Plan Z

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5636
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Plan Z

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Feb 2011 03:45

The Plan Z looks impressive on paper. It surpasses even the combined strength of the Siamese and Chinese Navies in numbers.
Hardly sure this is an achievement, the Swedish navy would also surpass both handily and it was hardly a major factor in the navies of the world.

Quite what the fascination is with the 'Z Plan' is a mystery. A series of unimpressive designs that need everyone else in the world to ignore responding to them in order to become a threat, even if Germany were capable of building them.

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

over 100 CRUISERS and nearly 300 DESTROYERS

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 25 Feb 2011 06:25

@mescal, here are the exact text from the book and it reads...

'...In carriers, the crucial arm, the Japanese had only one fleet carrier ready for action in the spring of 1943 and while the Americans had only two, there were many more on the way; in December 1942 the first of the new ESSEX-class carriers was commissioned, and another TWENTY-THREE were being constructed or planned for. By the end of 1943, moreover, the United States would have NINE NEW LIGHT CARRIERS in commission. Against this, Japan could expect only another three new carriers plus a few conversions. In smaller naval vessels, she had no chance of matching the Americans' plan to build over 100 CRUISERS and nearly 300 DESTROYERS in the next few years. Even in battleships, which most admirals in the Japanese fleet still regarded as being the most important warship of all, the United States was constructing far more than Japan; by February 1943 she had commissioned SEVEN NEW BATTLESHIPS...'

source:
Pacific Onslaught: 7th Dec. 1941/7th Feb. 1943, Paul Kennedy, pp. 154-155

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Plan Z

Post by LWD » 25 Feb 2011 14:21

I think I'm loosing track of this. I'm not sure just what the import of the last post was however as stated it's not quite right. If we look at US fleet carriers in commission in the Spring of 43 we find the following:
Saratoga, Enterprise, Ranger, and Essex with Yorktown being commissioned in the Spring of 43. One might make the argument that Essex was still working up in that period but that still leaves 3 US flet carriers. What may have been left out was that Enterprise and Saratoga were available for action in the Western and mid Pacfic during that period.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 25 Feb 2011 15:58

With all due respect to Paul Kennedy, the passage
in December 1942 the first of the new ESSEX-class carriers was commissioned, and another TWENTY-THREE were being constructed or planned for.
is incorrect. In December, 1942, only 22 Essex Class carriers were planned for(one of, the USS Reprisal, CV-35, which would be canceled). The last THREE Essex class carriers would not be ordered until June, 1943(again, one carrier, USS Iwo Jima, CV-46, would be canceled). It seems that Mr. Kennedy is basing his number of the Essex class carriers that were actually built, without taking into consideration when they were ordered.

Tiornu
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 20 Aug 2003 20:16
Location: NAmerica

Re: Plan Z

Post by Tiornu » 26 Feb 2011 00:47

That's a rather odd comparison, isn't it?
Be grateful for comedy wherever you find it.

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

Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 06 Apr 2011 12:43

Paul Lakowski wrote:Hitler was against rebuilding a large “Tirpitz Navy”, since it represented a large investment for a country that was primarily a continental power and this was seen as one of the mistakes of WW-I. Hitler only wanted a coastal defense fleet, however in the Hitler years before WW-II, the German navy laid down 21 large naval vessels [average 29,000 tons each] plus 99 smaller naval vessels [average 1,900 tons each;] and another 152 ‘coastal craft’, [not including U-boats] The total tonnage involved in this building would have required an average of 800,000 tons of construction to complete, but at most 500,000 tons had been invested up to the end of 1939, plus another 160,000 tons warship tonnage was invested through 1940-41.

A dozen of these large naval vessels were laid down in 1934/36 and should have been completed by the late 1930s. Another 5 were laid down in 1938/39 and could not have been completed before 1942. The rest were laid down in between these extremes and ought to be commissioned in 1939/1940-time period. Had all these large warships been Panzerschiff [Armored ship] type warships, while the bulk of the smaller warships built as destroyers, then the potential DID exist to build a sizable fleet, able to challenge the Royal Navy, under the right circumstances.

The end of 1939 only 8 Large ships were completed and ½ of those were fleet auxiliary oil tankers. By the end of 1941 another 4 were completed, of which ½ were Capital ships. That’s 12 out of 21, of which only 4 were battleships and no aircraft carriers were completed despite the fact two were laid down in the 1930s.

Using the displacement tonnage as a yardstick, ¾ of the large & small naval vessels should have been completed by the end of 1941 and yet by that date the only German warships completed were 4 battleships; 3 cruisers; 22 destroyers and 21 T-boats.

German naval planning included a mobilization plan with the following annual builds to be completed two years after the war begins. Every year after this point the following warships were to be completed.

24 destroyers [average 3,000 tons each]
48 T-boats [average 1,000-2,000 tons each]
135 M-boats [average 800 tons each]
105 U-boats [25 coastal, 55 Atlantic & 25 long range] [average 760 tons each]

On average this represents about 333,000 million tons warship construction per year. While many may believe this to be impossible based on historical patterns, in fact it was less tonnage than what was actually built.

The historical tonnage of naval/warship displacement built up to the end of 1939 was approximately…502,861 tons of warship displacement and 5,216 tons composite plus 18,192 tons built to general ship standards. The break down of historical shipbuilding was as follows:

75,231 tons = 22 destroyers & 12 T-boats
104,550 tons = 6 Auxiliary tankers [built to warship standards]
44,972 tons = 10 F-Boats, 55 M-Boats & 5 Tenders [26,780 tons to warship standards]
296,300 tons = 4 battleships, 5 heavy cruisers and 2 aircraft carriers [including 82,900 tons armored steel]
5,216 tons = 72 R-Boats & 70 S-Boats [Steel frame & wooden construction]
31,791 tons = 32 coastal, 20 Atlantic & 11 Large U-Boats [121,190 hp Diesel & 37,500 hp Generator]

The 1940-41 breakdown of historical shipbuilding was as follows:

51,672 STS = 8 destroyers & 17 T-Boats [1,200,000 hp Turbine]
32,800 STS & 34,810 tons = 36 M-Boats & 44 G-boats [182,145 hp VTE]
28,000 STS = 2 battleships, 1 heavy cruiser & 6 other incomplete ships [including 9,126 tons armored steel]
13,241 tons Composite = 50 R-Boats & 47 S-Boats [356,784 hp Diesel]
219,830 STS = 18 coastal, 169 Atlantic & 63 large U-boats [193,000 hp Generator & 828,768 hp Diesel]
53,890 tons Composite = 375/600 Landing Craft [93,400 hp Diesel & 36,325 hp Petrol]
17,000 STS & 24,975 tons = 12 Auxiliary tankers & 5 Tenders [44,180 hp Diesel]

Already in this transitional phase, the annual warship tonnage is already around 250,000 tons each year.

The 1942-43 breakdown of historical shipbuilding was as follows:

62,773 STS = 17 destroyers & 17 T-Boats [1,230,000 hp Turbine]
463,040 STS = 2 coastal, 396 Atlantic & 125 large U-boats [421,500 hp Generator & 1,826,360 hp Diesel]
84,259 tons, 4,200 tons NC & 48,003 tons Composite = 117 M-Boats + 45 G-boats [391,010 hp VTE]
60,572 tons Composite = 170 R/S-Boats & 286 KFK [681,203 hp Diesel]
226,000 tons Composite = 583/100 Landing Craft [350,840 hp Diesel & 159,000 hp Petrol]
17,000 STS & 24,975 tons = 1 Auxiliary tanker, 1 seaplane tender & 1 incomplete ship [44,180 hp Diesel]
35,700 STS = misc. battleships, heavy cruisers & carriers work [including 9,838 tons armored steel]

That’s nearly 500,000 tons warship construction in each year 1942 & 1943. However a good deal of this was composite construction for coastal craft. If only the steel construction is used the figure is still 346,000 tons each year.

The 1944 breakdown of historical shipbuilding was as follows:

71,676 STS = 27 destroyers & 28 T-Boats [1,200,000 hp Turbine]
352,359 STS = 2,079 mini, 68 coastal, 115 Atlantic & 143 large U-boats [773,545 hp Generator & 1,026,501 hp Diesel]
34,259 tons, 5,000 tons NC & 27,247 tons Composite = 47 M-Boats & 23 G-boats [170,805 hp VTE]
74,324 tons Composite = 147 R/S-Boats & 327 KFK [691,803 hp Diesel]
163,790 tons Composite = 736 Landing Craft [384,690 hp Diesel & 117,320 hp Petrol]
10,000 STS & 4,838 tons armored steel = misc. work

STS = STS naval warship steel tonnage
NC = No cemented naval steel tonnage

This is almost 500,000 tons steel construction plus 250,000 tons composite construction. The figures for 1944 include the spring of 1945, since not much shipbuilding happened in 1945 due to the collapsing German war economy. Notational figures for 1945 & 1946 with out allies over running Europe, should be roughly the same as the 1944 figures.

The Maximum displacement for 1934-1944 is over 1,800,000 tons.

All figures are “maximum displacement” from Gröner’s “German Warships 1815-1945” and the following sites

http://www.navypedia.org/ships_index.htm
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/typy.php?lang ... =&stat=GER
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/index.html

Rossler "The U-Boat"
Nice tabulation!

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

Fuel consumptions

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 09 Apr 2011 02:46

Galahad wrote:Ships like Bismarck-Class and Hipper-Class did not use diesel fuel. Neither would the later battleships and cruisers. In any case, whatever the fuel, it would have had to come from someplace, and the armored forces and the Luftwaffe would all be drawing from the same base source for petroleum products
.
Italy was totally reliant on German for supplies of petroleum products in WW 2. Given Germany's problems in that line, the supply wasn't as generous as the Italians would have liked. And it DID have a considerable impact on fleet movements. After deductions for industry, air force needs and the amount needed to fuel the convoys sent to Africa to supply Rommel, there wasn't much left for extended fleet operations.

The problems are the same as were faced by the Japanese when they made the decision to go to war: a strictly limited supply of petroleum versus a given requirement per month, based on industrial, merchant marine and operational needs.
The Fuel consumption:
---2 x Bismarck-Class...15,800 tons Oil for 12,960 kms @ 19 knots
---5 x Hipper-Class...21,250 tons Oil for 10,880 kms @ 20 knots

source:
Hitler's War Machine
German Weapons of World War II

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

Raeder and Dönitz

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 09 Apr 2011 04:19

varjag wrote:When Hitler attained power in 1933 - he found himself saddled already, with Admiral Raeder as C-in-C of the Navy. As he understood little of naval matters he took his advice about his (Raeder's!) ideas about a balanced navy....Raeder was a crusty old 'battleship-man' of the Kaisers vein. His only positive contribution to Hitler's war was his insistence that they had to occupy Norway - for which he served time in Spandau.....By the time he replaced Raeder with Dönitz - it was too late. The 'Z-Plan' would only have led to the same 'battleship-race' as before 1914. A race Germany was (again) bound to loose.
Varjag
Just a comparison between Raeder's ideas and Dönitz's idea in outline format are:

For Raeder's Ideas: the old 'battleship-man'

1) The Invasion of Norway:
---Group 1 - Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and 10 destroyers
---Group 2 - Admiral Hipper and 4 destroyers
---Group 3 - Köln, Königsberg and Bremse
---Group 4 - Karlsruhe, Tsingtau
---Group 5 - Blücher, Lützow

2) The 'Z-Plan'
---6 battleships to be readt by 1944
---8 heavy cruisers, 4 by 1943 plus 4 by 1944
---4 aircraft carriers, 2 by 1941 plus 2 by 1947
---223 submarines, 128 by 1943 plus 195 by 1947

For Dönitz's Idea: only U-boats

3) U-Boats:
---705 x 865-ton Type VII C
---163 x 1,250-ton Type IX C
---118 (1,300 planned) x 1,650-ton Type XXI

As a General conclusion, by comparing the Raeder's and the Dönitz's Ideas, the shipping losses to December 1940 are as follows:

Shipping sunk by:
---U-boats...2,606,000 tons
---Surface Raiders...514,000 tons

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

149,500 sq. ft. of space

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 02:42

nebelwerferXXX wrote:What's the total cost estimates (roughly) in building the 1,150 ft x 130 ft Dry Dock 'Elbe 17'?
Dry Dock 'Elbe 17': Enough to dry-dock two x 42,000-ton Bismarck-Class battleships at most.

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

Middle deck details

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 07:18

DSC00198.JPG
Close-up plan view of the superstructure of the Bismarck...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by nebelwerferXXX on 10 Apr 2011 07:58, edited 4 times in total.

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

Details

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 07:22

DSC00189.JPG
Partial working design details of the Bismarck
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by nebelwerferXXX on 10 Apr 2011 07:56, edited 2 times in total.

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

Bismarck-Class battleship

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 07:28

DSC00192.JPG
Waterline Side Elevation Details
Top Plan Details
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Scharnhorst-Class battle-cruiser

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 07:44

DSC00185.JPG
Design details of the Scharnhorst
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

More details of the Bismarck

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 08:22

DSC00202.JPG
As usual, a battle-worthy ship

source:
German Weapons of World War II, Chris Bishop & Adam Warner, p. 37
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by nebelwerferXXX on 10 Apr 2011 12:01, edited 1 time in total.

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

Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Apr 2011 08:25

DSC00201.JPG
Another detail version of the Bismarck
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”