These are four proposed modifications to the J.S White Shipyard project based on drawings from the documentation of the Polskie Zakłady Optyczne(PZO). In the screens drawing 1 and 2, 3 and 4.
The first draft is dated December 21, 1934.
It shows a ship that is probably close to the original, read the first offer.
it has 2 funnels, is armed with 6 guns 120 mm 3x2, 2 guns in the bow and 4 in the stern.
6 torpedo tubes
It has 2 anti-aircraft guns, probably 40 mm, placed between the funnels, 2xI.
And the 8x Hotchiss 13 mm 4xII, placed in the bow, on the extended superstructure.
number 2 is dated December 21, 1934.
This time we have two 40 mm AA guns, one behind the funnel, the other between the torpedo tubes. Of course 2xI.
The funnel has changed, instead of 2 we have 1.
We also have 7 120mm guns, 3xII and 1xI, Hotchkiss has been replaced with a 120mm gun in position B, single.
So we have 1xI and 1xII in the bow, 2xII in the stern.
Of course, the torpedo launchers are 2xIII unchanged.
It was written that apparently this version was accepted for further analysis.
Number 3 is dated January 30, 1935.
It is similar to number 2.
The differences are the insertion of the searchlight platform at the stern.
there is also a difference in the armament configuration, namely instead of 3xII and 1xI we have 4xII 120 mm.
Only the gun in position B has been changed from single to twin.
We still have 2xI 40mm.
and 2xIII torpedo tubes.
The last draft number 4 is from March 20, 1935.
we have 7 guns of 120 mm here.
1xII 120 mm is set to position B,
so 2xII are at the stern, 1xII and 1xI are at the bow.
we still have 2xI 40mm.
Torpedo launchers unchanged, i.e. 2xIII.
Although PZO did not design ships, it did design fire control devices for artillery and torpedo launchers for the Grom class.
So they were probably kept informed about the change in the project.
from Morze 5/2017(20) article ORP Grom plany i realizacja by Marek Twardowski
About the modernization of the Wicher-class destroyers.
I can list several variants of this modernization here.
1. The original project included the modernization of navigation and communication equipment, as well as the replacement of old 130 mm guns with new 4x 120 mm Bofors guns 4xI. Rejected by KMW.
As far as I know, this is information from Piotr Zarzycki's article.
2. I remember another proposal to rearm Wicher-class destroyers, which I had previously mistaken for the above.
So let's start from the beginning.
User Mitoko on dws.org in one of the topics (you will have the link somewhere) wrote that the modernized destroyers were to have two funnels, one thin funnel that was to be close to the superstructure, and the other wide one, like the Grom destroyers (the second and third ones connected).
2 twin mm Bofors guns were supposedly supposed to be in place of the Vickers, i.e. on the wings of the beginning of the aft superstructure.
Link https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?t=2816 .
So I decided to look for more information, and on one of the Facebook groups I found this post by one of the users.
According to this user, the destroyers were to have two funnels, one narrow and one wide, as was done after the war.
According to this, the destroyers were to take over the armament from ORP Gryf, along with ordering Bofors guns for one of the destroyers.
And this is probably what the post-war modernization of these ships was based on.
They both talk about the same modernization, this information must be from some book which I don't have.
Maybe from this book Jerzy Pertek: „Burza”. Weteran atlantyckich szlaków from 1965.
3. More thorough, combining 3 funnels into one funnel in the style of destroyers Grom, the change does not affect the silhouette similarly to destroyers Grom, the superstructure of destroyers does not change either.
The main armament is five 120 mm Bofors guns in the 1xII arrangement at the stern, 1x1 and 1xII at the bow.
As anti-aircraft armament, it lists 1xII 40 mm Bofors L/60 per ship.
Following Piotr Zarzycki Wojskowy Przegląd Techniczny 1/1991 in article Projekt budowy kkt Huragan i Orkan oraz przebudowy Wichra i Burzy. I don't have this source.
The author of the reconstruction you see, according to Piotr Zarzycki's findings, is Marcin Mikiel.
4. According to Przemysław Budzbon, there are 5x 120 mm Bofors guns here, but in the arrangement 2xI at the bow and 1xI and 1xII at the stern, the superstructure of the destroyers changes, similar to that of the Grom class, and the silhouette of the destroyers, thanks to which the ships begin to resemble the Grom class.
Przemysław Budzbon used the materials of CAW in Rembertów(today WBH).
It was not possible to reach the materials used by this author, thus confirming the thesis of changing the superstructure.
Anti-aircraft armament is 2xII 40 mm Bofors L/60.
Przemysław Budzbon wrote about this variant in Morze from 1987 . I don't have this source.
Here is a visualization of this modernization according to the findings of this author, known for years, here it is by Marcin Mikiel, just like all 3 reconstructions you see here.
5. Jerzy Pertek in Miniatury Morskie nr 5 niszczyciele Wicher i Burza from 1959 , wrote about another variant (it seems to me) of the planned rearmament of the Wicher class destroyers.
According to him, it was to be a very thorough reconstruction, which after completion of these destroyers were to resemble the silhouette of the Grom class.
Pertek wrote that
a) there was to be 1 very wide funnel instead of 3 funnels, and the free space was going to be used to install anti-aircraft guns.
b) in place of the old 130 mm guns, there were supposed to be 6x 120 mm bofors guns, which were to be placed as in the bow of the Grom class destroyers (1xI, 1xII) on the bow and stern of the ships, so the arrangement of these guns is 1xI, 1xII on bow, and 1xI, 1xII on the stern.
c) the torpedo armament was also to change, Pertek writes that the caliber of the torpedo tubes was to change from 550 mm to 533 mm.
The author added that the artillery armament and torpedo launchers were to be the same as on the Grom class, in short they unified the silhouette and armament with the Grom class destroyers.
6. Robert Rochowicz in Morze Statki i Okręty 3/1997 article Powojenne losy ORP Burza write that the planned modernization of the Wicher-class destroyers was to include replacement of 130 mm guns with 6 120 mm Bofors guns, this is the 2xII and 2xI arrangement known from ORP Gryf. In addition, 3 funnels were to disappear and in their place there was to be 1 wide funnel.
7. According to the authors of the article Czy przezbrojenie jest przebudową, czyli rzecz o modernizacji kontrtorpedowców typu Wicher authors Andrzej Bartelski and Marcin Mikiel in Morze Statki i Okręty 7-8/2015, the modernized destroyers of the Wicher class had 5x Bofors 120 mm guns, 3 single and 1 twin guns, i.e. 3xI and 1xII per ship, the layout of the stern guns was to be identical to ORP Gryf, twin guns at the stern, single gun at the stern, 2 other single gun at the bow.
The authors rely on documents from, among others, the CAW archives(today WBH), they write that the anti-aircraft armament was to consist of 1xII 40 mm Bofors L / 60 and 2xII 13 mm Hotchkiss in place of the Vickers guns (it is written that this is only a hypothesis, but it seems probable) per ship.
This is a reconstruction of the silhouette of Wicher destroyers after rearmament, according to the findings of the authors of the article. The author of this reconstruction is Marcin Mikiel, all 3 reconstructions were included in this MSiO article.
8. Final variant(actually)
So on the dws.org forum, in one of the topics from 2021 , here link https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=142455 , crolick wrote that what was written in MSIO 7 8/2015 is out of date.
Because the user dolek2 has reached the Bofors document where there is an order for new destroyers and the Wicher class.
It is in the order
- 10 twin sets of 120 mm
- 4 single sets of 120 mm
- 6 sets of 40 mm plot
as we know, 6xII 120 mm and 2xI 120 mm and 4xII 40 mm went to both new destroyers that were to be built.
Taking this into account, for the modernization of the Wicher-class destroyers, we are left with 4xII 120 mm, 2xI 120 mm and 2xII 40 mm for both ships.
thus we get the configuration of 1xI 120 mm, 2xII 120 mm and 1xII 40 mm Bofors L/60 on one ship.
And behind this, the visualization of modernization in MSIO 7 8 2015 according to the authors of the article that is no longer valid, because the authors were wrong.
What's different about this variant?
The fact that the guns at the stern are probably positioned the same as in ORP Gryf, i.e. 1xI and 1xII, while at the bow we have 1xII.
That's how I would be.
So the final configuration is 1xII in the bow, 1xI and 1xII in the stern.
Now I will write some information that I found out.
Let me tell you right now it will be interesting.
1. Vickers Armstrong's offer for a submarine for Poland from the 1930s.
I saw this drawing on the yt Wolski o Wojnie channel in a film about the Polish Navy in an conversation with an expert Andrzej S. Bartelski.
We have to wait for the details of this offer until the publication of the article on the history of 3 tenders for submarines, see the years 1933-1937.
From what I learned, Vickers Armstrong offered a submarine with a displacement of 1,400 tons.
And the plans of this submarine survived in the Centralne Archiwum Wojskowe (Central Military Archive) in Rembertów.
Later, I asked Andrzej S. Bartelski on Twitter about the details of this offer, he replied that it was one of the offers sent by English shipyards in the Orzeł class tender.
So that's probably what was said in the film.
So, yes, this drawing was found in the Polish archive.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3Zbv_KrcDw
.
a1)
In 1933, bids for submarines were sent, among others
Augustin Normand
Chantiers de la Loire
Schneider et Cie
Chantiers de la Gironde
and Forges et Chantiers de la Mediterranee.
In 1933, there was another tender for submarines for Poland, the second after submarines for the Wilk class, this time they were submarines with a displacement of 1,100 tons and a speed of up to 20 knots.
French shipyards took part in it.
The De loire shipyard was favored, but it turned out that the shipyard had falsified the ship's data to win, so the ship was unfeasible.
In addition, the name of the well-known engineer Simonot was used in the technical specification, which of course was not true because the engineer had nothing to do with it.
So the tender was cancelled.
When the third tender was announced in July 1935, they participated in it
Italy
Cantieri Riuniti dell Adriatico
Sweden
AB Kockums
Great Britain
Vickers Armstrong LTD
Cammell Laird and Company, LTD
And Dutch
NV Koninklijke Maatschappij De Schelde in cooperation with the Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij NV shipyard.
List shipyards from Morze Statki i Okręty 5/2012 article Dywizjon i Grupa okrętów podwodnych by Andrzej S. Bartelski
2. Italian offers for Poland.
And that's what readers will be most excited about, I guess.
It turns out that there were more Italian offers. As the expert mentioned above has access to Polish archives, he also tweeted something about Italy.
Well, the Italians tried to enter the Polish market many times and quite intensively, unfortunately they failed, so there were quite a lot of these offers.
Below is a list
Several offers for a cruiser
Several offers for destroyers
Several offers for subs ( oopp wrote so i guess subs as i understand)
And many offers on MAS.
Currently, I suggested an idea for a film about Polish-Italian contacts and the presentation of some Italian offers in a film on the yt channel Wolski o Wojnie to tell about it, but the decision maker here is Jarosław Wolski.
In addition, I will say in the context of Italian offers that I found a drawing of the Italian offer.
This is an offer from the CRDA Cantiere Monfalcone shipyard dated January 18, 1937, the eighth copy was sent to Poland on March 4, 1938.
It was a torpedo boat offer, project 138/1.
from Morze Statki i Okręty numer specjalny 5/2016 article O polskich ścigaczach raz jeszcze, ale trochę inaczej... „Krajobraz po bitwie” Sytuacja po podsumowaniu ofert w KMW i co dalej... part II by Adam Jarski. part I in Morze Statki i Okręty 4/2016, part III Morze Statki i Okręty 6/2016.
Finally, I would like to add that the modernization of the Wicher-class destroyers was planned for 1940/1941, they were to have 120 mm guns as I wrote above, only with changed masks. What do you want next? I have, for example, drawings of the rebuild of S/S Hel and Puck into a minelayer.
While we are on MTBs, I found this many years ago. It is the original concept for the Samuel White MTBs proposed for Poland. Two were built without the 40mm or tubes as Polish S-1 MGB and Royal Nay MGB-48.
While we are on MTBs, I found this many years ago. It is the original concept for the Samuel White MTBs proposed for Poland. Two were built without the 40mm or tubes as Polish S-1 MGB and Royal Nay MGB-48.View attachment 696158
Yes.
This is a J.S. White shipyard project offered to Poland, it has a 40 mm Bofors gun, generally speaking, there were many German offers in the MTB tender.
The 40 mm Bofors M/1934 cannon was tested in Poland and this gun, on the project it is a 40 mm Bofors gun produced in Poland in Starachowice.
For the uninitiated, I will say that the Krzyżowiec is a literary fiction, the naming for this class of ship was introduced by Ginsbert in the 1930s.
A ship of this classification, which was supposed to be something between a destroyer and a cruiser, was in a naval novel called the Panna Wodna.
In the naval plan of this naval novel that was published in 1932, there were just 4 krzyżowce, 1 aircraft carrier, 3 battleships, a training cruiser, 13 destroyers and others.
However, until the 1920s (in fact, they could still call these ships that way in Poland) in Poland, the krzyżowiec (crusader) was called cruisers because earlier such naming of cruisers actually functioned, and in the quasi marine literature such a name functioned until 1919 until it was replaced with the name cruiser.
For example, in Poland, until the 1930s, a submarine was called a łódź podwodna later replaced by name okręt podwodny, and this is interesting because to this day I encounter the wrong term sometimes just a łódź podwodna instead of a okręt podwodny.
ORP Bolesław Śmiały is another fictional Polish cruiser.
It was invented by Zbigniew Jasiński in the article ORP Bolesław Śmiały in the Morze 7/1936.
a young official watches a film of ORP Bolesław Śmiały fighting in the protection of a convoy that transports ammunition and food from Sweden to Gdynia.
Anyway, the film was probably based on a sea novel about ORP Bolesław Śmiały, one user(here https://fow.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1000&start=16 ) wrote something about 4 main turrets in which 9 main guns of 203 mm caliber were set.
And this cruiser ORP Bolesław Śmiały was similar to the cruiser of Aleksander Potyrała which was more real than the two described above, let me remind you that he is a serious engineer.
Here https://fow.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1000, however, I found data on the cruiser that was posted by diesel user on January 14, 2005, at 17:36, old post, and the link expired.
This is the cruiser that I gave the data in this dimensions.
I compared this data with the cruisers of engineer Potyrała from 1936 and 1937, one of them was posted on this forum by tzoli, and the other from 1937 I found it in Żółty Tygrys article Nawodne Bliźniaki . Well, these data of the cruiser posted by Diesel are supposedly similar to Aleksander Potyrała's cruisers that I know but there's always something wrong.
I haven't gotten to the source where user Diesel got this data from yet, but I have a feeling it might be something fictitious, so be careful.
The user Crolick, an expert from the conversation on the channel Wolski o Wojnie, gave me a black graphic of the offer from 1925 Trento mod when I asked about it.
The 1250 ton destroyer bid drawing is from his dws.org forum post(Crolick post), and I have other bid drawings from articles, for example the Ansaldo submarine bid drawing I have from Morze Statki i Okręty 11/2008 article Historia przetargu na polskie okręty podwodne typu Wilk by Andrzej.S. Bartelski .
About American battleships for Poland was in Morze Statki i Okręty 10/2009 Okręty które nie podniosły biało czerwonej bandery part 3, article Polska eskadra pancerników by Andrzej S. Bartelski and Jan.S. Bartelski.
In short, if I remember it was about the Virginia class, the above quote Kingpin gave is true but it comes from magnum x, and this in turn is a quote from the beginning of the article.
Let me just say that when I was looking and still looking for ships, I mainly use articles, plus posts from users from the forum mainly dws.org and fow.pl who know the navy more than I do, for example crolick who writes articles.
In addition, I remember that from the beginning I used entries from 2 other forums, and the internet in general, as far as possible searching for new information, e.g. from marine plans, I supplement this data.
So I say that in case I will correct the data and information, don't worry about it.
At first, I couldn't get much information, so I had a bit of a mess, but I'm trying to organize it and check the sources, e.g. getting to the source of data written by a diesel user, I also have some marine programs more or less official.
I wrote to my post #61 what the British Polish treaty says, I know it but I had to check it again because I forget quickly.
But I'm saying we can eliminate the 8,000 ton heavy cruiser definitively, so that would be the CL.
I also remember that from here I took information about CA in the light of orders for 1942, the first link, I also used the information from the second link, the table was a bit messed up. https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=11463&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75 , https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?t=14835 .
I don't know if I wrote about it, but Rybak's plan from 1929 included a light cruiser with a displacement of 6,000-7,000 tons, armed with 6x 19 cm guns and a speed of 33-35 knots. it was supposed to be in Germany. From Morze Statki i Okręty specjalny 4/2014 article Najpiękniejszy okręt II Rzeczpospolitej i jego konkurenci by Jan.S.Bartelski. There is also a cruiser with a displacement of 14,000 tons that was mentioned here.
And so I will say that there will be an article about cruisers for Poland from the offers and those that have not been built.
There will be offers for Poland, there will also be surprises, and here the spoiler will also be the first visualization of the Polish design of a ship of this class.
So I don't know when we're waiting, and not my article, but an article from what I found out, it's been written like this for 2 years.
In addition to reaching the source of what I wrote above, I had to check the information about the 8,000-ton cruiser project by Aleksander Potyrała from 1937-1938, apparently its construction was considered, I don't know where this information came from, but I remember something.
I have not yet reached the source of information regarding the offer of the Spanish cruiser Miguel de Cervantes for Poland, I read about it a long time ago, but as I say, I did not reach the source of this information.
Be patient in these matters.
And if anyone has any questions about the navy, please number them 1, 2, 3, etc., same with comments in one post, plus remember to be neutral to avoid clutter, and post offensive posts here.
In addition, I will say in the context of Italian offers that I found a drawing of the Italian offer. View attachment 696140
This is an offer from the CRDA Cantiere Monfalcone shipyard dated January 18, 1937, the eighth copy was sent to Poland on March 4, 1938.
It was a torpedo boat offer, project 138/1.
In addition, I will say in the context of Italian offers that I found a drawing of the Italian offer. View attachment 696140
This is an offer from the CRDA Cantiere Monfalcone shipyard dated January 18, 1937, the eighth copy was sent to Poland on March 4, 1938.
It was a torpedo boat offer, project 138/1.
There was some joint development of MTBs between France and Italy in this timeframe. The Italian MAS-431 and French VTB-7 are pretty much on the same hull.
Well, today I think I will present 2 blueprints for minelayer from the tender.
1) This is a project of the Forges et Chantiers de la Gironde shipyard from Bordeaux, dated September 26, 1932, this offer was sent for the second tender of the minelayer (later ORP Gryf)
2) The second project of the same shipyard, dated January 30, 1934.
Noted the 450 mm torpedo tube installed in the bow section of the ship.
it was a requirement of the KMW.
Maybe someone didn't know about it but that's right, ORP Gryf, in addition to laying mines, was designed for other tasks, including carrying a torpedo launcher, and was also supposed to have reconnaissance (as far as I remember) for this reason it was to carry the Nikol A 2 seaplane, unfortunately, these last 2 ideas were not finally implemented.
Drawings from Morze i Okręty numer specjalny 1/2016 article ORP Gryf jakiego nie znaliście by Adam Jarski.
And here you have a drawing of a catapult for the Nikol A 2 seaplane that was considered for ORP Gryf
It is worth noting that the seaplane was also considered as a destroyer.
drawing from Morze Statki i Okręty numer specjalny 4/2014 article Najpiękniejszy okręt II Rzeczpospolitej i jego konkurenci by Jan.S.Bartelski.
3) Plan 52364C of the Normand shipyard project from 11 May 1934 which had 3 single 40 mm Vickers guns https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=139518 .
In the next post I will show drawings of other projects from the tender for the minelayer, and I will also try to post data on the offers of destroyers of the tender for the grom-class destroyers.
Of course, so that there is no information that the first project of the shipyard was in the second tender, it is in the article by the author himself.
While we're at the catapult, I remember something.
You will probably ask and say HMS Barham sale to Poland?
Well, not quite.
In short, it is the modernization of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleship to Polish standards.
It was a concept made by the PMW in the 1930s if such a battleship could be purchased and adapted to Polish requirements.
The armament is 100% British but the rest is guesswork.
This is what my friend wrote to me.
Later, it served as an illustrative material for the uhlans from Silesia.
From the details it can be concluded that it is a rebuilt HMS Barham after the mast, e.g. Malaya had a different mast.
But what I noticed is that this battleship has a catapult, and that it could be Nikol A 2 but here I could be wrong.
The blueprint was found in the Polish CAW archive.
I found 2 information from users on discord
1) documents relating to a Polish Battleship design were found
2) Polish were looking at contracting the Anglos to build them one
I already wrote to 2 users, one didn't write me back, and as for the second information under 1), the person already wrote back to me, and it turned out that we are writing about the drawing I am writing about now, i.e. the modernization of the Queen Elizabeth class battleship.
Probably someone would ask why Polish battleships were needed.
And here I can answer you.
I read that they were needed for sea policing, because the Russians invaded our waters in 1920 with their ships.
It may seem that plans with battleships are megalomania, but the fact is that with the battleship it made sense and it was not small and we needed it, but other issues are financial realities.
A cruiser was also needed.
For example, do you know why the Polish Wicher-class destroyers had 130 mm guns?
I'll answer
Because at that time, Soviet cruisers had 130 mm guns.
Orzeł class submarines were supposed to hunt Soviet battleships, that's why they are sometimes called Gangut killers, I will say right away that supposedly these submarines would be oceanic, it's a myth, it probably came from the fact that the Soviets didn't like the fact that the Poles have good weapon on their battleships, and it had to be changed somehow. Exactly about the myth that submarines would be oceanic, A. Bartelski said in the above video I gave above.
In any case, saying megalomania is a bit of ignorance of the subject of the Polish Navy, and above all the concept, because first you would have to ask yourself why it was needed and for what tasks.
Myth two.
It is a myth to say that Poland developed a fleet for the war with Germany and Russia at the same time.
Yes, with the official naval programs 1936, 1942 and for 1942, there was the N plus R variant, but in reality the Polish fleet was developing for the variant of the war with Russia, even ORP Gryf, it was supposed to be for Russia as far as I remember.
In fact, in the naval plan for Germany, only the cruiser and the MTB were supposed to be, but I do not know what tasks the MTB and the cruiser were supposed to have.
Just the actual needs, or even a cruiser, preferably a battleship, and financial and economic realities are two different things, because while a cruiser was within reach at least in the 1930s, a battleship is rather a distant future, and if KMW wanted additional ships, it had to look for money where other, even loans or credits, because the Ministerstwo Spraw Wojskowych (M.S.Wojsk.) (Ministry of Military Affairs) will not allocate additional money to the navy, because the land forces and air force were the priority.
When M.S Wojsk reduced the naval plan 1936-1942, KMW could not accept the resignation of the cruiser, so then they looked for money for CA, and as it was written here, it would rather be built, the only question is whether until 1942, or rather until 1944, the construction of a 15,000-ton heavy cruiser was also considered, but ultimately abandoned. On the subject of battleships, KMW said that you should look for a loan for the construction of BB.
When M.S Wojsk reduced the naval plan 1936-1942, KMW could not accept the resignation of the cruiser, so then they looked for money for CA, and as it was written here, it would rather be built, the only question is whether until 1942, or rather until 1944, the construction of a 15,000-ton heavy cruiser was also considered, but ultimately abandoned. On the subject of battleships, KMW said that you should look for a loan for the construction of BB.
When M.S Wojsk reduced the naval plan 1936-1942, KMW could not accept the resignation of the cruiser, so then they looked for money for CA, and as it was written here, it would rather be built, the only question is whether until 1942, or rather until 1944, the construction of a 15,000-ton heavy cruiser was also considered, but ultimately abandoned. On the subject of battleships, KMW said that you should look for a loan for the construction of BB.
Finally, ending with battleships, I will quote a few numbers.
For one 25,000 battleship, you had to pay 162.5 million zlotys if I remember, and this is the state as of 1937.
For comparison, I will quote the prices of cruisers not which
1925 The cost of the 10,000-ton heavy cruiser Trento Mod from Italy is about PLN 35 million for 1 ship.
1929 light cruiser 6000 to 7000 tons with 19 cm guns from Rybak's plan cost somewhere from 51 to 52 million zlotys because different sources give different prices.
in the 1930s, a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser cost 90 million per ship.
Moving on, we have the year 1937, a heavy cruiser of 10,000 tons costs PLN 70 million for 1 ship
In 1938, the price of the cruiser was probably PLN 42 million.
So 1 battleship 25 000 ton costs 2 heavy cruisers 10,000 tons plus an additional 20 million zlotys, if we look at 1937 prices.
Interesting conclusions can be drawn.
So the Polish cruiser could afford it, so it would be in service in the 40s with a high probability.
But BB would be out of reach.
They're minelayers now.
1) Augustin Normand shipyard project number 4767, there were variants A to C.
the one in the picture is variant A.
It had a displacement of 1627 tons
length 102.2 m
armament is 4x 130 mm
2x40mm
2x heaviest machine guns.
the last drawing from https://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=634&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=425
2) Design of the Chantiers de Bretagne shipyard with the designation K 162, the K 162 and K 164 designs have been preserved.
a) The drawing shows the K 162 project.
Data for K 162 and K 164 projects.
it was supposed to be 93,4 meters long
armament is 4x 130 mm
2x Vickers 40mm AA
Projects K 162 and K 164 differ only in the installation of mines.
this blueprint(up) from Okręty Wydanie Specjalne nr 4(8) 2014 article ORP „Gryf” by Mirosław Skwiot
b) K 164 variant blueprint( I think that's probably it.)
The last two drawings are from Wielki Leksykon Uzbrojenia wrzesień 1939 tom(volume) 30 title Stawiacz min GRYF by Mariusz Borowiak.
3) Design of the Augustin Normand shipyard from Le Havre with the designation 5131B sent for the second tender.
normal displacement 2182 tons
armament
4x 130 mm
3x 40mm.
Since it's late now, I'll provide technical details on the destroyer offers later.
You can say if you like this form of presenting ships, etc.
Well, no offense, but it seems like megalomania) Or, alternatively, it seems like an attempt to "aim higher to hit at least something" - i.e. to present the absurdly ambitious program, and when government rejected it "reluctantly" agree to scale down (to secure funds for the fleet that could be realistically maintained).
it probably came from the fact that the Soviets didn't like the fact that the Poles have good guns on their battleships, and it had to be changed somehow.
I'm quite... puzzled. Polish admirals did not understood that destroyers are not as stable artillery platforms as cruisers? That destroyer could not efficiently duel with cruiser, simply because larger and heavier cruiser hull would make cruiser fire much more accurate?
As far as I know, Soviet Navy took literally zero actions during the Soviet-Polish war. And up till 1924, RKKF did not participate in any major exercises outside the Gulf. What kind of "invasion" of Polish waters you are talking about?
In short, it is the modernization of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleship to Polish standards.
It was a concept made by the PMW in the 1930s if such a battleship could be purchased and adapted to Polish requirements.
With all respect, but I kinda doubt it. It looks more like a generalized illustration of battleship for some education material. Just look:
AA guns - clearly of WW1 pattern, single mounts without even shields.
Rudders arrangement - from "Revenge"-class.
Smokestack - from reiftted "Barham".
Catapult - clearly non-British.
Considering this strange mish-mash of details, low detalization, and lack of any numbers at all (even the guns caliber isn't mentioned), I suspect that it was not any kind of project or concept. It was just an illustration to represent the general arrangement of nonspecified "modern battleship".
I'm quite... puzzled. Polish admirals did not understood that destroyers are not as stable artillery platforms as cruisers? That destroyer could not efficiently duel with cruiser, simply because larger and heavier cruiser hull would make cruiser fire much more accurate?
I'm not an expert, I don't have access to the archives, so my knowledge of the Polish Navy is limited.
But I guess it was because in the 1920s Soviet cruisers had 130mm guns, they mainly looked at the Baltic fleet, and there weren't many of those cruisers, so I guess they decided to build 2 destroyers with 130mm guns.
Because they didn't have a cruiser that was better than them.
Later, they built the Grom class because the 120mm guns were said to have a similar range to the 130mm guns, had a better rate of fire, and two were lighter.
And since in the 1930s there was a cruiser with 180 mm guns, and then the Kirovs came in, the 130 mm guns were already useless.
And the cruiser/BB still didn't have it.
Well, no offense, but it seems like megalomania) Or, alternatively, it seems like an attempt to "aim higher to hit at least something" - i.e. to present the absurdly ambitious program, and when government rejected it "reluctantly" agree to scale down (to secure funds for the fleet that could be realistically maintained).
rather, the word megalomania is a bit inappropriate, if not abusive.
Because if the battleship made sense, what I wrote about, the other issue is economic, finance, and I must add that the Polish Navy had a problem, i.e. personnel, and Poland as a country started practically from scratch because after regaining independence there was little heavy industry.
But battleships were canceled mainly for financial reasons, I'm not talking about plans with 2 or 3 battleships, because either these are propaganda naval programs, not official, but some hypothetical compositions of the high seas fleet, as it was in 1936-1938, Breyer mentioned these plans or just the program from 1936 and 1937.
And yes, in the official naval programs, i.e. 1936, 1942, and in 1942, yes, it was, but as I wrote, it was deleted in the 6-year plan for financial reasons and who knows if not also staff.
Although a layman who does not know the Polish Navy can say that it is megalomania.
As far as I know, Soviet Navy took literally zero actions during the Soviet-Polish war. And up till 1924, RKKF did not participate in any major exercises outside the Gulf. What kind of "invasion" of Polish waters you are talking about?
I remember something, but I can't remember exactly.
I have to search carefully.
But it was an incident.
I'll tell you if I remember.
The fact that such an incident took place in the 1920s was written by one person on twitter, but if I would have to look for this place specifically, if I read about something like that, it was a long time ago.
Considering this strange mish-mash of details, low detalization, and lack of any numbers at all (even the guns caliber isn't mentioned), I suspect that it was not any kind of project or concept. It was just an illustration to represent the general arrangement of nonspecified "modern battleship".
the only thing that is certain is that it was illustrative material from Silesia.
But that this is a concept, a friend who has contacts with people wrote to me, and he just wrote to me that such data as armament, double or triple turrets are already guesswork, because we really don't know why and why it was created.
In general, I think I have said everything I know at the moment about this drawing of the battleship.
They're destroyers now.
When the tender for English shipyards was announced, a catapult was required.
In a report from November 22, 1934, the French attache Lieutenant de Vaisseau Rene Papillon reported that the Poles wanted to install a catapult on the newly built Grom-class destroyers.
It was to be located behind the second funnel above the torpedo tubes.
Later, in another report from January 9, 1935, there is information that the installation of this catapult encounters problems due to the stability of the platform, while the Poles did not want to give up the installation of this catapult.
And here the information ends.
This is what the reading of the reports of the French naval attache in Warsaw tells us.
info form Morze Statki i Okręty numer specjalny 4/2014 article up about ORP Gryf.
1) Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire
Displacement
standard 1950 tons
Dimensions
Length 111.50 m
Beam 10.75 m
Draught 6.30 m
Armament
5xI 130 mm guns
2xIII Torpedo tubes caliber 550 mm
2xI 40mm on the main deck, one on each side behind the rear funnels,
2xII Hotchkiss 13.2mm MG, with one on each side by the bridge.
The 130 mm guns are supposed to be a later model (1932?) and not the same ones as on the Wicher class, but since I don't know much about French guns, I don't know how true it is, but I prefer to verify every information.
Tell me this project is based on Le Hardi/Fantasque or am I wrong?
But I must admit that from all the destroyer projects I know, this project is my favorite, beautiful.
2) Chantiers et Ateliers Augustin Normand
Displacement
standard 1250 t
Armament
4xI 120 mm L/45
1 x 75 mm AA L/50
3 (II) x 40 mm AA
2xIII 550 mm TT
Other parameters I can not read from this drawing.
The data I wrote was written by crolick in his post on the dws.org forum.
I will immediately write that all blueprints come from the Polish CAW archive, which were published in articles or on the forum.
So yes they are true.
Only the pictures of the minelayers' designs in the previous post are reconstructions, but made on the basis of the original plans that are in CAW, and the drawings of Wicher mod 1941 are made on the basis of documents from the archive, and black graphic based trento mod basic on original blueprints from CAW.
3) Ateliers et Chantiers de Bretagne shipyard design K 170
Standard displacement 1690 tons
Dimensions:
Length between perpendiculars: 105.0 m
Width: 10.4 meters
Draft at normal load: 3.4 m
Armament
5xI 130mm guns
2 xI 40mm anti-aircraft guns
2xI HMG
2x III 550mm torpedo tubes.
Speed at 36-38 knots.
4) project by Thornycroft shipyard , variants A, B, C.
a) Thornycroft design A. Project T976
Dimensions
112.88 m
109.70 m
11.00 m
6.50 m
Armament:
3xII 120 mm guns
2xII 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns
4xII 13,2 mm Hotchkiss
2xIII 550mm torpedo tubes
b) Thornycroft design B. Project T977
Dimensions:
106.22 m
103.63 m
10.36 m
6.02 m
Armament:
- 3xII 120mm guns
- 2xII 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns
- 4xII 13,2 mm Hotchkiss
- 2xIII 550 mm torpedo tubes
c) Thornycroft design C, project T978
Dimensions
106.22 meters
103.68 m
10.36 m
6.02m
Armament
3xII 120 mm guns
2xII 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns
4xII 13,2 mm Hotchkiss
2xIII 550 mm torpedo tubes
Noted.
All 4 twin 13.2 mm (4xII) Hotchkiss guns are located on the aft superstructure.
5) Swang Hunter shipyard design from 1934 year
And here is the problem because I have not found any data about this project.
It has six 120mm guns in a 3xII arrangement for sure
2xII(sic !) 40 mm AA guns(I think I see them. Look between the torpedo tubes, there is a position between them where there is a searchlight, and I think I can see the guns there.)
2xII 13,2 mm Hotchkiss, I see small guns in the blueprint. They are on the sides, you will find them when you go from the first funnel towards the superstructure at the front of the ship, and you will find them between them.
2xIII torpedo tubes caliber 550 mm.
6)Gotaverken shipyard designs
a) project of a destroyer with a displacement of 1,610 tons, the general plan of which was drawn up on May 7, 1934, marked #84375
Normal displacement 1610 tons
Dimensions:
total length 107.80 m
length 105.63 m
10.20 m
width 10.15 m
6.20 m
average draft 2.97 m
Armament:
3xII 120 mm Bofors L/50 guns
2xI 40mm Bofors guns
4xII 25 mm autocannons
2xIII 550 mm torpedo tubes
Drive:
Machine power: 41,000 hp
Speed: 38 knots
b) second project of the Gotaverken shipyard, designation #85318. This is a destroyer project with a displacement of 1850 tons.
Normal displacement 1850 tons
Dimensions:
total length 112.20 m
length 110.70 m
width 10. 20 m
10.45 m
4.20 m
2.10 m
Armament:
3xII 120 mm Bofors L/50 guns
3xI or 2xI(there in the blueprint it says if there are 3 or 2, I can't read it.) 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns
4xII 13,2 mm Hotchkins guns
2xIII 550 mm torpedo tubes
Drive:
Machine power 48,000 hp
Speed: 36 knots
picture number in de loire shipyard 2 is a drawing, picture number 3 is a impression, i.e. what the destroyer from the de Loire project looked like
Main Sources for blueprints and data destroyers design
Morze Statki i Okręty 4/2000 article Poszukując nowych niszczycieli by Marek Twardowski, Encyklopedia Okrętów Wojennych 24 and 25 title Niszczyciele typu Grom Grom, Błyskawica part 1 and 2 by Marek Twardowski, Encyklopedia Okrętów Wojennych 28 article Kontrtorpedowce Wicher, Burza part 1 by Marek Twardowski.
the only thing that is certain is that it was illustrative material from Silesia.
But that this is a concept, a friend who has contacts with people wrote to me, and he just wrote to me that such data as armament, double or triple turrets are already guesswork, because we really don't know why and why it was created.
In general, I think I have said everything I know at the moment about this drawing of the battleship.
I'm afraid your friend mistaken here. This drawing did not represent any kind of concept of "buying and refitting the Barham". They are almost certainly just an illustration of abstract "modern battleship" for some education material.
When the tender for English shipyards was announced, a catapult was required.
In a report from November 22, 1934, the French attache Lieutenant de Vaisseau Rene Papillon reported that the Poles wanted to install a catapult on the newly built Grom-class destroyers.
It was to be located behind the second funnel above the torpedo tubes.
Later, in another report from January 9, 1935, there is information that the installation of this catapult encounters problems due to the stability of the platform, while the Poles did not want to give up the installation of this catapult.
And here the information ends.
This is what the reading of the reports of the French naval attache in Warsaw tells us.
info form Morze Statki i Okręty numer specjalny 4/2014 article up about ORP Gryf.
1) Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire
Displacement
standard 1950 tons
Dimensions
Length 111.50 m
Beam 10.75 m
Draught 6.30 m
Armament
5xI 130 mm guns
2xIII Torpedo tubes caliber 550 mm
2xI 40mm on the main deck, one on each side behind the rear funnels,
2xII Hotchkiss 13.2mm MG, with one on each side by the bridge.
The 130 mm guns are supposed to be a later model (1932?) and not the same ones as on the Wicher class, but since I don't know much about French guns, I don't know how true it is, but I prefer to verify every information.
Tell me this project is based on Le Hardi/Fantasque or am I wrong?
I'm afraid your friend mistaken here. This drawing did not represent any kind of concept of "buying and refitting the Barham". They are almost certainly just an illustration of abstract "modern battleship" for some education material.
I will only write in the subject of the cruiser that there is a photo of a wooden model of the Polish cruiser, it is a model in the scale of 1:1000.
I don't have a photo of this model, but it will be included in the article about Polish cruisers, since the article about submarines has priority, we'll wait (not mine).
I will only write in the subject of the cruiser that there is a photo of a wooden model of the Polish cruiser, it is a model in the scale of 1:1000.
I don't have a photo of this model, but it will be included in the article about Polish cruisers, since the article about submarines has priority, we'll wait (not mine).
Yes.
And I can confirm that the 8,000 ton cruiser is 100% true, that's for sure it would be.
So by 1943 or 1944 Poland would have had 1 CL
And in addition, there would be CA later, only an open question 1 or 2, and here the question is whether one of them would be built by 1946/1947, because they would probably be built in the Gdynia shipyard.
It is said that Świrski planned to build cruisers in a Polish shipyard, but after 1942, when there would be a slipway for ships up to about 200 meters long.
So they'd rather build them.
So the question is open whether Poland would have 2 cruisers or maybe 3.
And the projected loan I wrote about above for the 8000 ton cruiser, I bet it would be for CA.
In addition, KMW was looking for money for CA, so everything indicates that it would be possible to build it
I will add a thing that the year of completion of the 8000 ton cruiser may be a bit wrong, due to the fact that I don't really know how much a cruiser is built.
only I instead of CA gave this CL 8000 tons knowing the year when they were supposed to order it
In addition, I will say that I read this loan as for the years 1943/1944, but here may be my mistake in this matter.
Also, the date of completion/entering CL service is more or less.
I will ask a little bit from a different topic but also a little about Poles and Polish ships.
Do you know any Poles or people of Polish descent (Polonia) who, until the First World War and maybe in the Second World War, designed ships, even destroyers, in countries such as Russia or the USA?
I mean those people who did not manage to return to Poland after the First World War and the Second World War.
Do you know any Poles or people of Polish descent (Polonia) who, until the First World War and maybe in the Second World War, designed ships, even destroyers, in countries such as Russia or the USA?
Data for the submarine of the Ansaldo San Giorgio project (I showed a blueprint of this offer once)
dimensions
70.5m x 6.5m x 3.32m
surface displacement 750 tons
underwater displacement 993 tons.
Armament
1x 102 mm L/45 gun
1xI 40 mm L/39 anti-aircraft gun.
4 bow torpedo tubes of 533 mm caliber, adapted to torpedoes up to 7.5 meters in length.
1xII rotating torpedo tube 533 mm
2 stern torpedo tubes.
Drive
2x FIAT diesel engines with a total power of 2000 HP
2x 1300 hp electric motors
This was to ensure a speed of 16 knots and 9 knots, respectively.
A water range of 5,000 nautical miles at 8 knots, and an underwater range of 80 nautical miles at 4 knots.
I admit that currently I do not know any of his projects from the time he was in Russia, nor do I know any ships that were built by him.
Unless Russian sources wrote something about it.
Especially if you are writing about larger ships like destroyers.
Although I know that Sevastopol-class battleships (later Gangut) were built during his time.
In the secret part (in which the representative of the shipyard did not participate), the commission rejected the project, listing 15 deficiencies in the specification:
1. Insufficient turbine power.
2. The weights given in the specification seem incorrect.
3. Too much stress in longitudinal and transverse bonds.
4. No double bottom in selected parts.
5. Arrangement of rooms.
6. Wrong hull shape.
7. Living rooms too small.
8. Poor arrangement of beds.
9. Seamen's toilets are located directly above the officers' rooms.
10. No permanent beds for N.C.Os.
11. Insufficient number of paragraphs.
12. Insufficient hospital equipment.
13. Too few washrooms.
14. Wrong arrangement of rooms.
15. It is better to replace three funnels with two - to win a place.
The committee was of the opinion that the design would only be acceptable once the above-mentioned deficiencies had been rectified, and that the alterations would require a major rebuild and significant increase in displacement.
The advantage of the Swedish offer was the low price and the possibility of a compensation agreement.
translate by me.
It is not known why the second revised Gotaverken project was rejected.
Perhaps because it still had design flaws (1, 2, 3, 6). The basic mistake was that it still had 3 funnels.
In the case of British shipyards, it was like that
Vickers Armstrong LTD was the first to drop out, insisting on his armament.
drawings and details of this offer have been found.
Palmers agreed with the Samuel White shipyard to give way.
Swang Hunter delivered the design and I don't know when he dropped out.
The list of shipyards for December already included Samuel White, Yarrow and Thornycroft.
Yarrow had a problem with the design but delivered the design as an offer was considered.
Currently no drawings of this offer have been found.
Thornycroft had problems with financing (credit), the offer was too expensive, so Samuel White won in the end.
Of the French bids from the 1933 competition, the most advantageous was the one for a 1950-ton destroyer from the de Loire shipyard.
unfortunately it was too expensive because the French thought they had a monopoly.
According to Kułakowski (Marynarka Wojenna Polski odrodzonej, vol. II, p. 382-383), Potyrała proposed in 1930 a program to expand the fleet with a displacement of 150,000 t, under which we were to build two heavy cruisers with a displacement of 15,000 t each, armed with 3xIII 203 mm and 3xIII 120 mm (plus lighter calibers), 2xIV torpedo tubes and drive 4x steam turbines. The problem is that in Potyrała's article to which this information refers (Sprawa polskiego przemysłu okrętowego, "Przegląd Morski" nr 1/1930) there is no such information, and the page is incorrectly given (Kułakowski gives 5 and 7, this article begins at 43). So I don't know where Kułakowski got these data (but rather he didn't invent them)
Quote in response to my question about cruiser designs in dws.org.
translate by me.
I will also write that according to avalanche press, Poland asked in 1936 for 2 heavy cruisers and 2 battleships
According to the same website, the heavy cruisers were supposed to be of a Dutch design which was initially based on the Admiral Hipper cruisers. The heavy cruisers presented there have 10 203 mm guns, torpedoes, and heavy anti-aircraft armament.
And here is the problem because I do not know such a project, even the one that was written about.
However, the battleship called Bolesław I from this side, I have the impression that it would be a battleship from project 1047. Information about battlecruisers in my opinion is not true, I see battleships in all naval programs.And the composition of the fleet, which was supposedly written 3 battlecruisers, 1 aircraft cruiser, etc., would be what Breyer wrote about.
I will quote the composition of the fleet in 1938/1939 from Breyer's book
It was not an official maritime program, nor was it taken seriously, but it was a preparation for building a fleet, which we could hypothetically build in the Polish shipyard in Gdynia.
So the ships would be of Polish design, not foreign ones.
I will also write that according to avalanche press, Poland asked in 1936 for 2 heavy cruisers and 2 battleships
According to the same website, the heavy cruisers were supposed to be of a Dutch design which was initially based on the Admiral Hipper cruisers. The heavy cruisers presented there have 10 203 mm guns, torpedoes, and heavy anti-aircraft armament.
And here is the problem because I do not know such a project, even the one that was written about.
However, the battleship called Bolesław I from this side, I have the impression that it would be a battleship from project 1047. View attachment 697378Information about battlecruisers in my opinion is not true, I see battleships in all naval programs.And the composition of the fleet, which was supposedly written 3 battlecruisers, 1 aircraft cruiser, etc., would be what Breyer wrote about.
I will quote the composition of the fleet in 1938/1939 from Breyer's book
It was not an official maritime program, nor was it taken seriously, but it was a preparation for building a fleet, which we could hypothetically build in the Polish shipyard in Gdynia.
So the ships would be of Polish design, not foreign ones.
I know.
I wrote this while we are already at the Dutch.
And the information from the above website that we asked about 2 cruisers and 2 battleships is not true, because KMW did not ask about cruisers or battleships.
When it comes to cruisers, I will say that there were several Italian offers for cruisers, as I wrote above, and I will say that there is a mention of a Vickers offer from the mid-1930s, but I don't know anything else about it.
I have tried to research some of the designs and programs you find mentioned on Avalanche. Mike B either has access to a lot of “unavailable elsewhere “ source material or….well, we’ll just leave it at that. Many of what he mentions I often HOPE were real but in many cases I have not been able to find every peripheral mention of them.
Conversions to a minelayer (after the war)
In the context of armament, Hel and Puck were supposed to have 2xI 85 mm 90 K guns that are next to each other, they were single guns.
They were to have eight 37 mm W 11M guns.
Two twin 37 mm guns were to be placed on the boat deck, and two more twin guns on the roof of the aft deckhouse.
What differed the projects was the adoption of other solutions for the course of the mine tracks.
Hel was to have a displacement of about 2,500 tons.
And Puck about 2,700 tons.
Max speed is not great, for Puck I see 10.5 knots, for Hel 10 knots.
At Puck and Hel, the Giujs 1M4 artillery radar was put on the mast.
And navigational and general observation of Nieptun.
Data for minelayer B 31
the dimensions are given as follows
106.3(100.7)x14.6,x5.6
displacement of 6,100 tons (approximately)
its armament is three 100 mm B 34 guns
6 twin 37 mm W 11M guns
And 6 twin heavy machine guns
speed is 11 to max 12.5 knots.
Data for minelayer B 32
dimensions
93.3 x 13.5 x 5.0 m
displacement 4500 tons (indicative)
speed 12.5 knots.
Armament
3 single 85mm 90K guns
3 twin 37 mm W 11M guns
4 twin HMG
From Morze 9/2017 (24) article Stawiacze min z cywila by Robert Rochowicz.
artist's vision of the torpedo boat project 870 C offer for Poland by Chantiers Aeronavals Etienne Romano.
length
on deck 18 m
on the waterline 17 m
width after deck 3.80
m
hull depth amidships 2 m
draft 1.15 m
power of 2 engines 1200 hp
continuous speed 31 knots
displacement 31 tons
crew 1 officer and 3 sailors.
Possible armament
1xII 20mm Oerlikon gun
2 stern launchers of the aircraft type, caliber 450 mm
6 x 50 kg depth charges.
In general, I will say that there were 21 of these MTB offers, including Italian ones.
I know that there are few drawings today, but for 2 days I have a cold, apart from a tiring cough, I have a runny nose, a sore throat and a temperature of 37.
Maybe when I feel better, I'll show others, including German ones (of course there were).
List of countries and some shipyards from the MTB tender.
France
Chantiers de Loire
Netherlands
H. W. De Voogt
Italy
Fiat Italia
CRDA Cantiere Monfalcone
Baglietto Italia
Great Britain
John Samuel White
Thornycroft
Vosper
Germany
Lurssen(?)
Actiengeselschaft Gebruder Sachsenberg
1. German offer of a torpedo hydrofoil for Poland for MTB, submitted on April 20, 1937, by Aktiengeselschaft Gebrüder Sachsenberg via of the Towarzystwo Techniczno-Handlowe "Polski Diesel" . Blueprint from here https://www.graptolite.net/pl/wodolot.html
The specifications of this offer are as follows
length on KWL - 13.40 m;
total length (without torpedo tube) - 14.45 m;
total width - 5 m;
draft at standstill - 0.80 m;
displacement - 15 ton;
speed with 700/800 HP engine - 75 km/h;
armament -
2 torpedoes of 450 mm caliber,
1 machine gun 20 mm ,
2 depth charges of 180 kg each.
2. In addition, in part II of the MTB article by Adam Jarski (I wrote all three parts above) I found information about the offer of the Lurssen shipyard, unfortunately I did not find more information on this subject.
3.Vosper LTD's original design number 7620 from May 7, 1937.
it is a torpedo boat that only has torpedoes.
The case of the design 1077 project for Poland.
When I shared the design 1077 blueprint above, one discord user told me that the 1077 was for Greece.
Yesterday I asked for screenshots and the full name of the book about the project for Poland, I will post these screenshots below, of course I sent the information and screenshots to a Polish expert.
Full name book British Submarines in Two World Wars by Norman Friedman
And the situation now looks like this , after sending the screenshots and information to the expert, Mr. Bartelski wrote to me that he made a mistake saying in the video that it was an offer from a submarine tender from the 1930s, currently just the wrong drawing was there until those years.
1.This design 1077 that was shown in the film is Greek from 7 January 1924, then offered to Poland in III 1925, the entire specification of this submarine along with the blueprint has been preserved in the Polish CAW archive, that's why it was found in the Polish archive.
I will only remind you of the blueprint of the submarine I am writing about. Here's a drawing.
As the user wrote, this design has 4 bow torpedo tubes, and 4 deck torpedo tubes, and now it matches the data of the 1924 submarine 1077 described by friedman, you can see the all data in the screenshot.
2. The real polish design 1077 offered to Poland, and rather also designed for a tender in the 1930s, is here.
In fact, this submarine has a displacement of 1400 tons.
There is only a blueprint for this sub in the CAW, but no specifications, and that's where Friedman's book comes in to help, because he wrote the data on this design for this offer.
And now it agrees with the words of Mr. Bartelski from the video when he said that Vickers offered Poland a submarine with a displacement of 1,400 tons for a tender in the 1930s, the reason for offering such a submarine was that a smaller subamarine could not be designed, something like that was said because I remind.
Some may be at least surprised by the parameters of this Polish 1077.
Dimensions
length at the waterline is 88.39 meters (290ft)
The standard displacement is 1380 tons
1,450 tons with normal fuel
1550 tons with the maximum amount of fuel
submerged displacement is 1856 tons
The armament of the submarine is
6 torpedo tubes in the bow
2 torpedo tubes in the stern
and 2 twin rotating torpedo tubes.
The number of torpedoes is 20, one for each launcher, and 10 spares.
Surface speed is 20 knots
Submerged speed 9 knots.
I don't know what the other dimensions mean, and if I made a mistake somewhere with the displacement, tell me.
I colored it in the picture.
I think this new Design 1077 might be the Polish designation Vickers given to it, because as you posted the original 1077 data for the Greeks in 1924 that connects well with the numbering of series:
Submarine Designs 1086 and 1087 for Argentina both from 1924, but again Vickers numbering series are often quite a mess...
I will say that the Polish 1077 from the 1930s is the largest submarine offered to Poland until 1939, looking at displacement.
It is even one of the larger submarines from the offers, if you write about the dimensions, let me remind you that it is longer than the submarines built in France (yes, those Normand submarines from the last tender), and I am not sure if it is bigger than it (contract submarine with a 1175 displacement look project 5751C and the parameters of the Normand project I posted earlier, probably on the previous page).
Drawings of project 5751C, a submarine with a displacement of 1166 tons, and projects D and E are from Morze Statki i Okręty
1-2/2018(184) article Okręty podwodne "typu Orzeł" z Francji ? by Adam Jarski. Part II in Morze Statki i Okręty 3-4/2018 .
I think this new Design 1077 might be the Polish designation Vickers given to it, because as you posted the original 1077 data for the Greeks in 1924 that connects well with the numbering of series:
Submarine Designs 1086 and 1087 for Argentina both from 1924, but again Vickers numbering series are often quite a mess...
It seems so to me too.
at least the case with the 1077 designation has been clarified, because if someone hadn't told me about what Friedman wrote, I would still think that the one from the movie is the one from the 1930s from the tender.
For the sake of distinction, I include a short legend
under 1, the Greek design 1077, later offered to Poland, and the plan of this submarine are marked in green
Under 2, in white, I marked the information about the proper design of the 1077 for Poland from the 1930s, it was said in the film that Vickers offered Poland a submarine with a displacement of 1400 tons, along with the details of this submarine.
The expert in the movie may not have known about this information that Friedman wrote about in the book, and any person who watched the movie would have understood that the 1400-ton submarine that Vickers offered in the 1930s was the one in the drawing, as I perceived it.
Hence all the confusion, additionally the same designations can cause trouble, additionally, the expert earlier told me wrong (which we now know) saying that it was for a tender from the 1930s.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
