WesWorld

Time to stimulate some conversation here...

Is there a place/role for pocket battleships/panzerschiffe/armored ships in this setting? If so, could one get by with a Deutschland-style vessel, or would something different be required to survive encounters with 13,000 t heavy cruisers?

Interesting question...

Those 28cm guns easily pack enough punch to subdue any kind of warship short of a capital unit and even then they might land a lucky strike.

The problem of the Panzerschiffe is more strategical. They were build to act as raiders historically. This means they were intended to attack french (and later british) supply routes. Due to Atlantis sitting right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean convoy routes have changed dramatically and there might not be enough room for the Panzerschiffe to operate. If Atlantis further more gangs up with Britain against Germany (or any other country operating Panzerschiffe-style vessels) all hope is lost: The Atlantic will be a very, very unhealthy place for ships of said kind.

On the other hand it might be interesting to use such a vessel in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean. Operating in the Indian Ocean such a vessel could try to cut oil supply from NEI to the SAE for example. It could also try to interrupt sealines heading for the Suez Canal. In the Pacfic there is a chance to use those warships against the japanese merchent fleet or to cause havoc among american or australian freighters. The question there is what can be achieved. Neither Australia nor the USA need supply from overseas as did Britain historically. The same is true for the SAE even though cutting oil from NEI might cause some discomfort. But it will not be decisive and nobody will be able to starve either the USA, Australia, India or the SAE. Japan on the other hand might have a real problem with raiders acting against it´s supply routes.

But who should do so? The USA have enough power to overwhelm Japan anyway. They don´t need to use raiders which are a poor mans weapon to some degree. Australia or Russia could have some interest to use merchant raiders if ever forced to a passage at arms with Japan. India is too small to build specialst merchant raiders but maybe something similar or slightly different might be interesting. Some sort of fast Panzerschiff using turbines accepting shorter range but capable of hit´n run tactics. But whom to encounter with it? All neighbors have fleets big enough to to protect what would be in range for indian fast raiders. There is a small chance to use such a vessel against Russia because Russia is forced to split up its forces but then again Russia doesn´t need to ship anything through the Indian Ocean and its land forces could be a real threat to India anyday.

In the end I think there is little chance to use a Panzerschiff successfully in Wesworld. It seems to be necessary to find a totally new concept to surprise the others and surprise it what you need to be successful as a raider.

Just my thoughts of course,

HoOmAn

Perhaps, if a government decides to use their capital ship allocation to build several maximum displacement ships and then fill out their capital ship numbers with two or three 15,000 - 20,000 ton raider types.

Hmmm... When looking on what is allowed for each nation under the CT I don´t think anybody will have enough capital ship tonnage and hulls left to build "two or three" Panzerschiffe, especially when they offer littel value.

Most of us simply aren´t allowed enough tonnage for experiments anyway. The SAE for example can build up to 440kts of capital ship using up to 14 hulls. That´s about 31,43kts per hull. Having a long tradition in building capital ships I have many older hulls ranging from 23kts to 38kts and I can keep 14 capital units commisioned within the tonnage limit. All of those units feature 30,5+cm guns and offer more protection than a Panzerschiff will ever have. Further more the number of new hulls I´m allowed to lay down is strictly limited as well. So if some of my ships grow old enough to replace them under the terms of the CT why should I "waste" the tonnage and hulls for some Panzerschiffe when I can get a full-size (~32kts+) capital unit (I take a Dunkerque over a Panzerschiff anyday.)?

I can speak only for myself of couse but as it is I really doubt anybody will build a Panzerschiff like the Deutschlands. Maybe we´ll see something smaller and slower when people use there CDS tonnage but such a vessel can hardly be rated as a real Panzerschiff in the spirit of the Deutschlands.

Just my 2 Eurocents...

HoOmAn

Of course, it can be questioned to a degree whether the term Panzerschiff really was justified with regards to the Deutschland and her sisters/half-sisters - as I recall, armour was not exactly awe-inspiring, even when compared to cruisers. The concept behind the Deutschalnd-class was born out of a set of restrictions unlikely to appear in WesWorld - Germany was given a very stringent restriction where the largest new construction they could build could be no more than 10,000 tons displacement - the Deutschland-class arose from a desire to get ships out of that tonnage which would be more of a political statement than either a heavy cruiser or a coast-defence armourclad would be. In WesWorld, Germany has been allowed retention of some dreadnought-type capital units, and has been allowed a maximum-tonnage per ship of somewhere around 25,000-30,000, IIRC, and so Germany will have little use for the concept. Of course, it is possible that Argentina may eventually find itself with a limited navy, so who knows - it could be.

I believe Deutschland had a 3" belt - as you say, not terribly impressive.

Germany's individual capital ship limit is that of her largest retained vessel. I have conflicting data on that, but the figure's 25,000 t, give or take a thousand. Building a modern battleship on that would be a challenge, so panzerschiffe-style vessels are an option - even if they aren't used as raiders.

Although she lacks the legs of the historical Deutschland, I simmed this variation last night:

bb, laid down 1930

Length, 640 ft x Beam, 70.0 ft x Depth, 23.5 ft
15040 tons normal displacement (14017 tons standard)

Main battery: 6 x 11.0-inch (2 x 3)
Secondary battery: 12 x 4.9-inch (6 x 2)
AA battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
Light battery: 6 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 4711 lbs

8 TT, 21.7"

Main belt, 7.0 inches; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 2.0 inches
C.T., 7.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 7.0" / secondary, 2.0"
AA, 1.0" shields / light guns, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 100026 shp = 31.50 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 10000 nm / 12 kts

Typical complement: 679-883


Estimated cost, $23.172 million (£5.793 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 98 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 589 tons = 4 pct
Armor, total ..................... 3207 tons = 21 pct

Belt 1185 tons = 8 pct
Deck 1042 tons = 7 pct
C.T. 92 tons = 1 pct
Armament 889 tons = 6 pct

Machinery ........................ 3031 tons = 20 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 6396 tons = 43 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1716 tons = 11 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 100 tons = 1 pct
-----
15040 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 3.3 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 13324 tons
Standard displacement: 14017 tons
Normal service: 15040 tons
Full load: 15798 tons

Loading submergence 804 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.07

Shellfire needed to sink: 16665 lbs = 25.0 x 11.0-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.9
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 63 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.72

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.05

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.50
Sharpness coefficient: 0.34
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.93
'Natural speed' for length = 25.3 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 55 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 97 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 146 percent


Displacement factor: 108 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 141 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.40
(for 20.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +3.6 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.03

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

640.00 x 70.00 x 23.50; 20.00 -- Dimensions
0.50 -- Block coefficient
1930 -- Year laid down
31.50 / 10000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
100 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
6 x 11.00; 2; 0 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
12 x 4.90; 6 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
8 x 1.40 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
6 x 0.60 -- Fourth (light) battery
8 / 0 / 21.70 -- TT / submerged / size
++++++++++
7.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00; 98 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.00 / 7.00 -- Deck / CT
7.00 / 2.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I could see Germany building something between the Scharnhorst and the Deutschland, with a ship with 3 triple 11", 6 twin 5.9" turrets, limited aircraft facility's and a desent speed.

Doctor J,

you´ve posted an interesting design but what is your doctrine behind such a vessel? I question it´s value but I could have missed something so please let us know why think such a "Panzerschiff" is a good idea.

You wrote:

"Germany's individual capital ship limit is that of her largest retained vessel. I have conflicting data on that, but the figure's 25,000 t, give or take a thousand."

If it´s a König-class vessel (don´t know right now) you´re limited to about 25,5kts, that´s correct accourding to Breyer.

"Building a modern battleship on that would be a challenge, so panzerschiffe-style vessels are an option - even if they aren't used as raiders."

I still don´t see the point. Maybe that´s because I think one could indeed build a modern BB on 25,5kts - at least one that could take on most contenders. I also don´t see what advantage you gain to build a 15kts unit with 6x 28cm and 31,5kn. Such a vessel is hardly superior to a full sized cruiser of category A (of which you could build nearly two for 25,5kts) and it is without any doubt no challange for a capital unit - old or new. With its speed it won´t even be able to run away from the latest 40kts BBs available in 1930, I assume.

Personally I would build a classical battleship with a displacement as large as possible (25kts+, depending on how much you like to cheat). Below is an example for such a vessel. Me thinks it is worth thinking about because it is superior or equal to all capital units in the world except for the latest 40kts monsters.

Note 1: the secondaries are in casemats or open shields (depends how you read the sheet). This saves a lot of weight and shouldn´t be much of a problem in Baltic or North Sea environments.

Note 2: the secondaries can easily be exchanged against 16x 128mm heavy AA in 8 twin turrets with 40mm of armor if necessary. This also leaves you with a little weight reserve (hs 1,01).

Note 3: 20mm guns are to be added - springsharp just allows only 4 calibers.

Note 4: belt´s inclined 12° and backed up by a slope.


Scharnhorst, German Battleship laid down 1932

Displacement:
23.879 t light; 25.436 t standard; 27.076 t normal; 28.279 t full load
Loading submergence 1.226 tons/feet

Dimensions:
697,18 ft x 91,86 ft x 26,90 ft (normal load)
212,50 m x 28,00 m x 8,20 m

Armament:
8 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
14 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns
12 - 3,46" / 88 mm AA guns
16 - 1,57" / 40 mm guns
Weight of broadside 12.188 lbs / 5.528 kg

Armour:
Belt 12,60" / 320 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 77% of normal area
Main turrets 12,99" / 330 mm, 2nd gun shields 4,72" / 120 mm
AA gun shields 0,98" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 0,98" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3,94" / 100 mm, Conning tower 3,94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 92.001 shp / 68.633 Kw = 28,05 kts
Range 7.000nm at 15,00 kts

Complement:
1.055 - 1.371

Cost:
£11,344 million / $45,376 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.524 tons, 5,6%
Armour: 8.460 tons, 31,2%
Belts: 2.136 tons, 7,9%, Armament: 3.122 tons, 11,5%, Armour Deck: 3.125 tons, 11,5%
Conning Tower: 77 tons, 0,3%, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 2.716 tons, 10,0%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11.105 tons, 41,0%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.197 tons, 11,8%
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0,3%

Metacentric height 4,9

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1,05
Shellfire needed to sink: 32.923 lbs / 14.933 Kg = 25,2 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3,4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 51 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0,57
Relative quality as seaboat: 1,00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0,550
Sharpness coefficient: 0,38
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7,10
'Natural speed' for length: 26,40 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim: 51
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 76,7%
Relative accommodation and working space: 141,3%
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 104%
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0,98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 184 lbs / square foot or 897 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1,09
(for 18,24 ft / 5,56 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0,24 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1,00

2 planes, 1 catapult

You need to add a Note 5 - that Germany cannot build this particular vessel, as Germany is limited to guns of 305mm/12inches or smaller - see the thread I just bumped to the top of the Meeting Place board, particularly page 2 of it. This might well allow Germany to get 9 or more guns onboard it, on the displacement - perhaps using some of those nice Skoda-designs?

That´s not a problem.

Increasing the ships draught by 10cm and its freeboard by 2cm makes it possible to carry 12x 30,5cm guns in four triples. Everything else remains the same. With 12x 30,5cm guns you´ll have a very impressive broadside even if a single shell is not as destructive.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Hooman, could I ask you to provide standard tonnage figures from Breyer for the Konig, Kaiser, Helgoland, and Deutschland classes? It seems like a reliable source, so I'll use those as my "official" numbers.

My thinking behind the design is that for Germany, a Type A cruiser is considered a capital ship. That being the case, does a panzerschiffe-style cruiser present advantages over conventional Type A cruisers? That's what I'm trying to figure out. She's as fast as many cruisers, better armored than most, and her broadside is much heavier - though with a slower rate of fire.

The design was originally a thought-exercise for India, but her operating restrictions are somewhat different. It lacks the legs to be a raider, and eats up a greater proportion of India's limited capital tonnage. This would suggest the design is less useful to India.

I appreciate your design thoughts, I just haven't convinced myself that a 12" battleship is worth building in a world of 14" and 15" ships. But given that the sim has to get to 1931 before I can even lay one down, I have lots of time to do so still.

J

Doc,

I´ll put some figures together from Breyer and Gröner and send you an email. It might take a day or two but I guess it´s worth waiting for.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Note also that you are limited in how many vessels you can lay down - no more than six units, as it stands, so you need to take that into regard, as well. You could, for instance, get four maxed vessels and in addition one raider/glorified cruiser/flagship of the scouting-division/something out of the spare tonnage, or you could choose to go for maximum number of vessels inwhich case a tonnage slightly below 20,000 tons seems the way. It depends on what your philosophy for the navy will be. At any rate, if the type is going to be the sole capitalship type of the navy, then anything less than 1/6 of total tonnage is not worth considering.

You´re right, I wouldn´t build anything smaller than 1/6 of the capital ship tonnage too. The problem now is that 20kts really is somewhat small for a real capital unit.

What you can get is some kind of mini-RENOWN but I question its value against anything larger than a cruiser of category a. If you trade 4kn for three triple you could also increase protection somewhat but it´s still not good enough to slugh it out with 38cm BBs.

Scharnhorst, German Battlecruiser laid down 1932

Displacement:
19.464 t light; 20.380 t standard; 22.281 t normal; 23.712 t full load
Loading submergence 1.134 tons/feet

Dimensions:
728,35 ft x 80,38 ft x 23,79 ft (normal load)
222,00 m x 24,50 m x 7,25 m

Armament:
6 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 2 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
12 - 4,13" / 105 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
12 - 1,57" / 40 mm AA guns
16 - 0,79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 5.645 lbs / 2.561 kg
12 - 21,0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 9,45" / 240 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 83% of normal area
Main turrets 11,02" / 280 mm, 2nd turrets 1,57" / 40 mm
AA gun shields 0,98" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 0,98" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3,54" / 90 mm, Conning tower 3,15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 134.055 shp / 100.005 Kw = 32,05 kts
Range 6.000nm at 18,00 kts

Complement:
911 - 1.185

Cost:
£8,309 million / $33,236 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 706 tons, 3,2%
Armour: 6.071 tons, 27,2%
Belts: 1.654 tons, 7,4%, Armament: 1.761 tons, 7,9%, Armour Deck: 2.602 tons, 11,7%
Conning Tower: 54 tons, 0,2%, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 3.957 tons, 17,8%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8.680 tons, 39,0%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.817 tons, 12,6%
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0,2%

Metacentric height 4,7

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1,15
Shellfire needed to sink: 29.511 lbs / 13.386 Kg = 34,1 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2,8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 53 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0,45
Relative quality as seaboat: 1,01

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0,560
Sharpness coefficient: 0,36
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7,92
'Natural speed' for length: 26,99 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim: 52
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 82,9%
Relative accommodation and working space: 147,4%
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 113%
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1,00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 147 lbs / square foot or 719 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1,01
(for 20,67 ft / 6,30 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 2,89 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1,00

hmm. I like the 12*30.5 cm design, but it's too short on legs IMHO. Altogether I agree with Hooman: The FAR-Alliance makes Germany's situation _very_ difficult. Two-front war on land and France has open supply routes while Germany can be blockaded - even if the UK stays out. Baaaaad. What Germany realy needs is subs and lots thereof, but the CT doesn't allow that.

Edit:

Hooman just posted a design while I was typing this. That ship would make an interesting opponent for El Cid ... I'd say open end, whoever gets a lucky hit in first.

cheers

Bernhard

It's too short on legs to be a raider, but perhaps Germany won't be interested in raiding. If her operations are confined to the Baltic and North Sea, her legs aren't bad.

Bear in mind that there are other scenarios besides all-out war with FAR to consider. Hypothetically, the Reichsmarine could be tasked with defending against a Nordmark amphibious assault, or catching Coldmere-based pirates. I've got more than half-baked world domination schemes to consider.

J

well, I do think the Panzerschiffe concept was not as flawed as it is thought here. The main problem with the historical Deutschlands was that at 10.000 tons (in fact they displaced quite more, especially the Graf Spee and Scheer) you simply can't put 6 heavy guns AND a heavy armor able to stand heavy or light cruiser fire on board of a fast ship.

so in the end they built a not-that fast ship (28 knots nominal, in fact the Graf Spee had problems in his famous battle sailing at more than 25), with the protection of a light cruiser and the weapons of a heavyweight. Totally unbalanced.

I tried to make my own version of the Panzerschiffe, but with 12' guns and a limit of 15000 tons standard. I surpassed somewhat the 15000 ton limit I put on myself but not by much...and this was what came out of the experience:


Deutschland, German Pocket battleship laid down 1930

Displacement:
14.721 t light; 15.573 t standard; 17.799 t normal; 19.509 t full load
Loading submergence 866 tons/feet

Dimensions:
656,17 ft x 72,18 ft x 25,59 ft (normal load)
200,00 m x 22,00 m x 7,80 m

Armament:
6 - 12,00" / 305 mm guns (2 Main turrets x 3 guns)
12 - 5,00" / 127 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
10 - 1,46" / 37 mm AA guns
12 - 0,50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 5.950 lbs / 2.699 kg
6 - 21,1" / 535 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 7,00" / 178 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 116 % of normal area
Main turrets 7,00" / 178 mm, 2nd turrets 1,00" / 25 mm
AA gun shields 0,50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 2,75" / 70 mm, Conning tower 6,00" / 152 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 0,80" / 20 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 91.038 shp / 67.914 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 12.000nm at 15,00 kts

Complement:
770 - 1.001

Cost:
£6,382 million / $25,530 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 744 tons, 4,2 %
Armour: 4.261 tons, 23,9 %
Belts: 1.461 tons, 8,2 %, Armament: 846 tons, 4,8 %, Armour Deck: 1.543 tons, 8,7 %
Conning Tower: 88 tons, 0,5 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 323 tons, 1,8 %
Machinery: 2.759 tons, 15,5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6.857 tons, 38,5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.078 tons, 17,3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0,6 %

Metacentric height 3,6

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1,08
Shellfire needed to sink: 13.257 lbs / 6.013 Kg = 15,3 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1,9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0,77
Relative quality as seaboat: 1,09

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0,514
Sharpness coefficient: 0,35
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7,69
'Natural speed' for length: 25,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim: 64
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 115,7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 129,1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 112 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0,98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 142 lbs / square foot or 695 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1,25
(for 18,86 ft / 5,75 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 1,87 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1,00





I honestly think that no heavy cruiser would stand a fight against this ship. And it's no hotrod, but 30 knots IS a quite good speed for it .

The only problem I see in the design is the cramped space for the machinery and magazines, but anyway if you pit this kitty against Exeter&Ajax&Achilles, the ones running towards Montevideo won't be the germans...

That´s an interesting design. The problem here is that spring* can´t sim diesel engines. Neither the extra weight or extra room necessary nor the range gained versus turbines. Thus it is difficult to compare ss designs to a real world design that used a different non-turbine propulsion system.

I also like to note that your design is ~4000ts heavier than the Panzerschiffe. Gröner rates them at 14290t (Not ts!) for DEUTSCHLAND, 15180t for SCHEER and finally 16020t for SPEE at maximum displacement. Compared to those 19509ts (~19820t) of your design this is quite a difference. For those 20% more you should indeed be able to gain some additional protection and speed. Note that DEUTSCHLANDs maximum displacement is less than your standard tonnage...

On the other hand you spend more tonnage on your ships main armament but less on its secondary and AA equipment. I can´t judge if this euals out but one should at least keep it in mind. Further more one yould question the calue of those 127mm guns in the scenarios the DEs were originally designed for. This is the old problem of using hind sight and putting DP guns on a 1930er design and if a 127mm shell has enough stopping power when used against DD-sized combatants (expected escorts of any convoy).

At the beginning you stated:

"so in the end they built a not-that fast ship (28 knots nominal, in fact the Graf Spee had problems in his famous battle sailing at more than 25), with the protection of a light cruiser and the weapons of a heavyweight. Totally unbalanced."

Isn´t this also true for your design? It is a little bit faster than the Panzerschiffe but still can´t outrun a cruiser. It features heavier armor but might still be in danger when faced by 8" cruisers like ALGERIE or WICHITA. To me your 12" guns are even more out of proportion than the DEs 28cm guns. What we have here is some kind of early mini-ALASKA and a true successor of the original british BCs. A eggshell armed with hammers. It still would have no chance against the french DUNKERQUEs (or any real capital unit) which were build as a response to the original DEs.

Don´t get me wrong: Your design is superior to the original Panzerschiffe by far (except secondaries maybe - hindsight) but I doubt it is a solution to the problem the Germans faced in those years historically nor does it offer much value in WesWorld where we´ll find many 30kn capital units much earlier than in the real world and were CAs can feature 210mm guns.

Thanks for posting another interesting design,

HoOmAn

hmm. you raise some interesting points, however I don't agree with some of them.

About the diesels, well, yes, I know this side of SS doesn't simulate the real disadvantages and advantages of the diesel propulsion...however there's no way around it for now

The design is notably heavier than the real panzerschiffes, true, and was done on purpose. I do think that the germans tried a concept of ship in a too small and light hull, and that they finally built a ship that complied just with half of the requirements: it was well armed, it was reasonably fast (but not enough), and it was so lightly armored that even a 6' gun could disable its main turrets in a bad luck hit.

So the purpose of my design was to try the concept on a bigger hull, and see what came up. The results to me don't seem quite bad at all .


the weapons topic, well, I used 5' guns and yes, it's hindsight. in fact I should go back and use 6' guns because german practice was to separate AA battery and secondary antiship battery. Have to agree you on this one and refit my design with heavier,but less, secondaries.


on the ship itself, well, I don't really think its that unbalanced per se. The concept of the german panzerschiff is to put a gun really big on a ship of a given displacement. That may be the source of the lack of balance of a design -however- I do think that a ship with the armor of this one isn't by far as badly flawed as the deutschlands were.

The main problem I see with the Panzerschiffen as they were built was that they were designed to outfight anything they couldn't outrun. But as I see it, a ship with so few armor that critical spots are left vulnerable to 6' fire can't be said to be sure of outfighting a light cruiser, less a heavy one, and much less a combination of them. So in the end the Deutchlands simply didn't comply with their very own reason to exist. They packed a heavy punch, indeed, however each hit they received was also a heavy punch. And that's not the way it was meant to be...

So, this design has a heavier ammount of armor, able to stand light cruiser fire and at least keep at bay the worst of 8' fire. You say is a "tinclad"...well, tinclads were the panzerschiffen, this design isn't exactly the Yamato but at least boosts protection and gives the ship a decent chance to stand heavy cruiser fire in a battle.


I also gave it 305mm guns, given that I read that in the CT germany is allowed to use those guns. Maybe I should've kept the 11' guns and improve a bit more the armor ,however 305mm guns IMO are a step up and a guarante of far more damage than 11' (and anyway the german 11' gun of WW2 was a dismal failure-here also hindsight helps, of course)


About a possible Wichita-Panzerschiff battle, well, I don't know but I'd still go with the german ship in an one-on-one (of course I give as granted that they're fighting with equal electronic equipment, otherwise please take me to the american ship ). 7 inches of armor may be on the low ebb of what can keep an 8' shell out, however there's no ammount of armor on the american ship able to keep away a 305mm shell.

Then there's the simple fact that a penetrating (that is,almost any) 305mm shell would cause way more damage on the heavy cruiser than a penetrating 8' hit on the german ship. It would be a close run but I'd say the germans would win 6 or 7 out of 10 battles fought.


in any case remember another thing: we're comparing a 1930-vintage ship with a 1940 one. That is a -very- important thing to take in mind... if you ask me if the ship I've posted could destroy without trouble any of the heavy cruisers on service in 1939, I'd say yes.

Of course, there's no question about the Dunkerques. But those were battlecruisers on their own...and the panzerschiff concept, with big guns or not, calls for a heavy cruiser with oversize guns. No heavy cruiser would stand a chance against a BC, and so this ship won't, either.


Finally, I'm convinced that the germans would've spent way better their money and resources in 5 proper heavy cruisers instead than building the 3 Deutchslands, and probably the same would've applied to my improved design, but I'm not sure of it.

See, I don't claim the Panzerschiff concept wasn't flawed... it was, just not as BADLY flawed as the common perception seem to be.
People try to extract conclussions about the Panzerschiff as a theory by the historical performance of the real ships built under it...

However the problem was that the real ships built to live by that theory weren't big enough to fullfit it's requirements on protection (especially) and speed, so extracting conclussions from their performance is not valid (IMHO) to qualify the real value of the Panzerschiffe as a concept because the conclussion will always be worse than the one it should be if we were talking about ships that could do that role properly.

I think the panzerschiffs were built more for prestige than for the role they were supposed to adopt. I see more use on 5 cruisers than on 3 Panzerschiffs, it's more economical on resources and you get more numbers. And here's why I think the Panzerschiff was flawed, not because the ships could't do the job well -which I think they could, if they were designed properly-

You wrote:

"I do think that the germans tried a concept of ship in a too small and light hull, and that they finally built a ship that complied just with half of the requirements:"

You do know that the Germans were limited to 10kts due to the VT? It was not the concept nor that the Germans tried to much on a smaller hull that left the original Panzerschiffe smaller than 19kts. In fact, they already used 4+kts more than allowed.

Further more the DEs were build to replace the old predreads in first place. And then there were the political reasons to use the 28cm guns...

" it was well armed, it was reasonably fast (but not enough), and it was so lightly armored that even a 6' gun could disable its main turrets in a bad luck hit."

Beg your pardon but could you explain what you mean? With a bad luck hit a 6" shell could even jam YAMATOs turrets so what´s your point?

I also think when browsing through your technical readouts again and if you examine some shemes and (re-)read some sources about the Battle at the River Plate you´ll find out that SPEE came out with small damage. The armor layout the Germans used offered a little bit more protection than one would expect from the amount of metal only and especially the turrets weren´t that thinly armored. I quote from Richard "Tiournu" Worth´ book "Fleets of WW2" here: "None of the eighteen 6-inch hits defeated her [SPEEs] armor (three of them bounced off turrets), and she emerged from the duel without serious damage."

8" shells packed enough power to overcome SPEEs armor on the other off course but as pointed out earlier a 7" plate doesn´t offer perfect imunity as well.

"The concept of the german panzerschiff is to put a gun really big on a ship of a given displacement. That may be the source of the lack of balance of a design -however- I do think that a ship with the armor of this one isn't by far as badly flawed as the deutschlands were."

The concept for the german units asked for a heavy gun because they were meant to replace predreads and should offer some punch against units used by other baltic nations. The Germans also calculated variants with guns up to 35cm but the 28cm guns offered the best compromise.

Feel free to read Hans Georg Prager "Panzerschiff Deutschland / Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow - Ein Schiffsschicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit" to learn more about the reasons - both technical and political - that lead to the Panzerschiffe.

"But as I see it, a ship with so few armor that critical spots are left vulnerable to 6' fire can't be said to be sure of outfighting a light cruiser, less a heavy one, and much less a combination of them. So in the end the Deutchlands simply didn't comply with their very own reason to exist. They packed a heavy punch, indeed, however each hit they received was also a heavy punch. And that's not the way it was meant to be... "

Could you please quote the data you have at hand? Why do you think they were thinnly armored (especially SPEE) - especially when comparing them to cruisers (most likely opponent) of the same era. In fact, I think the opposite is true.

Further more I´d like to point out that a one vs. three never is a good idea but SPEE proofed to be able to held her position - despite her main guns being mounted in only two turrets. The latter is maybe a real drawback in such a situation but your alternate design would have the same problem.

"(and anyway the german 11' gun of WW2 was a dismal failure-here also hindsight helps, of course)"

Again, I have to ask for your sources. Is the above your (educated) opinion (guess) or based on technical evidence?

My sources tell me that the 28cm gun was among the most accurate if not _the_ most accurate heavy naval gun of WW2 offering a precise punch over a very long distance (406hm - Breyer). Her only "flaw" was that she didn´t pack the punch of a (much) heavier gun but on the other hand she her ROF was quite comparable to that of most nations 8" guns and much better than that of all other naval guns above 8".

"7 inches of armor may be on the low ebb of what can keep an 8' shell out, however there's no ammount of armor on the american ship able to keep away a 305mm shell."

The same is true for a 11" shell so why waste money and weight if one only needs a gun that outclasses a CAs main armament? Why not use a 10" or 9" gun allowing to get more barrels and a much more balanced design?

"in any case remember another thing: we're comparing a 1930-vintage ship with a 1940 one. That is a -very- important thing to take in mind... if you ask me if the ship I've posted could destroy without trouble any of the heavy cruisers on service in 1939, I'd say yes."

What about ALGERIÉ or ZARA? Both were planned and build long before 1940 and both should be rated as very dangerous for a Panzerschiff - both the original as well as your version. Don´t focus on WICHITA alone...

"Of course, there's no question about the Dunkerques. But those were battlecruisers on their own...and the panzerschiff concept, with big guns or not, calls for a heavy cruiser with oversize guns. No heavy cruiser would stand a chance against a BC, and so this ship won't, either. "

Well, if you ask for a CA with oversized guns I again question the balance of the design and why you think the DEs were more off balance than your own design. Compared to the CAs of her era the DEs featured relatively thick armor - maybe just because her most likely opponents (british and french vessels) featured no armor at all that was thicker than a sheet of paper. :o)

"Finally, I'm convinced that the germans would've spent way better their money and resources in 5 proper heavy cruisers instead than building the 3 Deutchslands, and probably the same would've applied to my improved design, but I'm not sure of it."

Why CAs at all? If you aim for a vessel that should be used as a raider a 9-12 guns CL should be enough by far. A really long-legged (18000nm at 15kn is what the DEs achieved - more than your design offers, btw) TOWN-class, that´s what I would have used. One doesn´t need 8" shells to sink a merchantmen...

"See, I don't claim the Panzerschiff concept wasn't flawed... it was, just not as BADLY flawed as the common perception seem to be.
People try to extract conclussions about the Panzerschiff as a theory by the historical performance of the real ships built under it... "

Of course the DEs weren´t perfect but I wasn´t aware of the fact that they were seen as badly flawed. Anyway, you´re correct that it is sometimes difficult to keep technical and historical reasons that led to the DEs seperated from knowledge we gained in hindsight.

"However the problem was that the real ships built to live by that theory weren't big enough to fullfit it's requirements on protection (especially) and speed, so extracting conclussions from their performance is not valid (IMHO) to qualify the real value of the Panzerschiffe as a concept because the conclussion will always be worse than the one it should be if we were talking about ships that could do that role properly."

I´m not sure if I should agree. First of all I think the DEs fullfilled their requirements quite good - especially when build. That ships laid down years later will render the concept obsolete can not and should not be used to blame the DEs. New technical developments are meant to have this effect. So when the design process that finally lead to the PBs began in the mid-20s neither the concept nor the technical solution was really flawed. It was just rendered obsolete 15 years later. Keeping this in mind I think the PBs were a good design and you don´t need a 19kts PB with 12" guns to get a ship that could "do that role properly". The real and true raider that fulfills all requirements (long range, fast, scouts on bord, heavy punch, good seakeeping etc.) appeared on the scene of WW2 but wasn´t noticed at first - the CV.

"I think the panzerschiffs were built more for prestige than for the role they were supposed to adopt. I see more use on 5 cruisers than on 3 Panzerschiffs, it's more economical on resources and you get more numbers."

What do you mean by "economical"? I think you´ll need more money, man, material, time, slips, yards etc. to build and maintain 5 cruisers instead of 3.

Cheers,

HoOmAn