Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Postby alecsandros » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:40 am

Hard to say.

On a design basis, one could say a substantial tonnage was allocated to diesel fuel (2700 tons), while armor scheme was minimal (Deutschalnd - 80mm belt and up to 40mm armor deck). For Baltic domination, 1500 tons of fuel would have been more then enough, while allocating the rest of 1200 tons to armor would have made the ship far mroe resilient to gunfire.

However, the matter of a "direction of design and construction" existing for KGM ships in early 1930s is a complicated one, and I agree some designs may have "arived at" long range due to other constraints, not necessarily expecting long range convoy attack.

Nonetheless, the requirement to modernise the WW1 ships would imply modifications of machinery, which would be more economical , and could be provisioned for longer seaborne status...

Steve-M
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Postby Steve-M » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:20 pm

alecsandros wrote:On a design basis, one could say a substantial tonnage was allocated to diesel fuel (2700 tons), while armor scheme was minimal (Deutschalnd - 80mm belt and up to 40mm armor deck). For Baltic domination, 1500 tons of fuel would have been more then enough, while allocating the rest of 1200 tons to armor would have made the ship far mroe resilient to gunfire.

FYI, "standard displacement" as defined by WNT didn't include fuel.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Postby alecsandros » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:26 pm

Steve-M wrote:
alecsandros wrote:On a design basis, one could say a substantial tonnage was allocated to diesel fuel (2700 tons), while armor scheme was minimal (Deutschalnd - 80mm belt and up to 40mm armor deck). For Baltic domination, 1500 tons of fuel would have been more then enough, while allocating the rest of 1200 tons to armor would have made the ship far mroe resilient to gunfire.

FYI, "standard displacement" as defined by WNT didn't include fuel.

And cruiser displacement was restricted at 10.000 tons.

Steve-M
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Postby Steve-M » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:13 pm

alecsandros wrote:And cruiser displacement was restricted at 10.000 tons.

Displacement was limited to 10,000 tons, and armament was limited to 8" guns. As such, IMO an upgraded Panzerschiffe that are better protected against 8" gunfire would make some sense with respect to what Germany needed at the time. In their shoes, I'd skip the Hippers outright, and focus shipbuilding capacity in that direction. 6-8 such vessels roaming the seas would pose a grave threat to any convoy escorted by less than a BC/BB. Add in upgunned variants of S&G, and you've got vessels that can reliably take convoys escorted by the unmodernized R's as well.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Postby alecsandros » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:29 pm

A very interesting idea,
To which I completely agree. The HIpper's were more expensive and overall brought much less profit to KGM...

There is a very interesting discussion here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ept?page=1

concerning pocket battleship merits.

Best,


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest