Building H-class Battleships

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 03 Dec 2010 05:41

That's only an example, and also this one, 878 x 1,650-ton Type XXI submarines OR 30-million Kar 98 rifles, 30-million assault rifles, 1,600 x 88-mm PAK guns and 9,000 Panzer III tanks, will do, etc., etc., etc. Any combination are okay. It's up to you...Make as many combination you want. That's the purpose of these calculations...

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5294
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by Ironmachine » 03 Dec 2010 08:05

Then they seem to have no purpose at all, but if they make you happy... I'm not so sure about the need to post them, though.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 03 Dec 2010 08:36

Its only an idea, if the Two H-Class battleships were converted into this and that. Anyway, since the H-Class was a useless idea, the purpose of my calculations and conversions was to give how the German war effort was wasted into fantasy and impractical projects. Since Hitler was a 'land-minded' leader, I am only making a comparison from the existing KM warships and the whole German 'Z-plan' if converted into land-based weapons, and ready for used as a standing reserves for the gigantic Operation Barbarossa up to Operation Citadel. By reviewing the number of weapons, you'll come to know how gigantic was the build-up for the OKW strategic reserves of the German Army and SS units if Hitler have done this instead.
Last edited by nebelwerferXXX on 03 Dec 2010 14:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5294
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by Ironmachine » 03 Dec 2010 11:37

Anyway, since the H-Class was a useless idea, the purpose of my calculations and conversions was to give how the German war effort was wasted into fantasy and impractical projects.
Oh, but you are forgetting a very important point, then: only two of the H-class were actually started, and little progress had been made in their construction before it was stopped. So, really, little war effort "was wasted" in these projects.
In that way, you are giving a false idea of the "gigantic build-up for the OKW strategic reserves" that could be obtained by converting them into land-based weapon if you are using equivalences from six H-class battleships, much less so if using those from 21 H-Class battleships... Comparing with the actual ships that the Kriegsmarine had in service at the time would be somewhat more significative, but even in that case there are many more factors to be considered that just a direct cost equivalence.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 04 Dec 2010 05:23

Forgive me if I posted numerous conversions of the KM ships into land weapons. Needs diplomacy only in making comments. Okay lang!

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2659
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by Takao » 04 Dec 2010 13:09

Ironmachine,

Technically, it was three H-Class battleships that were begun. See this post of mine earlier in this thread here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1530034 The keel of Battleship 'K' was expected to have been laid on September 15, 1939, however war intervened before that was accomplished. Still close to 3,000 tons of materials were delivered in preparation for its construction.


nebelwerferXXX,

Another mistake to all of your lists is your assumption that everything saved in not constructing these battleships will go to the military. When, in reality, civilian and export needs were getting the majority of German produced steel in 1939. From feldgrau.com
The following chart highlights German steel production allocations for the fourth quarter of 1939:

Heer - 3.060.000 tons
Marine - 1.250.000 tons
Luftwaffe - 2.220.000 tons
Military construction - 2.060.000 tons
Total military - 8.590.000 tons

Civilian sector - 7.320.000 tons
Export - 1.730.000 tons
Total civilian - 9.050.000 tons

Total steel - 17.640.000 tons

The civilian sector thus consumed 41.5% of the total German steel production in the fourth quarter of 1939. By the fourth quarter of 1940, the civilian sector “only” consumed 40.8% of the steel output. When Speer reorganized the German economy when Fritz Todt died and he replaced him, it is clear to see where the slack came from.
http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

Thus your "fantasy" lists of all this and that going to the German military are unrealistic.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 04 Dec 2010 13:33

Forgive me, but I believe in the saying that, No comment, No mistake.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 06 Dec 2010 05:28

What would be the correct realization for these KM ships historically? What happened to these KM ships actually? I know and have in my mind what really happened to them historically during the war, but I will hesitate not to post it here because...commenting further may create negative responses. Thank You!

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Naval Architecture

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Apr 2011 01:11

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Aircraft carrier, Battleship and Cruiser Designs:
1) Greater speeds were achieved through machinery improvements.
2) Dual-purpose surface AA armament was developed.
3) Facilities for handling and maintaining reconnaissance aircraft with built-in hangars and catapults were included.
4) Radar-assisted fire control was implemented.
Here's a well designed US battleship that met the design requirements of the above design features.
DSC00236.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2659
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by Takao » 17 Apr 2011 03:52

Image

Seriously nebelwerferXXX, do you do any research before you post?

If you had, you would have found out several things. First your "well designed US battleship" is either a Nevada class or a Pennsylvania class. The design dates back to before World War I, the ships were laid down in 1912-13, and all 4, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, were commissioned in 1916, and modernized in the late 20's early 30's. So in the list you copied
Aircraft carrier, Battleship and Cruiser Designs:
1) Greater speeds were achieved through machinery improvements.
2) Dual-purpose surface AA armament was developed.
3) Facilities for handling and maintaining reconnaissance aircraft with built-in hangars and catapults were included.
4) Radar-assisted fire control was implemented.
The battleship in your photo has nothing on this list!!!
1) The Nevadas and Pennsylvanias could barely make 21 knots on a good day, so they are not "fast".
2) While the modernized ships did mount some DP guns, your photo CLEARLY shows SP guns mounted in casemates. Although, plans had been made for a more thorough modernization, that only happened after the war began.
3) These battleships had no hangers for storing their aircraft. As a matter of fact, no US battleship had a hanger for their spotter aircraft.
4) There is no radar fire control to be seen in the illustration. Again, that was added after the war began.

Since the photo you posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I have to ask you - Why did you post this?

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Apr 2011 04:02

Sorry! It's an honest mistake. It should be the Missouri or South Dakota that I have posted...forgive me...

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Naval Architecture

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Apr 2011 04:25

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Aircraft carrier, Battleship and Cruiser Designs:
1) Greater speeds were achieved through machinery improvements.
2) Dual-purpose surface AA armament was developed.
3) Facilities for handling and maintaining reconnaissance aircraft with built-in hangars and catapults were included.
4) Radar-assisted fire control was implemented.
DSC00233.JPG
@Takao, How about this one? Does it met the above requirements for this US battleship? Just asking, Are you an Author about naval books? Thanks!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by mescal » 17 Apr 2011 10:31

That's a bit better.

But aircraft facilities on these ships (South Dakota class) are located aft and do not show on your picture.

And we're slightly off topic in a H-class battleship thread.
Olivier

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Apr 2011 10:52

Only just a comparison & getting some ideas between the H-Class battleships & the US battleships as to appearance & historical background etc. etc.

scharnhorst43
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 01:38

Re: Building H-class Battleships

Post by scharnhorst43 » 17 Apr 2011 16:48

I wonder what potential names for the H-class ships would've been?

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”