Shipbucket https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/ |
|
Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6140 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Krakatoa [ June 18th, 2015, 1:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers. The 13.8" Derfflinger I did for Lothringen turned out so good I thought Germany had better have a couple for themselves. With the two Derfflinger class (Derfflinger & Lutzow) under construction the next step for the High Seas Fleet was to match the later Lion and Tiger class ships that were under construction for the RN. The quickest way to continue to build more ships was to keep the same hull and dimensions and increase the armament size. The Derfflinger was armed with 8x12", the new ships were to be armed with 6x13.8". The two ships Hindenburg and Yorck were completed in 1916 just in time to join the HSF's assault on its jailer. With the end of WW1 and the bite of the Versailles Treaty, Germany was allowed to keep two modern capital ship to counter the Soviet ships at Leningrad. The two Hindenburgs were the ships of choice. The two ships passed the inter-war years showing the flag and taking endless drills in the Baltic to ensure the Soviets knew they were there and waiting for them. In 1938 with the completion of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau the KM ordered the upgrading of the two old ships into modern looking capital ships. A lot of work was done to the ships to improve them. New deck armour, clipper bow, propulsion systems, dual purpose secondaries, lesser AA armaments. It was deemed that the ships did not have enough space to fit aviation facilities. The thought had been to fit a catapult on turret Caesar with one aircraft, but there would have been no service facilities and recovering the aircraft would have been a problem. The secondary armament of 16x4.1" on the tri-axial mountings was used as a dual purpose weapon even though it was thought to be too light to act as an anti-destroyer weapon. It was the lack of space between Bruno and Caesar turrets for everything that the KM would have liked to fit aboard that led to the lighter secondaries and no aircraft. For those who think the 4.1" on its own may not be enough - here is a 5.9"/4.1" combination layout, with an aircraft. |
Author: | eltf177 [ June 18th, 2015, 10:37 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
These are very nice! |
Author: | waritem [ June 18th, 2015, 2:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
There seems to be a underwater torpedo tube. Shouldn't it be removed in the upgrade? |
Author: | JSB [ June 18th, 2015, 5:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
Very nice the admiralties worse nightmare . But would aircraft not fit if you move the mast ? and would be very useful for finding convoys or just spotting fall of shot. Maybe remove the under water TTs and 4.1 would IMO never be accepted even if they make sense with hindsight. |
Author: | Krakatoa [ June 18th, 2015, 6:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
Thanks Waritem I had forgotten it. Removed. JSB: I had thought of that, but that meant removing all those nice rigging lines and then replacing them - which is a bitch to do around the superstructure. The Germans unfortunately used a version of the same 135,000shp propulsion plant fitted in the Hippers for the Hindenburgs. Leaving them with an impressive 30 knot speed but also with the mechanical problems and short range of the Hippers. Whenever they were sent out they needed to be accompanied by ships with aircraft and a tug.... |
Author: | Cybermax [ June 18th, 2015, 9:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
Great work the upgrade. She's a beauty! |
Author: | Krakatoa [ June 19th, 2015, 2:04 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
For those who think the 4.1" on its own may not be enough - here is a 5.9"/4.1" combination layout, with an aircraft. A question for those with the German resources, Is it possible to put a 10 year improved diesel installation of about 90-100,000bhp in? 95 feet of breadth to play with. That would give long range and about 28 knots. |
Author: | Hood [ June 19th, 2015, 7:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
I like the 5.9/4.1 mix version very much. Like a super-panzerschiffe and had they been built too, the similar silhouette would have been a great advantage for both classes. |
Author: | Dilandu [ June 19th, 2015, 2:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 |
The ships are good, but the background... Extremely unlikely. Modern battlecruisers in the hands of Germany would be the constan threat to the French and British navy; actually, any battlecruisers would. They are hard to counter by anything other than your own battlecruiser - and France have none at all, while the Britain have unsufficiently number to protect their communications from the german ships in case of new war. |
Author: | JSB [ June 19th, 2015, 5:15 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: Hindenburg Class Battlecruisers 1916-1940 | |
The ships are good, but the background... Extremely unlikely. Modern battlecruisers in the hands of Germany would be the constan threat to the French and British navy; actually, any battlecruisers would. They are hard to counter by anything other than your own battlecruiser - and France have none at all, while the Britain have unsufficiently number to protect their communications from the german ships in case of new war.
Yes but they do look good even if RN would allow the HSF to keep any other ships (even 15' BBs before a set of fast BCs).
|
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |