Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#1

Post by SpicyJuan » 19 May 2015, 22:41

How good of a design were German surface ships, especially compared to the RN?

User avatar
vladalex
Member
Posts: 603
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 19:27

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#2

Post by vladalex » 20 May 2015, 13:00

Hello,
Because, that in general all RN ships in WWII were relatively old compared with german surface ships, german surface ships -design was very poor ( motor-ships, seakeeping, etc. )
Regards,
VladAlex


User avatar
hucks216
Member
Posts: 1939
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 23:49
Location: England

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#3

Post by hucks216 » 20 May 2015, 13:42

When you read about German destroyers and 'K' class cruisers, one thing that is always mentioned is their poor sea-keeping qualities, even in moderate seas.

toque
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Mar 2012, 23:56

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#4

Post by toque » 20 May 2015, 17:39

Design parameters (what you want the ship for) differed considerably. You have to be sure that you are comparing like with like. The question is only valid if comparing direct equivalents.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#5

Post by Urmel » 21 May 2015, 11:37

There are some good books on the German vessels, such as Whitley's "German Destroyers of World War II'.

From memory the German destroyers were over-gunned, making them top-heavy and many suffered from engine problems.

One particular class of smaller vessels (the Flottenbegleiter) were so poorly designed, they were primarily used as tenders or for other secondary duties.

The initial design of the bow of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was so poor, the ships had to undergo rebuilt.

On the whole I do not think that German naval ship-building could stand up to that of the Royal Navy.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#6

Post by SpicyJuan » 21 May 2015, 23:23

Urmel wrote:There are some good books on the German vessels, such as Whitley's "German Destroyers of World War II'.

From memory the German destroyers were over-gunned, making them top-heavy and many suffered from engine problems.

One particular class of smaller vessels (the Flottenbegleiter) were so poorly designed, they were primarily used as tenders or for other secondary duties.

The initial design of the bow of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau was so poor, the ships had to undergo rebuilt.

On the whole I do not think that German naval ship-building could stand up to that of the Royal Navy.
But surely those design issues (particularly that of the Destroyers) could have been averted, right?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#7

Post by Urmel » 22 May 2015, 07:35

Sure, if they had had better ship designers and more experience.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 17:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#8

Post by Felix C » 20 Jun 2015, 23:45

The steam powerplant on the large DDs was ahead of its time and maintenance heavy compared to other navies.
The use of 5.9" in the DDs was not a good idea. Twin turret trained slowly and open mounts made man handling a heavy 150lb shell in a seaway difficult. See battle between Z/T boats vs British light cruisers were the Germans came off worse due to heavy seas.

The early TDs lacked an equivalent gun armament against British DDs.

The Light cruisers were structurally weak.

The heavy cruisers consumed too much fuel to be useful as raiders

The pocket battleships were too slow to outrun british cruisers

The battlecruisers lacked a heavy shell compared to RN heavy ships.

The battleships wasted space on dual secondary armament- 5.9" and 4.1"

But you know, nothing is perfect and only realized later on active service.

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 16:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#9

Post by Polar bear » 03 Jul 2015, 18:22

Felix C wrote:The steam powerplant on the large DDs was ahead of its time and maintenance heavy compared to other navies.
The use of 5.9" in the DDs was not a good idea. Twin turret trained slowly and open mounts made man handling a heavy 150lb shell in a seaway difficult. See battle between Z/T boats vs British light cruisers were the Germans came off worse due to heavy seas.
5.9" guns : True, .. but, as you pointed out, the Biscay engagement on 28/12/43 (2 CL vs. 11 DD and TB) was decided not by the armament but by the weather. The German TBs were simply unable to use their 4.1" guns due to sea state
Felix C wrote:The early TDs lacked an equivalent gun armament against British DDs.
True, .. but the early TB were constructed with the restrictions of the Versailles treaty in effect.
Felix C wrote:The Light cruisers were structurally weak.
The heavy cruisers consumed too much fuel to be useful as raiders.
True
Felix C wrote:The pocket battleships were too slow to outrun british cruisers
True, .. but they were not meant to be able to do that, but to fight and sink them with their 11" guns.
Felix C wrote:The battlecruisers lacked a heavy shell compared to RN heavy ships.
True, .. but it took time to develop a heavier gun after being released from the Versailles Treaty restrictions
Felix C wrote:The battleships wasted space on dual secondary armament- 5.9" and 4.1"
That has been a matter of intense discussion ever after.

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#10

Post by Paul Lakowski » 04 Jul 2015, 21:27

You should read OHara's German Fleet at War 1939-1945. It seems the KM did well enough against allied warships winning most clashes through 1942. However after the Barents sea battle at the end of 1942, Hitler threatened to scrape the surface fleet, but Donitz convinced him they would just be doing the enemies work for them. From that point on the KM lost their fighting spirit and were subsequently, only 'going through the motions'.

I would say on ships; the Zerstroers design was a mistake- trying to cut the corner on producing enough cruisers . This was made worse by also building heavy cruisers 50% larger than treaty cruisers ?????

That was all Admiral Raeder's trying to walk on 'egg shells' around Hitler- who demanded the KM be nothing more than a coastal defence force, which was no threat to Britain in the 1930s.

The Battle cruisers were originally planned around improved pocket battleships with 3 triple 11" guns. As Raeder battled with Hitler , the design morphed through 19 steps to the Twins as we know from history. Just before the plan was agreed to be 2 heavy cruisers and 3 x 35kt Twins each with 6 x14" guns , Hitler over ruled again forcing 9 x11" C 34 guns instead.

Hitler seemed to be a greater threat to the KM than the Allies ever where .
Last edited by Paul Lakowski on 04 Jul 2015, 22:01, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 16:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#11

Post by Polar bear » 04 Jul 2015, 21:52

hi, Paul,
Paul Lakowski wrote:.. at the end of 1942, ... From that point on the KM lost their fighting spirit and were subsequently, only 'going through the motions'.
I disagree. Look, e.g., at the torpedo boats' engagements in the Channel in 1943 and 1944 .. not to mention E-boats and U-boats, fighting to the end.

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#12

Post by Paul Lakowski » 04 Jul 2015, 21:59

Yes Franz Kohlauf was a great commander , but such leaders were far too few to offset the rotting morale.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#13

Post by SpicyJuan » 04 Jul 2015, 22:26

Thanks for the responses guys, here's a follow up question: How much would ship design have benefited say if the Soviets were defeated, and Hitler gave the KM a tidy amount of recourses as promised?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#14

Post by Paul Lakowski » 05 Jul 2015, 01:31

By Wartime it was too late . Hitler was building the wrong ships for the wrong war.

To build a capital ship takes design time [Twins took 1933-1935]. Then the ship must be ordered and keel laid down on a sufficiently large enough ship yard [year or two] then two years to build propulsion & main gun batteries + FCS & launch the hull . Finally a year or two to assemble all this into warship + commission and work it up with a crew.

If the design is already completed + programme to build guns /FCS/propulsion etc available; then a repeat capital ship may only take 3 years to launch complete & commission.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Were German Surface Ships Good Designs

#15

Post by SpicyJuan » 05 Jul 2015, 17:13

Paul Lakowski wrote:By Wartime it was too late . Hitler was building the wrong ships for the wrong war.

To build a capital ship takes design time [Twins took 1933-1935]. Then the ship must be ordered and keel laid down on a sufficiently large enough ship yard [year or two] then two years to build propulsion & main gun batteries + FCS & launch the hull . Finally a year or two to assemble all this into warship + commission and work it up with a crew.

If the design is already completed + programme to build guns /FCS/propulsion etc available; then a repeat capital ship may only take 3 years to launch complete & commission.
But what about pre-war designs like the Spähkruezer, would they get added? And would the KM recognize the deficiencies in their ships, and set about a quick program in refitting them?

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”