Plan Z

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 16 Nov 2010 04:02

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Steel Allocation: Plan Z

(a) Six x 56,000-ton battleships...336,000 tons
(b) Two x 42,000-ton battleships...84,000 tons
(c) Three x 32,000-ton battle-cruisers...96,000 tons
(d) Three x 12,000-ton pocket-battleships...36,000 tons
(e) Two x 30,000-ton aircraft-carriers...60,000 tons
(f) Five x 10,000-ton '8-inch gun' heavy cruisers...50,000 tons
(g) Forty-four x 10,000-ton '6-inch gun' light cruisers...440,000 tons
(h) Sixty-eight x 2,500-ton destroyers...170,000 tons
(i) ninety x 800-ton torpedo-boats...72,000 tons
(j) 249 x 750-ton U-boats...186,750 tons
_________________________________________________
T O T A L : 1,530,750 tons

sources:
Hitler's high sea fleet
Encyclopedia of World War II
This fails on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
1.) Just because a ship has a standard displacement of XXXXX tons, does not mean that it is all steel. HINT - Look up the definition for standard displacement. Also along those lines, there are several types of steel that will be needed for construction of a warship. Heck, paint alone adds some 30 tons to a battleship, and the crew might be another 200-230 tons. The there are such things as drinking water, food(provisions), electrical cable, timber, ammunition, etc.
2.) This list does not mention the 12 "P" class Panzerschiffs of 23,000-24,000 tons.
3.) In your other iterations of the German Z-Plan there were to have been 4 carriers, you now only mention two
4.) Standard displacement of the 5 Hipper class heavy cruisers was around 14,000 tons. 10,000 tons was Nazi Germany's "official" line so that the cruisers would not appear to be grossly in violation of naval treaty limits.

Again, nebelwerferXXX, I strongly urge you to educate yourself in German naval matters before posting...

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

US War Potential

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 16 Nov 2010 07:30

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Material Requirements: Plan Z

CAPITAL SHIPS:
(a) Six x 56,000-ton battleships...336,000 tons
(b) Two x 42,000-ton battleships...84,000 tons
(c) Three x 32,000-ton battle-cruisers...96,000 tons
(d) Three x 12,000-ton pocket-battleships...36,000 tons
(e) Four x 30,000-ton aircraft-carriers...120,000 tons

SMALLER SHIPS:
(f) Five x 10,000-ton '8-inch gun' heavy cruisers...50,000 tons
(g) 44 x 10,000-ton '6-inch gun' light cruisers...440,000 tons
(h) 68 x 2,500-ton destroyers...170,000 tons
(i) 90 x 800-ton torpedo-boats...72,000 tons
(j) 249 x 750-ton U-boats...186,750 tons
_________________________________________________
T O T A L : 1,590,750 tons of construction shipbuilding materials

note: All weights were standard displacement

sources:
Hitler's high sea fleet
Encyclopedia of World War II
The United States warship and merchant ship building industries alone can build 30 times of this Plan Z total.

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 16 Nov 2010 14:09

What does this have to do with anything???

The 30+ million tons of merchant shipping built is based on Gross Registered Tons(GRT) and not the ship's actual standard displacement, as is done for warships.

US production of warships was close to or slightly over 4 million tons, as opposed to Germany's 1.9 million ton "Z-Plan"

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 16 Nov 2010 14:45

Just a comparison between the US War Potential -vs- the Plan Z.

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 16 Nov 2010 15:43

No, it is meaningless bits of data strung together as if there is some kind of relationship between them. A comparison between "Plan Z" would have been to post just the US production of warships, as you have provided no information with which to compare German construction of merchant ships to US construction of merchant ships, nor have you provided any useful information to compare the two countries' warship production. So, you can't begin to compare the two totals or draw any conclusions from the data, since you are MISSING the necessary information.

Did the US build thirty times more warship tonnage than the German "Z-Plan"? Far from it! But, nobody will know that given the information you have provided....

Did the US build thirty times more merchant tonnage than Germany? Unknown, since you have not produced any evidence of German merchant production.

Thus, you can make no comparison between the numbers you have provided!

If you want to compare warmaking potential, THEN DO SO! The numbers are easy enough to find on the internet...

From http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Country----------------% of Total Warmaking Potential
United States------------41.7%
Germany-----------------14.4%
USSR---------------------14.0%
UK------------------------10.2%
France--------------------4.2%
Japan---------------------3.5%
Italy-----------------------2.5%
Seven Powers (total)--(90.5%)

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

The 34,622,000 registered tons of US merchant shipping

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 16 Nov 2010 16:46

Takao wrote:No, it is meaningless bits of data strung together as if there is some kind of relationship between them. A comparison between "Plan Z" would have been to post just the US production of warships, as you have provided no information with which to compare German construction of merchant ships to US construction of merchant ships, nor have you provided any useful information to compare the two countries' warship production. So, you can't begin to compare the two totals or draw any conclusions from the data, since you are MISSING the necessary information.

Did the US build thirty times more warship tonnage than the German "Z-Plan"? Far from it! But, nobody will know that given the information you have provided....

Did the US build thirty times more merchant tonnage than Germany? Unknown, since you have not produced any evidence of German merchant production.

Thus, you can make no comparison between the numbers you have provided!

If you want to compare war making potential, THEN DO SO! The numbers are easy enough to find on the internet...

From http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Country----------------% of Total War making Potential
United States------------41.7%
Germany-----------------14.4%
USSR---------------------14.0%
UK------------------------10.2%
France--------------------4.2%
Japan---------------------3.5%
Italy-----------------------2.5%
Seven Powers (total)--(90.5%)
Takao...That's what I am waiting for.

US Merchant Ships: New Construction in registered tons.
1939 - 101,000 tons
1940 - 439,000 tons
1941 - 1,169,000 tons
1942 - 5,339,000 tons
1943 - 12,384,000 tons
1944 - 11,639,000 tons
1945 - 3,551,000 tons
___________________
Total: 34,622,000 tons of US merchant shipping

source:
Atlas of World History, volume 2

You want also the British new construction? Next post. Okay?

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 16 Nov 2010 17:21

It's Gross Registered Tons or GRT, not registered tons.

It would be more helpful if you posted any construction numbers for German merchant tonnage, rather than wasting time posting British construction numbers. After all, your not comparing the Americans to the Brits, your comparing the Americans to the Germans...

Edit: I'll save you the time for the British, they built around 6.3-6.5 million tons (GRT) of merchant ships during WW2.

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 16 Nov 2010 17:46

For more on German merchant shipping see this old thread
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=70974

For German merchant construction, number of bottoms, not tonnage I send you to this response in the same thread.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 15#p784884

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Nov 2010 10:08

Takao wrote:For more on German merchant shipping see this old thread
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=70974

For German merchant construction, number of bottoms, not tonnage I send you to this response in the same thread.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 15#p784884
Takao...Thanks!

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Plan Z

Post by bf109 emil » 18 Nov 2010 21:04

Where would Canada fall into this ration of shipbuilding as Canada

There were 348, ten thousand-ton, merchant ships built in Canada during the war. Large and relatively slow, but reliable and easily adapted to a variety of cargoes, these ships and those who sailed on them ensured the delivery of much of Canada’s war production.

[b/]
* Canadian shipyards built 4,047 naval vessels
* Built 300 anti-submarine warships
* 4 Tribal class destroyers
* 410 cargo ships
[/b]
http://wwii.ca/content-17/world-war-ii/ ... -industry/

I had read somewhere that Canada ended the war with the 3rd largest Navy in the World behind USA and Great Britain and the 4th Largest air force behind that of USA, GB and the Soviet Union, yet i do not see them listed in the tonnage produced or manufactured in the above countries!

here is a list of warships made or produced in Canada showing the number of each class made...note even 2 aircraft escort carriers where produced 8O http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/

Takao and Nebelwerferxxx.... this might be of some interest showing the USA emergency list of shipbuilding yards during WW1 and WW2...intersting in the number which where made availablehttp://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/ ... rgency.htm as well as the number of shipyards used or made in Canada in WW2http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/canada.htmshowing (now inactive boat builders currently) and a list of 240 other shipyards used for manufacturing in Canada during WW2

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5329
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Plan Z

Post by Ironmachine » 18 Nov 2010 21:49

here is a list of warships made or produced in Canada showing the number of each class made...note even 2 aircraft escort carriers where produced http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/
Actually this is not a list of warships made in Canada, but of warships commissioned in the Canadian Navy. For example, the 2 escort carriers were made in the United States.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Plan Z

Post by bf109 emil » 18 Nov 2010 22:46

Ironmachine wrote:
here is a list of warships made or produced in Canada showing the number of each class made...note even 2 aircraft escort carriers where produced http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/
Actually this is not a list of warships made in Canada, but of warships commissioned in the Canadian Navy. For example, the 2 escort carriers were made in the United States.
your right thank you Iron as the 2 escort carriers where made in the USA...

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by Takao » 19 Nov 2010 01:38

I don't think anyone will argue that Canada didn't build a lot of naval vessels. Unfortunately, almost all of them of the smaller ASW and escort types.(corvettes, minesweepers, frigates, etc.) The largest vessels built in Canadian yards were the 4 Tribal class destroyers, HMCS Micmac, HMCS Nootka, HMCS, Cayuga, and HMCS Athabaskan. However, none of these destroyers would be commissioned before the war ended on September 2, 1945 (the HMCS Micmac, laid down on May 20th, 1942, would not be commissioned until 18th September 1945). All of the larger warships in the Canadian Navy came from British or US yards.

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by LWD » 19 Nov 2010 12:57

On the otherhand didn't a fair number of Canadian built ships end up serving in the RN?

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

Re: Plan Z

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 07 Dec 2010 05:00

Were the O-Class battle-cruisers were also similar to the Scharnhorst-Class battle-cruisers?

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”