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?

#16

Post by Paul Lakowski » 18 Jul 2015, 00:37

Well the 1930s rearmament is fascinating since it shows how much a single leader [Hitler] can cripple the are plans of any given branch.

Original plan [Naval plan 1928-1932] was...
1 Aircraft Carrier [ HMS Courageous size]
6 improved 18KT PBS [9 x 11" C28 guns]
6 improved kreuzer's [plans ?]
planned tonnage = ~ 200kt

When Hitler took power reference to Kreuzers and carriers disappear and the remaining plans focus on either 6-8 PBC of 22-24kt [ 6 x 11" C28 guns] or 6 Panzerschiffe of 26-30KT [ 9 x 11" C28 guns] and a dozen 11" C28 guns are begun. . Planned tonnage 132-180kt ....But Hitler wanted none of this since it threatened his plans for the British Empire.

Instead Raeder convinced Hitler that an smaller anti French fleet would be helpful, so Hitler allowed this plan to evolve into 3 x 35kt BB with 14" guns plus 2 CA [plans ?] . Hitler seemed to agree but only if the so called BB were armed with 11" guns instead of 14" guns. Kreuzer plans are vague but a private venture shows smaller Hipper hull with 5*III6" gun turrets.

Unable to get the 14" guns , Raeder limits ship building to 2* 11" Gun BB and 2* 8" gunned CA , and plans for a follow on wave of 2* 45Kt BB with 15" to counter the BB Richelieu plus 3 more kreuzer's . One of these kreuzer`s is planned as a 8" gunned CA and the other two as 6" gunned CL [16-17 kt] & 4 triple 6" gun turrets are built in anticipation . At this time a 24kt Aircraft Carrier is added back into the building plan.

Total tonnage planned 113kt for the first wave and 165-174kt for the second wave.

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

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

#17

Post by Paul Lakowski » 19 Jul 2015, 04:25

Just to follow up my previous post...The Hipper class ended up the way it was because Hitler didn't want anything too powerful to threaten his plans for the Commonwealth, while Raeder was trying to maximize what little warship construction tonnage he could get authorization from Hitler.

Raeder was appointed to Grand Admiral in 1928 on the specific condition that he assured the government that the Reich marine would NEVER indulge in politics again and would instead restore the government & peoples faith in the Navy. The upside is that the navy position was improved so it was getting larger part of the budget, but the down side is that- under Raeder- they unquestioningly followed Hitler's orders. Right up until war actually began , Raeder was pronouncing that a naval war with Britain would not occur until 1945-49 time period, so they had plenty of time to get ready.

One gets the impression that the army -while acknowledging Hitler- did what ever it could to advance its case as quickly as possible. However it was the Luftwaffe that seems to have grasped the real situation as early as Hitler's 4 year plan speech at the end of 1936. After this they secretly abandoned Hitler's directives and followed their own plan to be ready for war by 1940.


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

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

#18

Post by thaddeus_c » 19 Jul 2015, 05:03

Paul Lakowski wrote:...The Hipper class ended up the way it was because Hitler didn't want anything too powerful to threaten his plans for the Commonwealth, while Raeder was trying to maximize what little warship construction tonnage he could get authorization from Hitler.

One gets the impression that the army -while acknowledging Hitler- did what ever it could to advance its case as quickly as possible. However it was the Luftwaffe that seems to have grasped the real situation as early as Hitler's 4 year plan speech at the end of 1936. After this they secretly abandoned Hitler's directives and followed their own plan to be ready for war by 1940.
appreciate the posts.

my view is Hipper-class would have been better for KM as light cruisers, even with limited range. a series built after Nurnberg would probably have the problems from earlier cruisers worked out. probably finished all 5 of projected series pre-war.

MIGHT create same problem for British RN that Tirpitz did, tie up large number of ships, 2 -3 capital ships for Tirpitz, 2 - 3 (?) destroyers for each light cruiser?

wonder if the KM leaders suspected an earlier war but laid down the fleet they wanted hoping for leverage to finish it?

IMO the best build would have been commercial ships, the type converted to Sperrbrecher (over 100), with more powerful diesel engines (they could manage 14 knts OTL, propose they manage 20 knts?) couple that with more S-boats.

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

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

#19

Post by Paul Lakowski » 19 Jul 2015, 09:07

Thaddeus I agree more or less with your post.

Up until the beginning of 1940 the KM had invested about 80,000 tons of warships construction between those 5 Hipper class Kreuzer warships. In addition the amount of armor invested was about 12,000 tons of the 80,000 tons. However with the slow down in construction and the sheer size of the kreuzer's only 2 were completed by war time. Very poor planning if 1940 was expected time of war but not unreasonable if war is not expected until mid to late 1940s.

If we could image these tonnages being adjusted so all 5 kreuzer's could be completed by the end of 1939 each Kreuzer should feature....

...about 2320 tons armor on a 16,000 ton warship. The original Hipper design was 2828 tons on a 18,300 ton warship ; so such a mini Hipper would offer ~ 94% of the armor resistance [150-160mm turret front/CT] . That should bring the front turrets to 150mm -while the conning tower should be 140mm . With curves and slopes that should yield > 6" protection vs 6"-8" shells. Enough to resist penetration at 13-14,000 yards. Belt protection was 80mm belt plus 30mm slopes backed up by 25mm torpedo bulk head. Adjusting this should offer 70mm belt plus 30mm slopes and 25mmTB. Combined that's about 5-6" protection vs 6-8" shells. Deck protection would fall from 30+30mm to 56mm. These figures are similar to the protection levels of the Deutschland class PBS.

By 1939/40 most of the twin 8" turrets had been installed or built for all 5 Kreuzer's ; so 3 twin 8" turrets should be doable. Like wise 6 twin 4" flak are probably doable - while two dozen Torps was standard for all German Kreuzer designs. Finally a couple of Seaplanes & katapult's would be consistent with the private venture design, although that had 5 triple 6" gun turrets [Which is also doable].

All 5 kreuzer's were launched with propulsion systems by 1939, but that would preclude them being finished B4 the war began. The 3 that were launched in time for completion represent about 7300t which should allow only 1464 tons per Kreuzer. Based on unreliable and inefficient Hipper system of 18.5kg/hp that allows < 80,000 hp. That should yield power to weight figures of 4.94 hp/ton @ MAX and 5.9:1 hp/ton @ STD .

Original Hipper figures were132 Khp forced and 110 Khp unforced on the Prince Eugen . Going on "unforced"; that's 5.8:1 MAX & 7.05 @ STD. There fore the adjusted top speed could be 28.4knots MAX & 30 knots STD. These speeds should be increased by 1 knot if a transom stern is employed- but that would limit endurance to ~ 4000nm @19knots. Sounds like a necessary tread off.

Not a bad capital escort warship.

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

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

#20

Post by Felix C » 20 Jul 2015, 13:17

If not mentioned above the I recall reading the hulls were too narrow for the aft shell rooms/magazines so the turrets were staggered.

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

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

#21

Post by Paul Lakowski » 20 Jul 2015, 20:03

Felix C wrote:If not mentioned above the I recall reading the hulls were too narrow for the aft shell rooms/magazines so the turrets were staggered.

Could be?

I was told the strain was too much for the axis of the hull- so they had to be offset to one side and the other to balance that off? The offset is not in the Leipzig and Nuremberg and only on the K class. It could be due to the fact the diesel engines and Transmission attached to each shaft of the K class kreuzer's ; were a mere after thought?

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

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

#22

Post by Don71 » 26 Jul 2015, 21:51

To my opinion, it would have been much better, if Laudahn didn't die and the KM would still focusing on the diesel propulsion and built the Hipper class after the Panzerschiff design layout, with 2 x 4 x 20,3cm and 80000 WPS, what was technical possible at 1934/35 with the M12Z 42/58 engine.

After my visitation of the MAN archiv at Augsburg with the possibility to look at primary sources from 1933 till 1939, I'm convinced with the same development money for MAN at 1932/33 without the massiv cutbacks from 1933-1937/38 we have seen the V12Z engines (42/58 and 32/44) 3-4 years earlier. So it would have been possible to built perhaps the Destroyers at 1938/39 with V12Z 32/44, for capatital ships it would be also possible from 1938 forward to built with the V12Z 42/58.

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

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

#23

Post by thaddeus_c » 27 Jul 2015, 05:40

could 8" guns have been used on add. light cruisers the size of Nurnberg?

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

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

#24

Post by JAG13 » 27 Jul 2015, 19:23

Don71 wrote:To my opinion, it would have been much better, if Laudahn didn't die and the KM would still focusing on the diesel propulsion and built the Hipper class after the Panzerschiff design layout, with 2 x 4 x 20,3cm and 80000 WPS, what was technical possible at 1934/35 with the M12Z 42/58 engine.

After my visitation of the MAN archiv at Augsburg with the possibility to look at primary sources from 1933 till 1939, I'm convinced with the same development money for MAN at 1932/33 without the massiv cutbacks from 1933-1937/38 we have seen the V12Z engines (42/58 and 32/44) 3-4 years earlier. So it would have been possible to built perhaps the Destroyers at 1938/39 with V12Z 32/44, for capatital ships it would be also possible from 1938 forward to built with the V12Z 42/58.
Ths is very interesting, is there any estimate regarding the possible performance of such ships? Dimensions?

Did the KM ever look at the IJN DD designs? I always found odd that they went for the DD configurations that resemblred the MN ones.

What was the reason for the cutbacks on a field were the Germans led?

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

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

#25

Post by Don71 » 27 Jul 2015, 21:23

thaddeus_c wrote:could 8" guns have been used on add. light cruisers the size of Nurnberg?

Hello,

I don't think this is possible, because even with Nürnberg not all structural problems with 3 x 3 x 6inch were sorted out.
The smalest cruiser with 8 inch guns was the York-class with around 8400ts standard, Nürnberg had 7150ts standard, so I think you can't compensate 1300ts and 4 guns are not enough for accurate shooting.

@ JAG13
Ths is very interesting, is there any estimate regarding the possible performance of such ships? Dimensions?
Based on a CA with a M12Z 42/58 (8 x M12Z 42/58) engine propulsion system with two shafts and auxilary engines.

We have done at a german navy forum a quite serious calculation and to our estimation and calculation, it would be a Hipper to Prinz Eugen hull, but with two quad turrets (8 inch L60) and a short citadel (Panzerschiff, layout), the superstructure deck equal to the Panzerschiffe.
The main belt would be 120mm inclined and the main armour deck 60mm, turrets and barbettes armour just like the Panzerschiffe.
Weight would be also at 14000-14500ts stamdard, with a continuous high speed of 28kn, short high speed around 29-29,5kn.
Range would be 10000 nautic miles at 20kn.
What was the reason for the cutbacks on a field were the Germans led?
To develop and support the development of the high pressure steam turbine propulsions. Most of the money was going to the companies, which were developing the boilers. Wagner, Benson and La Mont. This was happening after Laudahn died (31.10.1932) and the KM (K-Amt) lost it's most advanced propulsion engineer and a convinced supporter of the diesel technology. Laudahn was at the Marinebau- Amt, later K-Amt since 1914.

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

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

#26

Post by thaddeus_c » 28 Jul 2015, 02:52

Don71 wrote:
thaddeus_c wrote:could 8" guns have been used on add. light cruisers the size of Nurnberg?
I don't think this is possible, because even with Nürnberg not all structural problems with 3 x 3 x 6inch were sorted out.
The smalest cruiser with 8 inch guns was the York-class with around 8400ts standard, Nürnberg had 7150ts standard, so I think you can't compensate 1300ts and 4 guns are not enough for accurate shooting.
thanks for the reply, light cruisers a dead end no matter the scenario?

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

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

#27

Post by Don71 » 28 Jul 2015, 04:19

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.

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

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

#28

Post by Paul Lakowski » 28 Jul 2015, 06:26

Yeah I agree with Don71 on this front. I think the problems of the K class could be alleviated had they modified them all along the lines of the Karlsruhe mod and removed the rear supper firing 6" turret. This would reduce top weight and 'crank' allowing 30-31 knots top speed plus 3350nm @18 knots. The extra deck space could be used to mount up to 5- 6 twin 88 flak. They would make an interesting flak escort vessel for patrolling north of the GIUK gap. These 5 surplus 6" turrets could be combined -with the 4 triple 6" turrets planned for the Seydlitz - to build another 3 * 11-12kt kreuzer's or another 4-5* 7kt SPAHKREUZER.

BTW if the alternative Deutschland were built a "Transom Stern" should add 1 knot to the top speed .

I used "Spring Sharp" to "sim" this and got 3" deck protection plus
Deutschland 54T mod, Deutschland Heavy Cruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
12,285 t light; 13,075 t standard; 14,472 t normal; 15,589 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(622.49 ft / 596.13 ft) x 68.90 ft (Bulges 72.18 ft) x (22.64 / 23.99 ft)
(189.74 m / 181.70 m) x 21.00 m (Bulges 22.00 m) x (6.90 / 7.31 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: 2.36" / 60 mm 392.62 ft / 119.67 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 390.42 ft / 119.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.77" / 45 mm 357.61 ft / 109.00 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:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 56,077 shp / 41,833 Kw = 28.05 kts
Range 9,000nm at 14.45 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,513 tons

Complement:
659 - 857

Cost:
£6.142 million / $24.568 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,139 tons, 7.9 %
- Guns: 1,102 tons, 7.6 %
- Torpedoes: 37 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 3,336 tons, 23.1 %
- Belts: 676 tons, 4.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 846 tons, 5.8 %
- Armament: 408 tons, 2.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,331 tons, 9.2 %
- Conning Tower: 76 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 1,593 tons, 11.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,058 tons, 41.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,186 tons, 15.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 159 tons, 1.1 %
- Hull below water: 33 tons
- On freeboard deck: 76 tons
- Above deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,615 lbs / 9,804 Kg = 31.3 x 11.1 " / 283 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.520 / 0.529
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.26 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.23 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.00 %, 21.36 ft / 6.51 m, 16.11 ft / 4.91 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 16.11 ft / 4.91 m, 16.11 ft / 4.91 m
- Aft deck: 38.00 %, 16.11 ft / 4.91 m, 16.11 ft / 4.91 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.11 ft / 4.91 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.49 ft / 5.03 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 131.8 %
Waterplane Area: 28,998 Square feet or 2,694 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 121 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 155 lbs/sq ft or 757 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.13
- Longitudinal: 1.41
- Overall: 1.16
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
A modern Deutschland for the 1930s would include new armor and rearranging secondaries along the lines of heavy cruiser pattern with 2 dozen torpedoes and 6 twin 4" flak mounts.

The armor reaches 3160 tons with ~3" deck protection [ 25mm weather deck and 50mm MAD] which also doubles as 45mm "slopes" to back up main 50mm "belt armor" and the 45mm "torpedo bulkhead" in Z pattern. Belt protection offers 7" against 6-8" guns which is the same protection for the front turret and Barbettes plus Conning tower.

With new flush deck Transom stern & new armor- the speed figures are max [15.75/56khp] 28knots [28.9 knots].

The top speed for Standard displacement & '56,000hp sprint' becomes..28.78 knots
adjusting for sim [* 1.0323 =] 29.7 knots top sprint speed at standard displacement.

This could crawl away from "fast BB" and keep station with slower cruisers [<30 knots].

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

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

#29

Post by Don71 » 28 Jul 2015, 09:36

@ Paul Lakowski

Why do you want slopes and a space array deck arangement for a cruiser?

The Panzerschiffe had a better armour layout then the Hipper class and were all or nothing, to built a CA with Panzerschiff layout could be also all or nothing.
My idea was this, but the main belt with 120m instead of 150mm. Also Scheer had it's belt after this mod layout, because it was 5m instead of 4,5m high.
The obove picture would be the armour layout of a CA along the Panzerschiff design, the other picture is the original Graf Spee.
Attachments
Graf Spee_mod.jpg
Graf Spee.jpg

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

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

#30

Post by JAG13 » 28 Jul 2015, 16:05

Don71 wrote:
thaddeus_c wrote:could 8" guns have been used on add. light cruisers the size of Nurnberg?

Hello,

I don't think this is possible, because even with Nürnberg not all structural problems with 3 x 3 x 6inch were sorted out.
The smalest cruiser with 8 inch guns was the York-class with around 8400ts standard, Nürnberg had 7150ts standard, so I think you can't compensate 1300ts and 4 guns are not enough for accurate shooting.

@ JAG13
Ths is very interesting, is there any estimate regarding the possible performance of such ships? Dimensions?
Based on a CA with a M12Z 42/58 (8 x M12Z 42/58) engine propulsion system with two shafts and auxilary engines.

We have done at a german navy forum a quite serious calculation and to our estimation and calculation, it would be a Hipper to Prinz Eugen hull, but with two quad turrets (8 inch L60) and a short citadel (Panzerschiff, layout), the superstructure deck equal to the Panzerschiffe.
The main belt would be 120mm inclined and the main armour deck 60mm, turrets and barbettes armour just like the Panzerschiffe.
Weight would be also at 14000-14500ts stamdard, with a continuous high speed of 28kn, short high speed around 29-29,5kn.
Range would be 10000 nautic miles at 20kn.
What was the reason for the cutbacks on a field were the Germans led?
To develop and support the development of the high pressure steam turbine propulsions. Most of the money was going to the companies, which were developing the boilers. Wagner, Benson and La Mont. This was happening after Laudahn died (31.10.1932) and the KM (K-Amt) lost it's most advanced propulsion engineer and a convinced supporter of the diesel technology. Laudahn was at the Marinebau- Amt, later K-Amt since 1914.
Thx Don, great info.

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.

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”