WitW-HKD TEA Fleet

[Monter_Trismegistos]

That's why they should have capacity of 60, not 90 as Lexingtons/Kaga/Akagi.

[modrow]

Hi Guys,

another Kraut voicing his opinion - though not really an expert one...

First of all, Historiker: I really like your project. Pity I am notoriously out of time, so I can't offer more than moral support.

Second issue: If you want to use Blücher for your Feldmarschall BB, we need a new name for the "Berlin" replacement CA...

With respect to the number of AC: I agree to Historiker about the problematic design of Graf Zeppelin. Afaik the number of planes was that small because the planners had decided there should be 16x15cm guns to be used against naval targets !!!

This may have made sense specifically in a small navy which cannot spare enough ships with big guns for escort purpose - but Historiker has removed that constraint successfully. So I guess we should go somewhere between 48 and 60 Planes. 56 ?

With respect to further ships - in fact I do think the P-class would make a lot of sense, maybe even instead of the conventional cruisers. Also, there we won't have a problem with availability of 28cm guns - we just got plenty of those from the original Scharnhorst/Gneisenau design...

Just my opinionated 2p...

Hartwig

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

In Germany, the Graf Zeppelin is considered to be a faulty design. For its size it had to few planes.

why would you say that ???
the planing was based on the Glorious and Courageous in 1934.
after the first few months the new CV was projected with:
23000 tons
45 to 50 A/C
35 knots max speed

and now compare that to the British CV numbers,
or to the numbers of the CV Zeppelin:
24114 tons
33,8 knots
42 A/C

it had decent armour, the only design flaw was the 15cm guns
and as usal for the German Navy it had no long range at higher speeds ( it had 8000sm range at 19knots )

you do not like the Fi design - it would have been probably a good torpedo carrier.
and for the other A/Cs - they did not have any real Navy A/C designs in real life ( because the LW under Göring got all the flying things to play with )

[wernerpruckner]

construction time of German ships: [laid down; launch; commisioning ] [dd/mm/yy]
 
Lützow 5.2.29 - 19.5.31 - 1.4.33
Admiral Scheer 25.6.31 - 1.4.33 - 12.11.34
Admiral Graf Spee 1.10.32 - 30.6.34 - 6.1.36
Panzerschiff D and E ( replacement for Elsaß and Hessen ) were laid down 14.2.34, but the construction was stopped 5.7.34
D and E were than planned as Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
 
Scharnhorst 15.6.35 - 3.10.36 - 7.1.39
Gneisenau 6.5.35 - 8.12.36 - 21.5.38
Bismark 1.7.36 - 14.2.39 - 24.8.40
Tirpitz 2.11.36 - 1.4.39 - 25.2.41
 
battleship production for the H typ ( H,J,K,L,M,N )
H was laid down 15.7.39 and was suspended 21.9.39  it was planed to commission it on the 1.8.43
J was laid down 15.8.39 and was suspended 21.9.39 - planed comissioning was 1.10.43
planed commisioning for:
K 1.9.44
L 1.11.44
M 1.1.45
N 1.4.45
 
Schlachtschiff O type
 planed commisioning
O 1.6.43
P 1.10.43
Q 1.12.43
 
 

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: swift

why would you say that ???
the planing was based on the Glorious and Courageous in 1934.
after the first few months the new CV was projected with:
23000 tons
45 to 50 A/C
35 knots max speed

and now compare that to the British CV numbers,
or to the numbers of the CV Zeppelin:
24114 tons
33,8 knots
42 A/C

it had decent armour, the only design flaw was the 15cm guns
and as usal for the German Navy it had no long range at higher speeds ( it had 8000sm range at 19knots )

you do not like the Fi design - it would have been probably a good torpedo carrier.
and for the other A/Cs - they did not have any real Navy A/C designs in real life ( because the LW under Göring got all the flying things to play with )

The USS Wasp CV-7 had 14.700t with 80 planes - that's a good capacity!
Of course, it wasn't namable armoured, but we have 8-10.000 t for armour and protection systems! Not let's consider a Diesel in addition to the usual turbine engine for cruising to spare weight and space.
Let's try it from this direction: How much can the Wasp (with Diesel cruising engines) be armoured when there are 8-10.000 t free for use?

The Fi is too slowly (for me). But ok, compared with the Albacore, it has quite good data. Anyway, I would prefer something like the Avanger - but as I said, it's more than enough time to think about the planes...


@Terminus
Diesels aren't necessarily slower. Look at the P-class which was projectet for 33-35kn. Moreover, one can keep some "usual" eninges for high speed while using only diesels for cruising. This definitly spares room and weight as well as the range increases.


@Monster-Trismegistos
Good to have a polish player here I need some polish names for ships! It is important for that, that poland hasn't seized any German or russian populated territory, so a "Gdansk" isn't possible. Moreover, there aren't any war heroes of the Russo-Polish war, as this war never happened. Last we must consider, that the Polish King is of German Origin again.
For the two BBs, I would recommend "Jan Sobieski" as a King who fought for whole Europe and "August II." as a powerful polish King of German origin.
But which names for Cruisers and the smaller ships like DDs and SSs?


@hartwig.modrow
I already must reneam the Admiral Hipper class. Prinz Eugen is an Austrian Fieldmarshall who's name was only used as germany continues the Austrian naval tradition. In this szenario, Austria continues its own tradition, so a Prinz Eugen will be an Austrian ship.
Anyway, we have enough Fieldmarshalls, Great Kings/Emperors, provinces etc. to name all the ships [;)]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

So which data do you suggest, Terminus?



Looking at the shipyards, I come to the following conclusion:
A.G. Vulcan Hamburg: 2 ships simultaneously
A.G. Vulcan Stettin 1 ship
A.G. Weser Bremen 2 ships
Blohm & Voß, Hamburg 2 ships maybe 3
Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft Kiel 1 ship
Friedrich Schichau Danzig 2 ships
Howaldtswerke Kiel 1 ship
Kaiserliche Werft Kiel 2 ships
Kaiserliche Werft Wilhelmshafen / Kriegsmarinewerft 3 ships

So 16 to 17 capital ships simultaneously.
I calculate the time between laying down and launching as it should be possible after launching to start a new ship, no?
The times are:
BB 35-40.000 16 month
BB 45.000+ 20 month
Pocket battleship 18month (the Diesels and the new welding technology takes its time)
CA 10 month
CV 20 month

Are the times correct?
I assume CLs don't need the same Helling as the bigger ships, no?

So would you correct this data, swift?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: swift

why would you say that ???
the planing was based on the Glorious and Courageous in 1934.
after the first few months the new CV was projected with:
23000 tons
45 to 50 A/C
35 knots max speed

and now compare that to the British CV numbers,
or to the numbers of the CV Zeppelin:
24114 tons
33,8 knots
42 A/C

it had decent armour, the only design flaw was the 15cm guns
and as usal for the German Navy it had no long range at higher speeds ( it had 8000sm range at 19knots )

you do not like the Fi design - it would have been probably a good torpedo carrier.
and for the other A/Cs - they did not have any real Navy A/C designs in real life ( because the LW under Göring got all the flying things to play with )

The USS Wasp CV-7 had 14.700t with 80 planes - that's a good capacity!

The Wasp couldn't carry 80 planes by the beginning of the war; remember that the aircraft got bigger all the time. Also, the Wasp was nowhere near as heavily protected as what you're thinking about, and she was comparatively slow as well. Not a good design, that one...

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Historiker


So 16 to 17 capital ships simultaneously.
I calculate the time between laying down and launching as it should be possible after launching to start a new ship, no?
The times are:
BB 35-40.000 16 month
BB 45.000+ 20 month
Pocket battleship 18month (the Diesels and the new welding technology takes its time)
CA 10 month
CV 20 month

Are the times correct?

So would you correct this data, swift?

BB 45k+ at least 48 months
BB small 42 months
PBB 36 months
CA/CL 24 months
CV 36 months


why do you insist on diesel engines for war ships - the army wont be happy about that !!

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I assume CLs don't need the same Helling as the bigger ships, no?

So would you correct this data, swift?

huch ???
main difference between CA and CL was the guns

[wernerpruckner]

with the longer building times I suggest this:


Kiel:
4 Germaniawerft
2 Kriegsmarinewerft ( Kieler Howaldtswerke + Kriegsmarinearsenal )
2 Deutsche Werft ( ex Kaiserliche Werft + Kaiserliche Torpedowerkstatt Kiel)

Hamburg:
3 B&V

Bremen
2 Deschimag ( ex AG Weser )

Danzig
2 F. Schichau

Wilhelmshaven
5 Kaiserliche Werft / Kreigsmarine Werft

Stettin
1 AG Vulcan

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Wasp couldn't carry 80 planes by the beginning of the war; remember that the aircraft got bigger all the time. Also, the Wasp was nowhere near as heavily protected as what you're thinking about, and she was comparatively slow as well. Not a good design, that one...

How many could it carry then? I never assumed the Wasp to be heavily protected - indeed, such a design is unthinkable for the German navy. I have in my books, that the Wasp ran 29,5kn which isn't THAT slow to me. Now put Diesels in for cruising and use the free room for more turbines and we should achieve 30 or 31kn, no?
I know that the Wasp wasn't a good design, but I wanted to show how many planes can be put on such a small ship.
As I said, we have 8-10.000 t for better protection, better protection against torpedoes, more partition bulkheads...
This is 2/3 of the total weight of the Wasp and should result in some serious improvements, no?

[DuckofTindalos]

There's no "free room" for a compound diesel/turbine powerplant in a ship as small as the Wasp.

By the way, why would you want one? What's the mission for your carriers? If it's to battle against the enemy's main force, or provide protection for the friendly battleline, then you don't need cruising diesels. The only reason for those would be if you wanted your carrier to be a commerce raider.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: swift

So 16 to 17 capital ships simultaneously.
I calculate the time between laying down and launching as it should be possible after launching to start a new ship, no?
The times are:
BB 35-40.000 16 month
BB 45.000+ 20 month
Pocket battleship 18month (the Diesels and the new welding technology takes its time)
CA 10 month
CV 20 month

Are the times correct?

BB 45k+ at least 48 months
BB small 42 months
PBB 36 months
CA/CL 24 months
CV 36 months


why do you insist on diesel engines for war ships - the army wont be happy about that !!

For my significant shorter times, I only consider the time between laid down and launched - nut between laid down and entering service!
AFAIK, it's the question of Hellings/slipways how much ships can be built simultaniously. As soon as the ship is launched, a new one can be laid down - no?

CLs only have 60-75% of the length and 60% of the weight of a CA. So a CL might be built in smaller shipyards I haven't considered yet (or on slipways that aren't considered yet as well).


Do you have the number and size of the Slipways in Germany at that date?
I came to the 16-17 by looking into my books. I've taken all the shipyards that produced BBs and looked how much of them were built simultaniously - and that led me to 16-17. BUT, I don't know how many more shipyards produced smaller ships. There were slipways with 150-200m for sure, that I haven't considered yet because I only had the data for BBs, BCs and pre-Dreads.
Is there any chance we can get the size of ALL the slipways over 100m in Germany? It's quite possible that the Kriegsmarinewerft may have been able to built 3 BBs in time - and 3 more CLs (or even CAs), too.


Diesels:
After the experiences of WW1, the German naval doctrine doesn't intend to fight one big battle to beat the British. The doctrin changed to fast intruder missions to fight down surprised parts of the enemy navy - and to commerce raiding against merchant ships. For the second taks, the ships have to have a maximum range and a good top speed. The highest range should be achievable by Diesles, I guess!
With Russia an it's side, Germany will not have any serious fuel problems.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
By the way, why would you want one? What's the mission for your carriers? If it's to battle against the enemy's main force, or provide protection for the friendly battleline, then you don't need cruising diesels. The only reason for those would be if you wanted your carrier to be a commerce raider.

Good point!

Hmm... what can we expect to be the intended use after the experiences of the Battle of Jutland and the failed sub warfare?
I consider the german doctrine to intend a disruption of the British supply lines. Would the carriers be planned for that, too? I intend to have long range carriers getting built in the extention program after 1936, but what about the Mackensen-class that is part of the Washington Treaty?

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker
For my significant shorter times, I only consider the time between laid down and launched - nut between laid down and entering service!
AFAIK, it's the question of Hellings/slipways how much ships can be built simultaniously. As soon as the ship is launched, a new one can be laid down - no?

have you seen pictures of launches at that time ???
Turrets, Guns, Superstructure, most of the things inside the ship were build after the launch !!!!!!

( möglicherweise hast du ja vom Bernard & Graefe Verlag ein paar Bücher - die meisten habe einige Stapellauf Bilder )

[Historiker]

I know that after launching, the ships were far away from being completed but immediately after being launched, new ships can be laid down.
If I take my data, I would never let a CV enter service after just 20 month, but after 20 month, a new CV can be laid down on the same slipway.
(das habe ich sicherlich, aber mir sind die Bilder bekannt [:)])

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker
CLs only have 60-75% of the length and 60% of the weight of a CA. So a CL might be built in smaller shipyards I haven't considered yet (or on slipways that aren't considered yet as well).

???
only if you only look at the German cruisers


CA
Hipper/Blücher 14050 tons 205,9m
Prinz Eugen/Seydlitz/ Kreuzer L ( ex Lützow ) 14240 tons 212,5m
CL
Königsberg/Karlsruhe/Köln 6650 tons 174m
Leipzig/Nürnberg 6520 tons 177,1 and 181,3m
Emden 5600 tons 155,1m
planned CL M-class 7800 tons 183 m
planned CL Q/P 8568 tons 196m
planned SP1 class 4532 tons 152,2m ( more like a destroyer )

they are ( for Germany ) a little smaller, but most of the weight is probably the weapons


other older German cruisers:
Gazelle class ( build around 1898 to 1904 ) 2360- 2380tons 105,1m
Bremen class ( were build after the Gazelle class ) 2970 tons 111,1 m

[Historiker]

you are right, swift.
But would Germany that intends to maximize its navy build CLs of a design that permits the building of a BB or a CA at the same time?
Replacements within the Washington Treaty may be of the M, Q or Leiptzig class, but after 1936, one would mainly rely on deisgns like the Spähkreuzer or the Emden, no?

[Historiker]

H.C. Stülcken & Sohn in Hamburg-Steinwerder was able to build ships with a length of up to 150m.
Cassens-Werft in Emden can produce ships of up to 130m (so mainly DDs) but can repair ships of up to 250m
Nordseewerke GmbH in Emden can build ships of at least 200m
Meyer Werft in Papenburg can build ships of up to 360m!
Neptun Rostock at least 160m

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

H.C. Stülcken & Sohn in Hamburg-Steinwerder was able to build ships with a length of up to 150m.
Cassens-Werft in Emden can produce ships of up to 130m (so mainly DDs) but can repair ships of up to 250m
Nordseewerke GmbH in Emden can build ships of at least 200m
Meyer Werft in Papenburg can build ships of up to 360m!
Neptun Rostock at least 160m

you also need some production for other ships..........so I´d suggest that you stick the production of war ships to the tradtional preWW1, WW1 and WW2 sites
all others should produce civilian ships or minor war ships