Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

September 13th, 2018, 7:29 pm #21

The same way the Dunkirk's are described as battleships?  Aside from the Nelson's they are probably on a peer with any other European battleships of the time.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 10th, 2006, 4:43 am

September 13th, 2018, 8:32 pm #22

At the start of the 1930s the KM was well on its way to complete the naval plan 1932.This envisaged a fleet of 6 more PBS in the foot steps of the famous Deutschland class. These were to be larger &  better protected surface raiders with similar speeds and endurance- with the diesel propulsion. KM & Government didn't follow treaties; so they also ordered U-Boats & Aircraft Carriers -both illegal under international  treaty arrangements.  Hitler also had specific ideas about flirting with the British to stay out of European affairs. When Hitler took power he sacrificed the navy in order to flirt with the UK and at the same time ,accelerate army building plans.

Raeder was told to scrape navy and focus on coastal defence, however contracts for the new warships had already been inked and a compromise had to be struck.  Raeder convinced Hitler to instead build these new PBS as bigger BB. Hitler loved big guns so the warships were scrapped and new ones laid down in their place. But this change was not easy and went through 19 redesigns stages before a plan settled.

This compromised required switch from long range slow diesel propulsion to higher pressure/temp -risky turbines, occupying larger hull volume -along with bigger oil bunkers. That in-turn required more armor/structural mass to cover the bigger volume - requiring even higher pressure turbines to keep speed up. The armament was expanded- exploiting the bigger volume - but remained at 11" due to Hitler demand to appease the Brits.

 It had been planned to rearm each triple 11" gun turret with twin 14" guns instead but when these compromises occurred no 14" guns were being planned . Instead 15" guns were already being designed and built to arm the future planned BB  F & G. So new plans were drawn up to rebuild the stern and forecastle of these warships to handle 3 twin 15" gun turrets instead. The war delayed these plans until they could not be completed during wartime. 
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 4.25in;" class="MsoNormal"></p>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 5th, 2006, 5:38 am

September 14th, 2018, 12:06 am #23

Did Gneisenau have 15" guns installed when destroyed?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 2nd, 2014, 11:59 pm

September 14th, 2018, 12:23 am #24

Steve Crandell wrote: Did Gneisenau have 15" guns installed when destroyed?
No, her rebuild hadn't gotten that far, and halted when Adolf threw his"scrap the navy" tantrum after Barents Sea.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

September 14th, 2018, 2:28 pm #25

Wouldn't it have required some rather extensive modifications?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 10th, 2006, 4:43 am

September 14th, 2018, 3:34 pm #26

Yep, they had already removed the bow and stern;  including the triple 11" gun turrets and completed [but not installed] the replacement twin 15" guns.  They had been at it for some time [>  year] - and going on U-Boat constructions times/effort- it could have cost them couple dozen more to complete this conversion . Likely finished in late 1943 ; not counting work up - unless it is sunk by WALLIE bombers first.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 4.25in;" class="MsoNormal"></p>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2009, 5:56 am

September 14th, 2018, 6:52 pm #27

Paul Lakowski wrote: This compromise required switch from long range slow diesel propulsion to higher pressure/temp -risky turbines, occupying larger hull volume -along with bigger oil bunkers. That in-turn required more armor/structural mass to cover the bigger volume - requiring even higher pressure turbines to keep speed up. The armament was expanded- exploiting the bigger volume - but remained at 11" due to Hitler demand to appease the Brits.

 It had been planned to rearm each triple 11" gun turret with twin 14" guns instead but when these compromises occurred no 14" guns were being planned .
The contract for medium pressure/temp steam propulsion (52kg/cm^2/450 C) for Panzerschiff D & E had already been let to Wagner (boilers)/Deschimag (turbines- Gneisenau) and Brown-Boveri (turbines Scharnhorst) in Nov, '33.  The 28cm guns were ordered from Krupp give or take a day; 15cm turrets in Jan. 34.   All well before the ships were laid down on Valentine's Day in '34.

Hitler really didn't determine that 28cm guns would be used; just took credit for it. 

Design of  33cm guns, for the follow on Schlachtschiff F, started right after D & E were laid down.*  The larger guns would take 18 months to design, 12 months to develop the gun pits, etc to manufacture them, then 30 months before the last of them was completed.   28cm guns were designed, didn't need new manufacturing equipment, so 1st barrel would have been complete when decision to stop D & E was made in July, '34.  (If 1st barrel wasn't complete by July, 34, the 12th barrel wouldn't have been finished by time ship would have needed it).  So, the combination of money already spent/goods delivered/delay until July '39, determined S & G would be getting 28cm guns initially.  But as usual politicians say it was their decision.

*Things get all screw up in lead up to LNT '36 as UK wanted 14" (35cm), but Italy announced 38cm and France responded in kind.  KM Schlachtschiff increased from 35k (33cm), 38k (35cm) to 42k (38cm)

Adding requirement to twins that they needed to fit triple 28cm or twin 35cm was one more headache for the lead architect on an already impossible schedule.

Raeder should have completed Panzerschiff D as laid down; converted Panzerschiff E into Flugzeugtrager A aka Graf Zeppelin Jr (construction was further behind on 2nd Panzerschiff).  Then Schlachtschiff E & F could have been started 12 months earlier.  But better for us, that he made the decisions he did.

To OP's question:  Twins were expected to stand up to other European battleships, especially after re-armed, so Battleship.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 10th, 2006, 4:43 am

September 14th, 2018, 7:19 pm #28

don4331 wrote:
The contract for medium pressure/temp steam propulsion (52kg/cm^2/450 C) for Panzerschiff D & E had already been let to Wagner (boilers)/Deschimag (turbines- Gneisenau) and Brown-Boveri (turbines Scharnhorst) in Nov, '33.  The 28cm guns were ordered from Krupp give or take a day; 15cm turrets in Jan. 34.   All well before the ships were laid down on Valentine's Day in '34.

Hitler really didn't determine that 28cm guns would be used; just took credit for it. 

Design of  33cm guns, for the follow on Schlachtschiff F, started right after D & E were laid down.*  The larger guns would take 18 months to design, 12 months to develop the gun pits, etc to manufacture them, then 30 months before the last of them was completed.   28cm guns were designed, didn't need new manufacturing equipment, so 1st barrel would have been complete when decision to stop D & E was made in July, '34.  (If 1st barrel wasn't complete by July, 34, the 12th barrel wouldn't have been finished by time ship would have needed it).  So, the combination of money already spent/goods delivered/delay until July '39, determined S & G would be getting 28cm guns initially.  But as usual politicians say it was their decision.

*Things get all screw up in lead up to LNT '36 as UK wanted 14" (35cm), but Italy announced 38cm and France responded in kind.  KM Schlachtschiff increased from 35k (33cm), 38k (35cm) to 42k (38cm)
Thanks for the up date Don.  I was also thinking of the 19 stages of development which transitioned from the AGS to the TWINS.

The figures 35k (33cm) , does that mean the expected max range of the 33cm gun was 35km ?
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 4.25in;" class="MsoNormal"></p>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

September 14th, 2018, 8:08 pm #29

Dave AAA wrote: Armoured cruiser.  A 1930s version of SMS Scharnhorst or Bluecher.  It was a smaller version of a battleship with cruiser hull and speed with main armament a step below contemporary battleships.

Not that it matters what we call it.
Scharnhorst had battleship armor, and only one knot more speed than Bismarck. In pre-dreadnought terms, that would have been an armoured cruiser with a speed of 19 knots and a 9" belt.

I used to think of Scharnhorst as a second class battleship, based on the heavy armor but smaller guns. But now I think in terms of what could have been done on 32k tons if the ship's speed was 28 knots (the fast battleship speed of the late 30s). Probably 8 x 15-inch guns. So battlecruiser seems more appropriate, with 11-inch guns and 31 knots speed.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

September 14th, 2018, 8:12 pm #30

My take on it is that the best answer to the original question is:  Yes, No, or Maybe//Depends ....
Quote
Like
Share