big navy. Later it was decided to show E as official plan. In fact the real plan was B which was later executed as 6-year programme (1936/42: 6 DD, 12 SS, 1 CM, 12 PM, 12 MTB). "
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
Ages ago in the old warship projects forum there was a discussion about the Polish Navy or to be precise what the Polish wanted between the two world wars.

Here is the saved text from it:

1936/37 naval programme (what the polish admirals wanted)
2 Battleships similar to the 1938/39 one probably meant to counter the German Scharnhorsts
2 Heavy cruiser of 10.000tons 3x3 203mm Guns 9x 120mm AA guns 4x2 Torpedoes 10.000shp engine 200mm Armour
9 Destroyers
18 Submarines

1937/38 naval programme (what the polish admirals wanted)
3 Battleships of 25.000 tons 350mm Belt armour 120-140.000shp engine 3x3 305mm Cannons 4x3 or 6x2 150mm Guns 2x3 Torpedoes
1 Aircraft Cruiser probably similar to the Swedish Gotland crusier
12 Destroyers
21 Submarines
Proposed Naval Plan of 1942: (to be start at)
1 Battleship
1 Heavy Cruiser of 15.000tons 3x3 203mm and 9x 120mm Guns
Numerous Destroyers

constructive post from that forum:

" This 150 000 tons fleet is not coincident. It has roots in Geneva Conference where Poland stated programme for such a large navy. It was purely of political reasons and everybody was aware that this was just propaganda and had nothing to do with real programme. In fact before Geneva Conference Polish Navy prepared 6 versions of the programme ranging from the most realistic ones to the totally s-f. The so called A programme stands for 18 500 t fleet, B for 25 000 t, C for 70 500 t (1 BB, 2 CA), D for 100 000 t (2 BB, 2 CA), E for 150 000 t (3 BB, 6 CA) and F for fantastic 210 000 t (4 BB, 8 CA). It was proposed to present in Geneva one of the versions D, E, F as 'official plans' and to show Polish ambitions for big navy. Later it was decided to show E as official plan. In fact the real plan was B which was later executed as 6-year programme (1936/42: 6 DD, 12 SS, 1 CM, 12 PM, 12 MTB). "
Do you know anything about projects for the Polish Navy in 1920-1939? I mainly mean cruisers, battleships
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,134
No this is what I only know of what basically the Polish Admirals wanted not checking the economy of the nation.
There was discussions after WW1 that the Polish demanded battleships, cruisers and destroyers from Russia/Soviet Union on the basis that many polish workers were used in the Russian shipyards.

Poland also claimed her share from the Russian Navy during the Polish-Soviet peace talk in Riga in 1921. At these negotiations 2 Gangut class battleships, 10 large destroyers, 5 submarines, 10 minesweepers, 21 auxiliaries and transports, 2 uncompleted Svetlana class cruisers and other equipment (guns, mines, etc) were demanded. Though the claims were later reduced to 5 destroyers, 5 submarines, 5 minesweepers, 2 auxiliaries and 1 uncompleted cruiser, they were not considered and Poland received nothing to add to her fully-conceded territorial claims when the Treaty of Riga was signed on 18 March 1921.

These might help:
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
I have several ships that on my list of ships with the working name possible for Poland
Vickers design 1084
Vickers design 1089
Vickers design 1094.
The naval programs were modified, for example in 1928, when the naval program was being developed, 1 cruiser was considered, but it was eventually abandoned.
The Polish fleet was created for a possible war with the USSR, therefore it was decided to use large destroyers, large submarines, cruisers and battleships. Yes, they wanted to build cruisers / battleships in Poland, but this is a distant future, the cruiser would have been built after 1942, when 2 destroyers of the improved Grom ORP Huragan and ORP Orkan classes could be built.
And destroyer project
 

Attachments

  • Zrzut ekranu (211).png
    Zrzut ekranu (211).png
    164.9 KB · Views: 46
  • Zrzut ekranu (212).png
    Zrzut ekranu (212).png
    202 KB · Views: 43
  • Zrzut ekranu (213).png
    Zrzut ekranu (213).png
    29.2 KB · Views: 36
  • Zrzut ekranu (230).png
    Zrzut ekranu (230).png
    226.9 KB · Views: 37
  • Zrzut ekranu (231).png
    Zrzut ekranu (231).png
    244.9 KB · Views: 41

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
Design 1084 was offered to Chile, though there seems to be a minelaying submarine design with the same number. Wrong number perhaps?
I do no know for whom 1089 and 1094 was offered though.
In general, there is little knowledge about Polish cruisers / battleships in Poland, it is known that there were cruiser projects in Poland, but there is little information about them, in general, the Polish archive is empty on this topic. Rather, part of the archives was returned to Poland. Cruisers / battleships are considered lost in Poland, this topic is a twin topic of the Argentine projects you have linked to, but here we also provide information about Polish naval programs.
Can you guess what was offered to Poland about this 8,000-ton cruiser that was just about to be ordered?
And in general, wouldn't it be a problem for you to make drawings of Polish cruisers, for example this crusader, as you did, for example, with Vickers Design 1287?
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
The Polish fleet was created for a possible war with the USSR
Yeah, because the war with Germany created the unfortunate problem of utterly miniscule size of Polish coastline then, which simply doesn't have any safe bases for the navy. I rather doubt that Polish navy actually thought much about naval war against USSR, but it was the only scenario under which it could somewhat justify extravagant plans for a larger battleflleet.

P.S. Ironic, but after Stalin gifted Poland with much greater coastline (by giving them Easter Prussia), Polish naval ambitions mostly evaporated. Communist Poland maintained quite reasonable naval force mostly of small attack craft and mije warfare units. Albeit they always insisted on having at least one destroyer in commission.
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
The Polish fleet was created for a possible war with the USSR
Yeah, because the war with Germany created the unfortunate problem of utterly miniscule size of Polish coastline then, which simply doesn't have any safe bases for the navy. I rather doubt that Polish navy actually thought much about naval war against USSR, but it was the only scenario under which it could somewhat justify extravagant plans for a larger battleflleet.

P.S. Ironic, but after Stalin gifted Poland with much greater coastline (by giving them Easter Prussia), Polish naval ambitions mostly evaporated. Communist Poland maintained quite reasonable naval force mostly of small attack craft and mije warfare units. Albeit they always insisted on having at least one destroyer in commission.
Because the Polish navy was created for a possible war with the USSR, at that time people were blamed for Russia, so such plans were made, the possession of the colonies was postponed to the background, although this was also the reason for creating such maritime programs and not others. In 1936 no one assumed that the Germans would attack Poland, until a certain point the Germans considered Poland an ally, it was like that until 1937 or 1938, when it turned out that the war with Germany was inevitable, the Peking plan was created because the Polish fleet was too weak to fight Germany.
The scenario of a war with Russia was simply assumed
When the Maritime Plan M program was created in 1944, the intention was simply to gain dominance in the Baltic Sea to threaten the USSR fleet.
 
Last edited:

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,134
If it was from the 1920's then a modified York, saving weight on range.
If it was from the 1930's then an improved Leander with more armour and/or more guns say 2-3-3-2 or even 3x3 6" again short range as the Polish coast is very small.

Though I thing the best option for Poland between the wars was to get Coastal battleship type warships similar to the Swedish Sveriges.
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
If it was from the 1920's then a modified York, saving weight on range.
If it was from the 1930's then an improved Leander with more armour and/or more guns say 2-3-3-2 or even 3x3 6" again short range as the Polish coast is very small.

Though I thing the best option for Poland between the wars was to get Coastal battleship type warships similar to the Swedish Sveriges.
The 8,000 ton cruiser was from the late 1930s, 1937-1939, since it was only about to be ordered in 1939.
Polish admirals did not want to defend the coast, or at least not as you can imagine, they wanted, among other things, to block sea ports, battleships were to be used to fight the Russian fleet and some, e.g. heavy cruisers, and a cruiser was proposed to fight Germany.
I do not know how they wanted to use a battleship, because there is no documentation, I would have to look for how they wanted to use the cruisers.
Edit I meant this design 1084 in the photo
 

Attachments

  • Zrzut ekranu (268)_LI.jpg
    Zrzut ekranu (268)_LI.jpg
    301.6 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:

_Sarcasticat_

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
55
View attachment 667873

Here's a drawing of the mounting from Campbell - no figures given but it could possible be approximated by using the armor values?
Unfortunately it seems not. I tried but it looks like the armor plates aren't to scale. I should have realized this when the rear plate is obviously thicker than the faceplate in the picture.
Or maybe when I get 5 meters for the total barbette diameter.
 

_Sarcasticat_

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
55
J.J. French Battleships 1922-56 should probably have our answer. Unfortunately I don't have it with me.
I'm not sure; the data about Bretagne-class here is limited.
Kingpin reminded me that the Bretagne plans were actually in his share drive. Anyway, barbette diameter, including the thickness of armor, is 8.5 meters. Without the armor, the interior stretches 8 meters wide. It looks like the turret roller ring diameter is 6.85
 

USSEssex

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
More polish cruisers
In the plan from 1930, Aleksander Potyrała stated the cost of an armored cruiser (6,000 tons) at PLN 51 million, while in 1939 he opted for a heavy cruiser (10,000 tons, 9 x 203 mm, 9 x 120 mm, 8 tt, armor up to 200 mm and 4 sets of turbines up to 30,000 HP) for the PLN 70 million.
1936 heavy cruiser project
History: In 1936, the project of a heavy cruiser with a displacement of 10,000 tons was created.
Displacement: standard 10,000 tons
Engine power: 100,000 hp
4 shafts
Armor:
76 mm deck,
200 mm belt
Armament:
3x3 203 mm probably British guns
3x3 Bofors 120 mm guns (or 4x2, or maybe 3x2, not sure)
2x4 533mm Torpedo tubes
 

COLDOWN

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
151
Reaction score
133
I have several ships that on my list of ships with the working name possible for Poland
Vickers design 1084
Vickers design 1089
Vickers design 1094.
The naval programs were modified, for example in 1928, when the naval program was being developed, 1 cruiser was considered, but it was eventually abandoned.
The Polish fleet was created for a possible war with the USSR, therefore it was decided to use large destroyers, large submarines, cruisers and battleships. Yes, they wanted to build cruisers / battleships in Poland, but this is a distant future, the cruiser would have been built after 1942, when 2 destroyers of the improved Grom ORP Huragan and ORP Orkan classes could be built.
And destroyer project
Hello there.
  • Vickers 1084 (March 1924) is a light cruiser for Argentina [British Cruisers. Two World Wars and After].
  • Vickers 1084 (1924-1927) is a minelayer submarine for Argentina [British Submarines in Two World Wars].
  • Vickers 1089 (circa 1937) is a light cruiser for ¿Chile? [British Cruisers. Two World Wars and After].
  • Vickers 1094 (circa 1937) is a light cruiser for Chile [British Cruisers. Two World Wars and After].

All these designs are for Argentina:

"Vickers also offered cruisers to Argentina’s rival Chile. Design 1084 (7 March 1924) would have displaced 6,600 tons (510ft pp, 538ft lwl, 540ft loa x 51ft 6in x 28ft x 15ft 6in). She would have made 32kts on 68,000shp (six boilers), with a radius of 6,000nm at 15kts. Armament would have been seven 6in (three twin and one single, all on the centreline), four 4in HA and four triple 21in torpedo tubes. A slightly later Design 880 (6 February 1925) would have displaced 6,000 tons (490ft x 51ft x 28ft x 15ft), armed with seven 6in/50 (two twin, three single), four 105mm HA, two single pompoms and one depth-charge thrower (apparently no torpedo tubes). The ship would have made 29kts on 42,000shp (six Yarrow oil-fired boilers). Design 1287 (16 March 1 927) resembled a scaled-down ‘County’ (with the same three funnels). She would have displaced 8,500 tons normal (570ft pp, 605ft oa x 56ft 4in ext x 16ft 6in), with 80,000shp engines for 33.5kts. Armament would have been six 7.5in/52 (twin mounts), seven twin 4in HA, four single pompoms and six torpedo tubes. It was rejected in favour of the Italian design which was built as the Almirante Brown class. Vickers-Armstrong succeeded with Design 1076, which became the training cruiser La Argentina. Like the others, it had no direct Admiralty equivalent, although it seems most comparable to the Apollo (later Sydney) class or to an enlarged Arethusa with triple rather than twin turrets. At the design stage it was expected to displace 6,850 tons. (A D Baker III)"

Sorry :/
 
Last edited:

alexi

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
26
Some light cruisers, more destroyers, submarine, mine-laying ships and more coastal batteries should be enough and give Polish admiralty reality checks.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Some light cruisers, more destroyers, submarine, mine-laying ships and more coastal batteries should be enough and give Polish admiralty reality checks.
The Poland strategic problem was, that it managed to be in bad relations with ALL of its neighbors, including two most powerful ones - Germany and USSR. For the navy. it means that it literally have no allied bases anywhere near small Poland coastline. So Polish navy was basically forced to justify its existence from the very unfavorable set of assumptions; therefore all this grandiose plans about -

Polish admirals did not want to defend the coast, or at least not as you can imagine, they wanted, among other things, to block sea ports, battleships were to be used to fight the Russian fleet and some, e.g. heavy cruisers, and a cruiser was proposed to fight Germany.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,134
The polish cruisers were expected to fight the German fleet which at that time only had new cruisers and a pair of old pre-dreadnought battleships while the Soviets still had a pair of old but well armed Ganguts/Sevastopols at Leningrad so the Polish capital ship targets would be those ships. I think any new 12" armed battleship would wreak havoc among them if it could stay out from their twelve 305mm cannons range.
But I don't know how did the Polish Admirals expect for the ground troops to hold the Soviet armies at bay...
I know the Finns could in 1941 but that is a low infrastructure heavy terrain border while the Soviet-Polish border is much more developed and simple compared to the Finnish.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I think any new 12" armed battleship would wreak havoc among them if it could stay out from their twelve 305mm cannons range.
Well, considering that with long-range 1928 pattern shell the main guns of Baltic Fleet battleships was up to 34 km, staying out of their range would basically means that Polish battleship would waste shells) But Polish admirals probably didn't know that.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,134
Only problem that their turrets maximum elevation isn't changed since WW1 and to my knowledge stayed at 25 degrees, while the Polish BB which was to be likely RN built would be maxed at 40-45 degrees.
From Navweaps:
305mm/52 Pattern 1907 Gun with Pattern 1928 HE shell: 314kg and 950m/s -> 141,7MJ
12"/50 BL Mark XIV Gun of 1933 with 430,9kg and 808m/s APC shell -> 140,65MJ (Expected range at 40 degrees: 33,8km)

Hmm looks like somewhat evenly matched though the Russian shell being High Explosive it's penetration capabilities would be limited and the British gun would had higher elevation but again the Gangut-Sevastopols had 12x guns....



Somebody really should create a good test software so we can test out these theoretical gunfights.....
 

David Chessum

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
22
Reaction score
25
Website
naval-arms-control-archive.site123.me
Do you have any additional information or sources on the 1930 Japanese Cruiser Offer? I would imagine it would have hit a similar obstacle if taken any further.
Hardly. Unless someone would specifically stick to the formalities - and there weren't anyone who was actually interested in doing this about selling obsolete Japanese ships to Poland - everybody would just ignore this article. Because, if taken to extreme, this article forbade any transfer of warships at all; even the export building. Even transfer of ancient "D'Entrecasteaux" could be considered as violation.
There was nothing in the treaty that forbade building for export.

But transferring second-warships was a big issue, and there was extensive consultation between the parties about numerous proposed transfers (including D'Entrecasteaux) - going down as far as proposals to sell motor boats. The parties came to a common understanding which ensured that no significant second-hand warships in operable condition were transferred from the Treaty powers during the term of the Treaty.

That is why I am so interested in finding anything that might confirm the 1930 Japanese cruiser offer - It would have been an outlier by far, and would have created a diplomatic storm had they attempted it.

Regards

David
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,825
Reaction score
1,134
Except capital ships.
The RN could circumvent this with Vickers building in Spanish shipyards.
As for ship selling, Japan was not strictly under observation and they could too circumvent the treaty by say selling it to Manchuria and then Manchuria selling it to Poland. As neither Poland nor Manchuria was part of the Treaty system to my knowledge. Manchuria being a puppet state of Japan they could say the cruisers are need for defense against China and Soviets for their new "liberated" friend.

I wonder if the US could do the same with Puerto Rico, Liberia and the Philippines both being a "Puppet State" of USA but I presume they did not ratified the Treaties.
 

David Chessum

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
22
Reaction score
25
Website
naval-arms-control-archive.site123.me
Building in Spanish shipyards didn't circumvent anything - Britain could build as many compliant ships for export in her own yards as she wanted, and had no interest in letting anyone build non-compliant ships - in Spain or anywhere else.
The Japanese Government was probably one of the stricter countries with complying with the treaties (note I said Government - not Navy)
The idea of Japan or the US trying to sell second-hand ships via a puppet state would never have flown. Either the puppet state was considered to be part of the parent navy (and therefore prevented from selling) - or it wasn't (in which case they were prevented from receiving).

Regards

David
 

Similar threads

Top