Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#31

Post by Paul Lakowski » 29 Jul 2015, 02:50

First of all to screen out possibility of long range deck pen vs 6" & 8" shells -you need 3" deck armor. That is a must since it allows the warship an "immunity zone" to approach and attack or escape with little fear of being crippled. This also becomes the problem. Germans recognised that either they must be able to destroy any warship they "can not run away from" , or "run away from what they can not defeat". Even at 30Knots a PBC can't run away from cruisers or battle cruisers. Therefore it has to defeat them.

AGS could do neither vs Kreuzer at "Plate battle" because Langsdorf feared torpedo attacks and would not risk this to finish off the Exeter. Had he done so the other two RN cruisers would have been forced to Exeter's aid and crippled in the process. THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY AGS could escape any encounter with allied cruisers/capital ships. BTW the only way to rapidly cripple the RN kreuzer's was with 11" Shell hits or torpedoes. The 6- 8" shells just don't do enough damage in time to cripple anything.

As far as vertical protection goes an armor of 7" is sufficient vs RN 8" Shells to limit this inner immunity zone to shorter range [10-12ky]. The 5-6" of the Deutschland class was sufficient against 6" gunfire [even USN cruisers] but not heavy cruisers. They could get penetrations in the 15ky region and longer for USN cruisers.

Finally the practice of AON armor with super heavy hull protection at the expense of the combat armor/capability seems flawed. If a ship is counting on its hull protection , its gambling it can run away from all threats, which any such modified diesel warship could not do at that time.

A better choice might be to go with a hybrid propulsion system with a center line diesel shaft and two turbine boiler outer shafts. Given the AGS size and weights a 27-28khp diesel could be combined with two 20-25khp turbine- boilers systems to give top speed STD of 31.5 kts & 30.5kts @ MAX displacement.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#32

Post by thaddeus_c » 29 Jul 2015, 03:59

Don71 wrote:Hello,

thanks for the reply, light cruisers a dead end no matter the scenario?
No, I think quite the opposite, the K-class is a very good example for a Navy, which wanted too much, with too little standard ts!
If the KM had built something like the Arethusa class (1933) out of 6000-7000ts standard, they have have had 5 work horses and robust ships, to support their destroyer, CA's and Panzerschiffe from the Bay of Biscay to the Arctic Ocean. With a little larger hull, you have the possibility to bunker more fuel.
sorry I meant the light cruisers as designed, not the class of ships.

would think, assuming the KM is never going to have parity in DDs that they could have built light cruisers and their fast attack boats.


thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#33

Post by thaddeus_c » 29 Jul 2015, 04:23

Paul Lakowski wrote:Finally the practice of AON armor with super heavy hull protection at the expense of the combat armor/capability seems flawed. If a ship is counting on its hull protection , its gambling it can run away from all threats, which any such modified diesel warship could not do at that time.

A better choice might be to go with a hybrid propulsion system with a center line diesel shaft and two turbine boiler outer shafts. Given the AGS size and weights a 27-28khp diesel could be combined with two 20-25khp turbine- boilers systems to give top speed STD of 31.5 kts & 30.5kts @ MAX displacement.
reading that the O-class battlecruiser had center line boiler-turbine, but that was a (relatively) large ship.

on the Hipper-class it is said hybrid system dismissed in favor of boilers only.

any guesses on specs for panzerschiffe with the quad 8" arrangement and hybrid propulsion system built in timeframe of Hipper-class?

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 15:43

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#34

Post by Don71 » 29 Jul 2015, 15:38

@ Paul Lakowski

A single 60mm wotan hart deck (70mm over magazines), ist save against 6 and 8 inch plunging fire till 23000yards from every 6 and 8 inch gun of WWII.
Also a combination of 120mm main belt 14° inclind and 14°inclind 40mm torpedo bulkhead is save from 16000yards against every 6 and 8 inch gun.

So you have an immunity zone from 16000-23000yards with the shown and calculated armour layout.
This is also the range were the german 20,3cm L60 coulkd vertical penetrate every WWII cruiser.

As much as I'm convinced of the german spaced array armour layout with slopes at BS and partly SH/GN (weak point the thin upper belt), I)'m not convinced of this armour layout at cruisers, where I prefer a all or nothing layout like the Panzerschiffe.
Cruisers have not side height of BBs (BS 15m, SH 14,5m) AGS and Hipper class (12,5m), so you have a real problem to create the space for the fuze setting of the upper deck. Also cruisers have not the stability and are much more fragile to flooding as BBs, so I prefer a AoN sheme which keeps the shells outside the citadel.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#35

Post by thaddeus_c » 31 Jul 2015, 00:57

JAG13 wrote:The 203mm Panzerschiffe sounds interesting, but wouldnt it have been more practical to just continue the Deutschland line as "small battleships" within the AGNA and use cruiser tonnage for a smaller 15cm-armed version? That one could serve as DD leader and raider as well.

Bah, I just remembered Hitler went BB happy after the AGNA and wanted a prestige fleet rather than a fighting one.
are you suggesting a parallel track of Panzerschiffe with 11" guns (instead of ?? Scharnhorst-class? Bismarck-class? both classes?) and light cruisers with 5.9" guns and diesel propulsion? (Nurnberg was (nearly) same length as Deutschland-class, so something along that size?)

that's probably a better use of scant resources but the argument is always made that it is a more threatening strategy and might provoke the British, causing problems with German territorial moves in Europe?

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

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#36

Post by Paul Lakowski » 01 Aug 2015, 21:38

OK below I explored an PBS alternative to address an 1957 engineering paper on a 'better KM fleet' published by members of 'the director of KM warship construction ' including some designers and engineers.

Anyway to compare the armor arrangements using a fixed base line close to the theorized all diesel model Don is referring to. In the first model has my version with 75mm deck protection plus belt armor of 40mm TBH & 45mm slopes plus 50mm outer belt. I got 3500 tons of armored steel with immunity zone of 12,000 to 25,000 yards on warship that reaches 29.5 knots MAX displacement and 31.5knots standard [modified].The sea-keeping was "average " at 1.01 while the hull strength was above average at 1.02.

I then switched the armor layout to Dons version of 60mm deck and 45mm TBH & 150mm main belt. The armor spiked to nearly 4200 tons and the hull strength dropped to below average at 0.91 , while sea keeping improved slightly to 1.03 [still average at best].Having said that the immunity zone of Don warships should be 8,000 to 23,000 yards, which sounds like an improvement [except for long range].


In theory Dons version could survive 30 *11" shell hits or 4 torpedo hits while my version could survive 33* 11" shell hits or 4 torps...pretty much the same




[quote]Deutschland 75 bismark, Deutschland Heavy Cruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
12,877 t light; 13,691 t standard; 15,695 t normal; 17,298 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(655.52 ft / 623.36 ft) x 68.90 ft (Bulges 78.74 ft) x (21.52 / 23.37 ft)
(199.80 m / 190.00 m) x 21.00 m (Bulges 24.00 m) x (6.56 / 7.12 m)

Armament:
6 - 11.14" / 283 mm 52.5 cal guns - 739.90lbs / 335.61kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.16lbs / 17.76kg shells, 220 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
4 raised mounts
4 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.16lbs / 17.76kg shells, 220 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm 83.0 cal guns - 1.77lbs / 0.80kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
8 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
8 raised mounts
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.27lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
16 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 4,942 lbs / 2,242 kg
24 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m torpedoes - 1.536 t each, 36.870 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 444.16 ft / 135.38 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 442.91 ft / 135.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.77" / 45 mm 410.11 ft / 125.00 m 36.09 ft / 11.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 3.15" / 80 mm 5.91" / 150 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - 0.79" / 20 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.79" / 20 mm

- Protected deck - multiple decks: 2.95" / 75 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 5.91" / 150 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 75,685 shp / 56,461 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 6,600nm at 19.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,607 tons

Complement:
700 - 911

Cost:
£6.644 million / $26.578 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,139 tons, 7.3 %
- Guns: 1,102 tons, 7.0 %
- Torpedoes: 37 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 3,518 tons, 22.4 %
- Belts: 658 tons, 4.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 970 tons, 6.2 %
- Armament: 429 tons, 2.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,381 tons, 8.8 %
- Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,150 tons, 13.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,931 tons, 37.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,818 tons, 18.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 139 tons, 0.9 %
- Hull below water: 33 tons
- On freeboard deck: 76 tons
- Above deck: 30 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
22,983 lbs / 10,425 Kg = 33.2 x 11.1 " / 283 mm shells or 4.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 15.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.34
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.520 / 0.528
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 18.00 %, 27.30 ft / 8.32 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Forward deck: 34.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Aft deck: 33.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 24.02 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 18.60 ft / 5.67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 109.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140.2 %
Waterplane Area: 30,323 Square feet or 2,817 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 140 lbs/sq ft or 685 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.23
- Overall: 1.02
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Alternative more slender modern Deutschland for the 1930s which differs from the main Deutschland mod in that its substitues grille type high pressure/temp turbine in place of Diesel...gaining speed but losing range. Otherwise gun and armor are the same as Deutschland 54T mod.


With Bismarck tech propulsion system [20.3kg/hp] & Transome stern - the speed figures are[76.7/17.2khp] 30knots top speed at Max displacement.

The top speed for "Standard displacment" 17,200t & '76,700hp sprint' becomes 31knots.

adjusting for sim limitations [* 1.0323 =] 32knots top spriint speed at standard displacement & 30 knots top speed at max displacment. Propulsion reliablity should be similar to Gnieseau and Bismarck.

This can manage 31 knots at "1/2 full", which should allow it to 'walk away' from BC and 'runaway' from "fast BB" and slow cruisers [<30 knots].

Deutschland 75 bismark, Deutschland Heavy Cruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
12,877 t light; 13,691 t standard; 15,695 t normal; 17,298 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(655.52 ft / 623.36 ft) x 68.90 ft (Bulges 78.74 ft) x (21.52 / 23.37 ft)
(199.80 m / 190.00 m) x 21.00 m (Bulges 24.00 m) x (6.56 / 7.12 m)

Armament:
6 - 11.14" / 283 mm 52.5 cal guns - 739.90lbs / 335.61kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.16lbs / 17.76kg shells, 220 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
4 raised mounts
4 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.16lbs / 17.76kg shells, 220 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm 83.0 cal guns - 1.77lbs / 0.80kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
8 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
8 raised mounts
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.27lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
16 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 4,942 lbs / 2,242 kg
24 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m torpedoes - 1.536 t each, 36.870 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 444.16 ft / 135.38 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 442.91 ft / 135.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.77" / 45 mm 410.11 ft / 125.00 m 36.09 ft / 11.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 3.15" / 80 mm 5.91" / 150 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - 0.79" / 20 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.79" / 20 mm

- Protected deck - multiple decks: 2.36" / 60 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 5.91" / 150 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 75,685 shp / 56,461 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 6,600nm at 19.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,607 tons

Complement:
700 - 911

Cost:
£6.644 million / $26.578 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,139 tons, 7.3 %
- Guns: 1,102 tons, 7.0 %
- Torpedoes: 37 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 4,182 tons, 26.6 %
- Belts: 1,598 tons, 10.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 970 tons, 6.2 %
- Armament: 429 tons, 2.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,105 tons, 7.0 %
- Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,150 tons, 13.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,267 tons, 33.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,818 tons, 18.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 139 tons, 0.9 %
- Hull below water: 33 tons
- On freeboard deck: 76 tons
- Above deck: 30 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,034 lbs / 9,541 Kg = 30.4 x 11.1 " / 283 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.36
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.34
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.520 / 0.528
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 18.00 %, 27.30 ft / 8.32 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Forward deck: 34.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Aft deck: 33.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 24.02 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 18.60 ft / 5.67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 109.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140.2 %
Waterplane Area: 30,323 Square feet or 2,817 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 126 lbs/sq ft or 613 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 1.10
- Overall: 0.91
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Alternative more slender modern Deutschland for the 1930s which differs from the main Deutschland mod in that its substitues grille type high pressure/temp turbine in place of Diesel...gaining speed but losing range. Otherwise gun and armor are the same as Deutschland 54T mod.


With Bismarck tech propulsion system [20.3kg/hp] & Transome stern - the speed figures are[76.7/17.2khp] 30knots top speed at Max displacement.

The top speed for "Standard displacment" 17,200t & '76,700hp sprint' becomes 31knots.

adjusting for sim limitations [* 1.0323 =] 32knots top spriint speed at standard displacement & 30 knots top speed at max displacment. Propulsion reliablity should be similar to Gnieseau and Bismarck.

This can manage 31 knots at "1/2 full", which should allow it to 'walk away' from BC and 'runaway' from "fast BB" and slow cruisers [<30 knots].[/
quote]

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 15:43

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#37

Post by Don71 » 02 Aug 2015, 09:18

I have written 120mm main belt and the TBS is 40mm, also my hull is a kind of Hipper class.
And I have worked with a much improved calculation program.

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

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#38

Post by Felix C » 02 Aug 2015, 18:18

This has turned out to be a great thread. Informative, professional,etc. One of the reasons I truly appreciate this forum.

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

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#39

Post by Paul Lakowski » 03 Aug 2015, 21:49

Don71 wrote:I have written 120mm main belt and the TBS is 40mm, also my hull is a kind of Hipper class.
And I have worked with a much improved calculation program.
Is there any chance we can examine and use such a "improved calculation program". I have my misgivings with Springsharp too.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 15:43

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#40

Post by Don71 » 04 Aug 2015, 01:09

Sorry,

this calculation program is vompletely in german.

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

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#41

Post by Paul Lakowski » 04 Aug 2015, 06:11

Don71 wrote:Sorry,

this calculation program is vompletely in german.
Well that is too bad for me. If you can suggest to the creators an English version could be very popular.

cstunts
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 17 Aug 2006, 05:45
Location: USA

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#42

Post by cstunts » 10 May 2016, 16:40

When I think of the K-class cruisers of the Kriegsmarine, and their associated weaknesses, I cannot help but be reminded of the Dutch/RNN cruiser De Ruyter...which was about the same size, protection, armament, and succumbed to a single torpedo at Java Sea...

sons of anzac
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 May 2016, 14:20
Location: Australia

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#43

Post by sons of anzac » 11 May 2016, 14:35

They tried to do too much in a light hull for the K/L class.

I reckon they had the answer in a modified Emden type light cruiser- tweak the original design and propulsion to take it from 29 kts to 33 kts, increase the bunkerage and keep the armament as original but build in the capacity to increase the single turrets to twin 5.9's as in the later Z (Narvik?) class destroyers. The larger hull of a modified Emden would not have suffered the problems the destroyers did with the heavy turrets and keep the other minor armament pretty much the same.

You would have had a good comparable light cruiser to the pre-war British and French designs and one that was capable of deploying with the fleet and, not to be too flippant, but one that can be lost in battle without too much prestige being lost.

Alternately, do as the IJN did with the Mogami's and built a heavy cruiser hull with light cruiser guns. 15 x 6' in 5 x triple turrets is a powerful ship still.

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

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#44

Post by Paul Lakowski » 12 May 2016, 04:01

Emden was a good ship but the turbine arrangement had to improve from 25kg/hp to ~ 20kg/hp .That should increase the top speed from 29.4 to 31.9 knots with out changing the hull form. A transom stern should increase the speed by a knot and strengthen the hull/stern [long a problem in large KM warships].

The original Emden design included 4 twin 6" gun turrets, which were refused by the treaty commission. So 4 twin 6" should be assumed along with two dozen torps. The Emden endurance was respectable at 5300nm @18knots , almost double the endurance of the K/L class....so all in all a much better cruiser.


The funding of the K/L class amounted to 188 MRM , while the basic EMDEN was probably ~ 20 MRM. Even with improved turrets and propulsion they should come in at 30 MRM each and allowing 6 to be funded & a 8 MRM upgrade to the EMDEN.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Where the German K-class Light Cruisers structurally weak?

#45

Post by thaddeus_c » 14 May 2016, 15:09

Paul Lakowski wrote:The funding of the K/L class amounted to 188 MRM , while the basic EMDEN was probably ~ 20 MRM. Even with improved turrets and propulsion they should come in at 30 MRM each and allowing 6 to be funded & a 8 MRM upgrade to the EMDEN.
a quick glance shows the British alone had over 40 light cruisers and 160 destroyers.

what would be the upgrades to WWI-era cruisers and commercial ships that would have allowed the KM some parity in numbers with LC fleet? assuming even remote parity in DDs impossible.

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”