# Most effective german general battleship unit 1935



## DonL (Mar 22, 2014)

Instead of SH/GN, BS/TP and all five Hipper Class (Hipper, Bluecher, Prinz Eugen, Lützow and Seydlitz/90% ready 1941) plus Graf Zeppelin,

6 x 35-36000ts general purpose german BB (more near SH/GN as BS/TP) plus one more Deutschland Class. 

SH/GN were 31550ts standard deplacement at their introduction.

My plan is a BB with 3 x 2 x 40,6cm SK 34, mixed power unit ( 8x 12 MZ12 42/58 on the outer propeller, plus 8 x Wagner boilers with 2 x turbines to the inline propeller = 4x propeller)

To my calculations a 245m, 33m, 10m, vessel, with 320mm outline belt, 105mm slopes, *145mm upper belt*, 50mm weather deck and 80mm main deck (over magazine 100 + 80mm), spaced array armour, 73000 WPS Diesel + 100000 WPS oil fired gear turbine, would be at 365000-37000ts. 

This is to my opinion the optimal german BB since 1935 and should be built 6 times instead of all other units.

And they should go to missions only as SISTERS, just like the Twins! This is my personal six gunner program!
Something like 6 x very tough german Renowns on steroids!


----------



## Denniss (Mar 23, 2014)

Who should build them? AFAIR they had only two docks large enough for these kind of ships.
The main guns would be a completely new type which would most likely not be ready befor 40/41, even the 38cm gun of Bismarck as an evolution of a WW1 gun wasn't ready for SH/GN.
Diesel engines were not really feasible for big warships in this time.


----------



## DonL (Mar 23, 2014)

Denniss said:


> Who should build them? AFAIR they had only two docks large enough for these kind of ships.
> The main guns would be a completely new type which would most likely not be ready befor 40/41, even the 38cm gun of Bismarck as an evolution of a WW1 gun wasn't ready for SH/GN.
> Diesel engines were not really feasible for big warships in this time.



Dennis do you have sources for this claim?
To my information Bismarck, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Graf Zeppelin were built simultaneously, also all 5 Hipper classes (Hipper, Bluecher, Prinz Eugen, Lützow and Seydlitz)

The german 40,6cm SK34 was developed at the same time as the 38cm SK34 and both guns are very simular.

The Diesel engines are extended 12 Zylinder instead of 9 Zylinder original Panzerschiff Diesel engines for cruising speed, therefore a mixed power unit for much more range till 24-25kn through diesel cruising speed engines and high speed if needed.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2014)

DonL said:


> Instead of SH/GN, BS/TP and all five Hipper Class (Hipper, Bluecher, Prinz Eugen, Lützow and Seydlitz/90% ready 1941) plus Graf Zeppelin,
> 
> 6 x 35-36000ts general purpose german BB (more near SH/GN as BS/TP) plus one more Deutschland Class.
> 
> ...



Why not just rearm the SC GN with 15in as soon as the guns were available, and take it from there?

Germany did design a BC with 6 x 15in, 6 x 5.9 and 8 x 4.1in. She weighed in at 32,300 (38,200 full load) and had a mixed Diesel/Turbine power train. Belt armour was weak at 7.25 in but the deck was respectable with Upper Deck 1.25in, Main deck 3.25 in and a lower deck of 4.5in. range 14,000 miles at 19 knots


----------



## Wavelength (Mar 23, 2014)

Its not correct that the WWII 15" was a development of the WWI 15"/45. They had three new gun options available: 

A 35cm (13.8")/L54

The 38cm (15")/L52

The 40.6 (16") /L52

But I don't think only 6 guns was what they would want. I think they need 8 or 9 guns for salvo fire with a good likelyhood of scoring hits from straddles and they had decided that twin turrets would be on all new construction.


----------



## Wavelength (Mar 23, 2014)

The 15" is really the best option. It is just as effective as a 16" out to 30km battle range and it weighs less. They should have just built 6 Tirpitzs.


----------



## DonL (Mar 23, 2014)

> Why not just rearm the SC GN with 15in as soon as the guns were available, and take it from there?



It is a possibility!
To my opinion SH/GN had three design flaws.

1. The 45mm upper belt was much to thin for sure decapping and reduction of shell power (as protective shield for the main armour deck), the 145mm upper belt of the BS class was much better and balanced for the german armour sheme and cost only 600ts more.
2. The high pressure steam turbinis were not reliably and the fuel consumption at cruising speed (18-24kn) was much to high.
3. They were wet ships, because they had not enough buoyancy through their "smal" beam.

If you put 16 or 15 inch guns to such a ship is debatable, my proposal of 16 inch guns was a compromise to have only 6 guns.
The hit performance of the Deutschland Class as 6 gunners was equal to the BS SH and Hipper Class and Renown as six gunner was the best RN artillery ship (best hit performance) for several years.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2014)

I'd try 20000 ton gun ships, preferably with diesels, with 9 x 280 mm, no 150 mm guns, accompanied with 20000 ton aircraft carriers. No torpedo planes aboard, just Bf-109T and Ju-87C.
Now that we're at it, sort out a 3.7-4 cm AAA with good RoF.


----------



## davebender (Mar 23, 2014)

How would any 1935 battleship contribute to German national security?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2014)

Makes at least France, if not the USSR and UK to spend more on big gun warships?


----------



## silence (Mar 23, 2014)

Six guns is too few for good salvo fire for a line BB, and 35-36k tons is not enough for a balanced German BB with 38cm or 40.6com guns. Whose definition are you using for standard displacement (each country interpreted it differently)?

IMO, your best bet is a Scharnhorst with the extended (Gneisenau rebuilt) bow with 9x35cm (Krupp proposal for the Bismarck class and would have been the most powerful 35cm afloat - but make them lightweight guns like the 14" originally proposed for the North Carolinas), dump the single 15cm pedestal mounts, shave the main belt to 30cm, shave the conning tower armor to 15-20cm, increase the upper belt to about 70cm, give them a transom stern, and use a Turco Electric drive with the Brown-Boveri steam plant used by Gneisenau (G didn't seem to have the problems with her plant that S did with her Deschimag kit).
You'll also need to develop an automatic 3.7cm AA gun or use the 4cm bofors.
Dump the single 2cm - mount only 2cm Vierlings.
Consider using 8.8cm flak instead of the 10.5 cm if there are significant weight savings.

With the armor shaving, deletion of the pedestals, and transom stern you should save some weight. 
The 35cm guns make her a danger to any other BB afloat at normal gun ranges, and the belt/slope combination is still proof against BB-caliber guns at normal ranges.
STE drive will improve range OR lower fuel requirements for the same range, remove the single-reduction gear box, and remove the need for a multi-stage turbine. I'd also consider deleting the diesel generators and running all power off the main plant. It will also help response to the helm. As well, you can have shorter shat runs (motors closer to the screws) which will reduce power losses versus the longer shafts needed for a typical steam turbine plant. You can also cross-connect power to the motors in event of battle damage.
The extended bow will improve weatherkeeping.
You'll need to keep the aircraft on-board for search purposes.


----------



## silence (Mar 23, 2014)

DonL said:


> It is a possibility!
> To my opinion SH/GN had three design flaws.
> 
> 1. The 45mm upper belt was much to thin for sure decapping and reduction of shell power (as protective shield for the main armour deck), the 145mm upper belt of the BS class was much better and balanced for the german armour sheme and cost only 600ts more.
> ...



6x40.6cm will weigh 960,000kg, gun weight alone, heavier equipment required not included.
6x38cm will weigh 666,000kg, gun weight alone, same caveat.
The 9x28.3cm of the S&G weigh 480,000kg, guns alone.
The 6x 38cm or 6x40.6cm weigh far too much for the design.


----------



## silence (Mar 23, 2014)

DonL said:


> Instead of SH/GN, BS/TP and all five Hipper Class (Hipper, Bluecher, Prinz Eugen, Lützow and Seydlitz/90% ready 1941) plus Graf Zeppelin,
> 
> 6 x 35-36000ts general purpose german BB (more near SH/GN as BS/TP) plus one more Deutschland Class.
> 
> ...



This engine plant will really increase weight, plus you need to carry large quantities of both diesel and oil.
To put 4 screws on the ship you're going to gave to dump the "cruiser stern" typical of German capital ships and have a broader back end, or else you're going to have very long shaft runs outside the hull.


----------



## DonL (Mar 23, 2014)

I have calculated this ship very seriously.

My calculation is in summary ts and the standard deplacement calculated by the RN and USN

GN/SH had 31552ts standard deplacement

My calculation:

1. Planed rebuilding of GN with 6 x 38cn SK 34 with a 10m lenghten bow.
The lenghten bow to 245m ship lenght cost 180ts from original plans (create more buoyancy to carry the 38cm). One turret of SH/GN weight 750t (not ts), the planed GN 38cm turrets 1050t. In summary 900t/886ts = more for the 38cm turrets and 180ts more for the hulk/body. = 1066ts.

2. The upper belt was 2,30m high and 160m long, to have 145mm instead of 45mm cost 600ts for both sides. = 600ts

3. Power plant; The original diesel engine (8 x MZ 9 42/48 ) MI power plant of Admiral Graf Spee weighted 1700ts and created 54000 WPS, that's 31,75ts PS/ts. My proposed 8 x MZ 12 42/58 created 73000 WPS, so 73000 x 31,75 = 2300ts for the diesel engine powerplant.
SH/GN original MI (12 Wagner Kessel plus 3 turbines) weighted 2700ts. This ship needs only 2/3 of this power plant (8 Wagner boilers plus 2 turbines) are 1800ts. In summary 1800ts (boilers plus turbines) + 2300ts diesel power plant = 4100ts for the MI power plant. More weight = 1400ts

So to have a GN with 38cm, a better upper belt and a mixed power plant cost in summary 3066ts (plus/minis 100ts) more weight to the original. To have a better sea keeping performance and enough buoyancy to carry the added weight the ship must have more beam.

4. More beam:
The original body weight of SH/GN 235m, 30m, 9,9m was 8.223ts from original plans. The body weight of Bismarck 251m, 36m, 9,9m was 11474ts from original plans. The hulls were very simular from the vertical frames and the hull body. Bismarck could create 18000ts more buyoncy through 6m more beam. If this is linear, then a simular hull body could create 3000ts more buyoncy with 1m more hull beam and 1m more hull beam cost 500ts more weight.

So to have a GN with 32m beam add 1000ts more weight. In summary this changes cost at least 4066ts.
The whole modified GN would have 35600ts standard deplacement with 6 x 38cm, mixed power plant and 145mm upper belt, all the rest is simular to the original SH/GN

Also there is some weight saving potential through the very long citadel of SH/GN. Their original citadel was 160m (Iowa and Yamato had only 145m citadel), so to shorten the citadel to 150m would save about 500ts weight (less armoured belt, less slopes, armoured deck and torpedo bulkhead).

So if you do a calculation with 40,6cm/16 inch guns and one more meter of hull beam, you would be at 37500ts standard deplacement.

THe original bunkerage of SH/GN was 6000ts of fuel.
The armour layout of GN/SH was absolute the same as Bismarcks with two exceptions. The upper belt was 45mm instead of 145mm and the slopes were 105mm instead of 110mm. But no built BB gun caliber could penetrate the combination of 320mm armoured belt and 105mm slopes, which were layed back 22° from the horizontal.


----------



## silence (Mar 23, 2014)

Did you account for the extra horizontal armor weight required by broadening the beam 2m?

The problem with the S&G wasn't their standard weight, it was their war load weight. You've got to add fuel, ammunition, manpower, stores, etc. B&T went from 42k tons to 51k tons standard to war load.

Check out the program at SpringSharp.com.


----------



## DonL (Mar 23, 2014)

silence said:


> Six guns is too few for good salvo fire for a line BB, and 35-36k tons is not enough for a balanced German BB with 38cm or 40.6com guns. Whose definition are you using for standard displacement (each country interpreted it differently)?
> 
> IMO, your best bet is a Scharnhorst with the extended (Gneisenau rebuilt) bow with 9x35cm (Krupp proposal for the Bismarck class and would have been the most powerful 35cm afloat - but make them lightweight guns like the 14" originally proposed for the North Carolinas), dump the single 15cm pedestal mounts, shave the main belt to 30cm, shave the conning tower armor to 15-20cm, increase the upper belt to about 70cm, give them a transom stern, and use a Turco Electric drive with the Brown-Boveri steam plant used by Gneisenau (G didn't seem to have the problems with her plant that S did with her Deschimag kit).
> You'll also need to develop an automatic 3.7cm AA gun or use the 4cm bofors.
> ...



I'm not convinced about a 35cm BB gun. To me there is not enough penetration power compare to the other modern BB's Littorio, Richelieu, North Carolina and KGV.

I totaly agree with you on the 4cm Bofors instead of this crap single hand loaded original 3,7cm AA and to only mount 2cm Vierlings.
The weight difference of the 10,5cm AA compare the 8,8cm AA was something about 200kg, because the 10,5cm AA mountings were the original 8,8cm AA mountings.
An alternative for the mixed secondary would be to modify the german 12,7cm SK34 (830m/s muzzle velocity) destroyer guns to DP guns with adequate twin turrets (elevation till 80°) with good training rates simular to the US 5/38.

For the power plant, I know the diesel engines are heavy but the fuel consumption on cruising speed isn't from anything beatable, so I'm convinced of a mixed power plant and you can also burn diesel at turbines if necessary.


----------



## DonL (Mar 23, 2014)

silence said:


> Did you account for the extra horizontal armor weight required by broadening the beam 2m?
> 
> The problem with the S&G wasn't their standard weight, it was their war load weight. You've got to add fuel, ammunition, manpower, stores, etc. B&T went from 42k tons to 51k tons standard to war load.
> 
> Check out the program at SpringSharp.com.



No not realy. The more weight is to my calculation something about 300-500ts very generous calculated rather less.
Edit: After calculation it's 280ts more weight

I know the problem with the war load. Tirpitz was on 54000ts war load SH on 39000ts at 1943, this is my reason for 2m more beam rather then 1m or 1,5m. For a 40,6cm layout you are in need for 33m beam and perhaps lenghten the ship from 245m to 255m to have enough lenght for speed, but then you are near 38000ts standard deplacement.
So my calculated and modified GN (38cm) would be at 43000ts war load, so to my calculation there would be a reserve buyoncy of 2000ts to the original SH with 39000ts war load

I know springsharp, but through my membership at a german maritim forum, I got a calculation excel sheet from a ship builder, which is little more accurate, because you can calculate the weight for different divisions and vertical frames.

I choose standard deplacement, because all ships of this timeline were rated with standard deplacement and of the Washington Treaty.


----------



## silence (Mar 24, 2014)

With the German program you use, can you account for welded versus rivited construction? That would be a great function.

What are your calculated draft and freeboard at war load? that concerns me more than standard.


----------

