Deuchland Class Panzerschiffs real displacement.

[ramontxo]

Has anyone here good data on that? According to Wiki they range from 10770 tons to 12540 (data which seems to came from the Naval Encyclopedia). If true it is near the stated displacement (at least the first one). I suppose that being designed in the Weimar era may make a difference. 

Anyway thanks in advance 

[sunday]

4 minutes ago, ramontxo said:

Has anyone here good data on that? According to Wiki they range from 10770 tons to 12540 (data which seems to came from the Naval Encyclopedia). If true it is near the stated displacement (at least the first one). I suppose that being designed in the Weimar era may make a difference. 

Anyway thanks in advance 

Cheating too, like considering the displacement with tricks like half fuel or no ammo aboard.

[ramontxo]

So I supposed. Thanks. 

[RETAC21]

38 minutes ago, ramontxo said:

Has anyone here good data on that? According to Wiki they range from 10770 tons to 12540 (data which seems to came from the Naval Encyclopedia). If true it is near the stated displacement (at least the first one). I suppose that being designed in the Weimar era may make a difference. 

Anyway thanks in advance 

The ships grew slightly from Deutchsland to Graf Spee, the lower weights being standard, the larger ones the full load data:

Deutschland: 10.600 tons standard; 14.290 fully loaded

Scheer: 11.550 standard tons; 13.660 fully loaded

Graf Spee: 12.340 standard tons; 16.020 fully loaded 

The difference between the 2 means that Scheer carried slightly less fuel, and according to the wiki, endurance of Deutschland was 10.000 nautical miles vs 9.100 at 20 knots.

[ramontxo]

Thanks so the data is real? Thanks for your answer 

[R011]

As I understand it, the official standard dispolacement was claimed to be 10,000 tons.  This was suspected by non-German inteligence agencies to be somewhat low and it was.  The real displacement wasn't known outside the German Navy until after the war. 

[DougRichards]

This can really only be discussed also in the context of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (meant to be 'developments of the Panzerschiff)   Were these ships super heavy cruisers?  Light battleships?  Or some form of battlecruiser?  The discussion must also be as to their role.    They could be considered to be heavy commerce raiders, or ships able to support real battleships. 

They had to run, or be destroyed, when faced with real battleships, or battlecruisers.  If the Kreigsmarine had developed carriers then these two ships would have been good escorts, but absent of carriers they were really out of place in terms of any useful role. 

Which leads of course to the Alaska Class.  A brawl between the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and two Alaska Class would be interesting.  The German ships having heavier armour but the USN ships have heavier guns and more advanced fire control.  Somehow I cannot see the German ships torpedo tubes coming into play.

[R011]

3 minutes ago, DougRichards said:

This can really only be discussed also in the context of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (meant to be 'developments of the Panzerschiff)   Were these ships super heavy cruisers?  Light battleships?  Or some form of battlecruiser?  The discussion must also be as to their role.    They could be considered to be heavy commerce raiders, or ships able to support real battleships. 

They had to run, or be destroyed, when faced with real battleships, or battlecruisers.  If the Kreigsmarine had developed carriers then these two ships would have been good escorts, but absent of carriers they were really out of place in terms of any useful role. 

Which leads of course to the Alaska Class.  A brawl between the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and two Alaska Class would be interesting.  The German ships having heavier armour but the USN ships have heavier guns and more advanced fire control.  Somehow I cannot see the German ships torpedo tubes coming into play.

The German Navy called them battleships.  The RN called them battle cruisers due to their speed and comparative lightness.  The Germans essentially took a battleship design and shrunk it, while the Alaska large cruisers were evolved from interwar American light cruisers.

They were the biggest ships the Germans could build at that time - starter ships if you will intended to be part of a battleline of larger battleships.  Of the RN capital ships, only the three battle cruisers could force them to battle until the KGVs were completed years later.  They were as good or better than any French or Soviet capital ships until the Richelieu was completed well after the KGV.  By the time those nominally 35 K ton ships were built, the Germans would have commissioned or be about to commission the two Bismarcks.

[DougRichards]

The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could have been armed with the same turrets as later fitted to the Bismarck class, and indeed there were plans to do so, which came to nought.  They still would have been light battleships, and been vulnerable.  The RN had a shortage of 'Treaty Cruisers' but if push came to shove a squadron of 8" treaty cruisers could have caused the   "Salmon" and "Gluckstein"  (nick named after a chain of British tobacconists)  some major problems, particularly if the RN cruisers had decent air support.      

[Ssnake]

I vill not buy zis record; it is skratched!

[EchoFiveMike]

Given that Graf Spee handled 3 British cruisers, while being fought very cautiously, I don't see that turning out well for the British.  

Anyone know why the Germans retreated to 28cm from the quite good WW1 30.5cm L50?  Was it treaty obligation?  They're giving up almost 100kg shell weight, and the 30.5cm shell was reportedly a very competent design.  S/F....Ken M

[DougRichards]

The Exeter was a 'light' heavy cruiser, yes, 8" guns but only six of them.  (The County Class had eight 8" guns), and the two others at the River Plate were 6" cruisers.   

[BansheeOne]

9 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Anyone know why the Germans retreated to 28cm from the quite good WW1 30.5cm L50?  Was it treaty obligation?  They're giving up almost 100kg shell weight, and the 30.5cm shell was reportedly a very competent design.  S/F....Ken M

Everything in the design was a compromise to stay approximately within the 10,000-ts limit. Several variants were considered, some of which would have carried either four 38 or six 30,5 cm guns with an armored belt of 250 mm at a speed of 18 knots, or of 200 mm at 21 knots. 28 cm and light armor for higher speed were eventually chosen in part to not provoke other powers, but also because navy chief Hans Zenker thought that within the given limitations, a battlecruiser-approach of a ship able to outgun slower and outrun more powerful ships was the best solution.

[RETAC21]

30 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Everything in the design was a compromise to stay approximately within the 10,000-ts limit. Several variants were considered, some of which would have carried either four 38 or six 30,5 cm guns with an armored belt of 250 mm at a speed of 18 knots, or of 200 mm at 21 knots. 28 cm and light armor for higher speed were eventually chosen in part to not provoke other powers, but also because navy chief Hans Zenker thought that within the given limitations, a battlecruiser-approach of a ship able to outgun slower and outrun more powerful ships was the best solution.

And the 38cm gun wasn't ready when Scharnhorst and Gneisenau entered service, but 4 turrets were being built (one for the USSR) for Gneisenau before she was damaged.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

[glenn239]

7 hours ago, DougRichards said:

The discussion must also be as to their role.    They could be considered to be heavy commerce raiders, or ships able to support real battleships. 

They were commerce raiders capable of outrunning or outgunning all Anglo-French warships afloat, except for a few battlecruiser types and the aircraft carriers.  Similar in concept to the first American frigates.

Edited November 19, 2022 by glenn239

[R011]

8 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Everything in the design was a compromise to stay approximately within the 10,000-ts limit. Several variants were considered, some of which would have carried either four 38 or six 30,5 cm guns with an armored belt of 250 mm at a speed of 18 knots, or of 200 mm at 21 knots. 28 cm and light armor for higher speed were eventually chosen in part to not provoke other powers, but also because navy chief Hans Zenker thought that within the given limitations, a battlecruiser-approach of a ship able to outgun slower and outrun more powerful ships was the best solution.

The Allied control commission limited Germany to 28 cm guns in the twenties.  They weren't officially free of that regime until 1935 and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement - though by that time Hitler had or was about to renounce Versailles anyway.

The Deutschlands were intended to replace the few 28 cm armed pre-dreadnought battleships permitted after the War.  The Allies had written the requirements so as to limit Germany to coastal defence ships like some other Baltic navies had.  Instead, the Germans built a class of long range cruisers.

Edited November 19, 2022 by R011

[EchoFiveMike]

Thanks, I was speaking more towards Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which had different guns and shells anyways.  S/F...Ken M