Search this Topic:
Force H wrote:How about the Lyon class. How does your book rate them? Same sceem and all?
The Lyons were more or less bigger Normnadys with an additional turret. Now to the details and they are worse than I remembered.
Much worse. Compared to other contemporary BB
the Normandy class had a poor gun elevation, poor torpedo
protection, poor propulsion(direct drive turbines and VTE for speed and
endurance) and a PDN armour scheme designed for ranges of 6,000 to 8,000
meters. The Couberts took it with them from the Dantons and the following
classes were just bigger version of their predecessors. For these reasons the
Navy scrapped the 65% complete Normandys after the war.
construction ran into problems. Money was the least. The graving docks had been
short or too short even in 1910 and the industrial northeast had been a battleground.
The recovery delayed the laying down of the first new DD and CL to 1922 and the
completion was delayed because components like fire control could not be
supplied in time.
And if you
think: “1922 is ok, because … laid down new DD/cruiser even later.” Stop it
right there. The UK, USA and Japan had build cruiser and or DD
throughout the war. France did not. Not one was laid down.
They just completed a few small DD started before the war.
So the cruiser/DD situation was even worse then the BB.
Paul Lakowski wrote:I gather the Torpedoboot- Zerstroers did not handle the North Sea very well, which may explain the unpopularity.....mind you if that creates a shift to either GTB for short range coastal battles or Spähkreuzers for longer Atlantic escort action...might be worth it.
MBecker01 wrote:Paul Lakowski wrote:I gather the Torpedoboot- Zerstroers did not handle the North Sea very well, which may explain the unpopularity.....mind you if that creates a shift to either GTB for short range coastal battles or Spähkreuzers for longer Atlantic escort action...might be worth it.This ship?http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/ships/torpedoboats/torpedobootzerstorer/index.htmlThey were among the best if not the best DD Germany had at the start of the war. Almost everything else was very small und undergunned.
No more like this....
....supposedly this design spurned inter war development of the so called 'super destroyers' that Italy & France examined.
I also recall that USN dabbled in similar designs but referred to them as scout cruisers.
The key to the failure of German cruisers was lack of range. Most of the endurance was too limited. 3200nm will get you to Greenland and back, but that's about it. If the 1920s construction was invested in re boilering them from coal to oil, the endurance could double which would allow them to break out through the GIUK gap and a limited N Atlantic sortie [not including replenishment at sea].
Each capital ship would cost 5000t construction , while each CL should be more like 2500t conversion work. To convert the 14 Kreuzers & 5 Große Kreuzer should require about 60,000t construction work...however ~ 20,000t was historically done through the 1920s on the Linenschiffe and old Kreuzers...so actual cost might be limited to Emden + 4 of the five K/L class Kreuzers. That could limit actual warship construction to 4 x 14,000-15,000t PBS & 12 GTB 1923/23 [ or 16 more coastal TB @ 930t each].
120kt capital ships ----- all 3200-3300nm @ 18 knots or ~5000@ 14 kts
Von der Tann 19kt
71 kt Kreuzers--------- all endurance 3200-3400nm @ 18 knots or ~5000@ 12-14 knots
2 Koln 5.6 kt
4 Königsberg 5.4 kt
2 Brummer 4.4 kt
Frankfurt 5.2 kt
Pillau 4.4 kt
2 Strassburg 4.9kt
2 Karlsruhe 4.9 kt
9.200 t coastal defense 1000nm @ 17 kts or 2500-2800@ 12kts.
2 ½ flotilla each with 5 x V-25 TB class ~ 900 t [33-35kts & 3*4”L45 guns & 6 TT]
4 ½ flotilla each with 4 x V-1 / S138 TB class ~ 600 t [32knts & 1-2*4”L45 guns & + 4-3 TT]
20 ½ flotilla each with 5 x MBOOT 1916 Class ….600t [16kts & 2 * 88L45guns]
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.