Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VC381

Roon and Hindenburg design

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,166 battles

Am I the only one who finds WGs made-up cruisers for the German top tiers really lazy and nonsensical?

 

To be clear, I'm not talking about in game power/performance. I'm sure these ships are fine in that sense. I haven't played them but they look strong. I don't have a problem there. My only issue is their visual design.

 

I kind of accept that WG needed to make up ships at these tiers, since the historical post-Hipper cruiser designs e.g. P-class would have been very awkward to implement with their 6x 280mm armament. Having said that, we now have 220mm, 230mm and 305mm armed cruisers at T10 so probably it would have worked and if the German line was introduced today I think it would look very different.

 

Anyway these ships exist, they are fun to play, they perform fine as traditional 203mm heavy cruisers. I'm not proposing to replace them. But, as I said, I find their design really lazy given how many visual elements from known projects they just fail to use. For example:

 

- German ship design switched to diesel or part diesel propulsion. Basically all large ships designed after 1939 had 2 funnels. Roon and Hindenburg should have 2 funnels (just like FdG and GK).

 

- German hull design was quite boring and cruisers/BBs shared a very similar shape. Fine, but the P-class had a transom (square) stern. Hindenburg at least should have had this feature, and overall a hull shape more like the P-class not just Hipper hull enlarged +20%.

 

- also on hull, Roon is flush-decked but this makes no sense with her turret arrangement. They could lower the aft deck and make her actually more like Nurnberg if that was the idea.

 

- Hindenburg has an open bridge platform even though every other German ship had windows there, including those e.g. Hipper that weren't built like thay. Come on, rookie mistake. Seydlitz (incomplete Hipper class) had a different bridge with a bigger enclosed lower section and no upper platform. Why not use this?

 

- Roon bridge is trying too hard to copy Nurnberg design but just looks messy and out of place. They could take elements of O-class bridge to make something that looks still chunky and imposing but more in line with the other high tier German ships.

 

As I said I'm not proposing replacing the ships. Well, not completely. Do you think it would be possible to give these ships new 3D models with better design in a way that does not affect gameplay at all? Leave same guns, armour, all stats unchanged. Just make visual improvements so these ships look more like the cruisers Germany actually designed in the 1940s, and might have built in the Z-plan.

 

What do you think?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,571 posts
4,788 battles

I think you are right that they are lazy designs.

 

Hindenburg is kind of okay for me visually as she is just a “Super-Eugen” - lazy but ok.

 

I nevertheless I think WG should replace both with two of the following designs:

 

- D-Class

- D-Class with quad turrets 

- P-Class

- BC project 1928

 

You could further argue about placing Deutschland at T7.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,166 battles
17 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I think you are right that they are lazy designs.

 

Hindenburg is kind of okay for me visually as she is just a “Super-Eugen” - lazy but ok.

 

I nevertheless I think WG should replace both with two of the following designs:

 

- D-Class

- D-Class with quad turrets 

- P-Class

- BC project 1928

 

You could further argue about placing Deutschland at T7.

 

I respect your opinion as always Major and in a sense I agree, but I don't want to make this thread about completely replacing the ships because a) it will never happen and b) it would upset a lot of people who like the ships as they are.

 

That's why I want this thread to just focus on visuals as that's a proposal I think can be met more openly by all sides, not derail to full replacement ideas please :Smile_Default:

 

E.g. if Hindenburg was basically a P-class with 4x3 203mm, no gameplay change just visual. Like this (add torps and AA to make it exactly the same as we have now):

 

p_class_heavy_cruiser_version_2_by_tzoli

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,571 posts
4,788 battles
1 hour ago, VC381 said:

 

I respect your opinion as always Major and in a sense I agree, but I don't want to make this thread about completely replacing the ships because a) it will never happen and b) it would upset a lot of people who like the ships as they are.

 

That's why I want this thread to just focus on visuals as that's a proposal I think can be met more openly by all sides, not derail to full replacement ideas please :Smile_Default:

 

E.g. if Hindenburg was basically a P-class with 4x3 203mm, no gameplay change just visual. Like this (add torps and AA to make it exactly the same as we have now):

 

p_class_heavy_cruiser_version_2_by_tzoli

 

 

 

Ah I see mate.

 

Then please disregard my previous comment. Issue with sticking 100% to visuals is that the gun layout on Roon doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t fit into German Naval Architecture of that time. So I guess you need to leave her as pointless as she is (while still good fun!) - unless you are willing to slightly alter the main gun arrangement into 2x4. In that case you could turn her into a D-Class look-alike but that would slightly change her playstyle.

 

For Hindenburg I honestly don’t see a big need to change her visuals - I even kind of like her (and kept her in game). I mean - you could turn her into some kind of P-Class thingy as you posted - that would certainly work and look good - but I personally would prefer a proper P-Class with big guns in a parallel Panzercruiser line in that case.

 

EDIT: one though I had though when I first played Roon a while ago was it would be awesome to turn her into a more old fashioned design (considering the gun placement). I am thinking of the design elements from the 1920s (think of Emden, BC1928, early Deutschland) with either a slim, tall pole mast or even a tripod, more elegant hull and a more straight bow :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,196 posts
4,348 battles
6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You could further argue about placing Deutschland at T7.

Graf spee is already at tier 6 though. And even there it is basically a weirdo boat that manages to be okish and balanced. at T7, what would this ship even get to not be utter crap? I think Yorck is pretty ok for T7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
2,728 posts
9,874 battles
4 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

I think Yorck is pretty ok for T7.

I think Yorck should have its AP drag normalized so it can hit people over 10km...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,196 posts
4,348 battles
1 minute ago, Aragathor said:

I think Yorck should have its AP drag normalized so it can hit people over 10km...

Dunno, even without, it fares decently well. And some cruisers you can citadel even from 13 km away if you hit (e.g. Shchors...). If you want to buff the Yorck, I'd rather go for a 25 mm bow, just to make it a mini-Hipper and more different from Algerie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RUFL]
Players
112 posts
3,608 battles

While I agree 100% with the OP, the chances of any changes happening are close to zero. In a recent Q&A someone asked about the possibility of the Izumo model being reworked. While the devs acknowledge Izumo to be in dire need of a rework (it was the very first paper ship design) they stated that due to ressource allocation this is very low priority. I do welcome this topic, however, since I would love the higher tier KM ships to be more of a logical extrapolation within the historical perspective.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,166 battles
2 hours ago, Jagod said:

In a recent Q&A someone asked about the possibility of the Izumo model being reworked. While the devs acknowledge Izumo to be in dire need of a rework (it was the very first paper ship design) they stated that due to ressource allocation this is very low priority.

This makes sense to an extent, but if you look at e.g. League of Legends they are constantly doing full re-works on old champions alongside new content. It would be cool if priorities did shift as I agree there are more ships (like Izumo) that could benefit from being re-designed using a more current perspective of how the game works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,571 posts
4,788 battles

I gave this one another thought and I agree with VC that these ships could need a refresher.

 

I need to get one OT off here before I touch on the visuals. Both Roon and Hindenburg are a little long in the teeth by no - a very welcome refresher - gameplay wise - would be a second gun option in parallel to the current ones. Give Roon the choice for 2x3 (A-X) 283mm and Hindenburg 4x2 (A-B-X-Y) 283mm und have them choose between good 20cm DPM or good 28cm Alpha. This would give them a new facet to explore and make both essential newly interesting. OT off.

 

Now with regards to visuals it would be nice to have a second funnel on Hindenburg indeed. That is pretty much all she would need - maybe a slightly longer hull but the overall design is kind of ok. However two funnels would be a more credible choice. 

 

Roon though... well. A transom stern, some more P-class style on the superstructure - maybe that. I just have a big problem with the turret placement and the combination of 15cm and 20cm guns - but that could only be solved if we give her a second armament Option as mentioned above. Hell even 2x4 of the current 20cm guns would make the ship look less wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,579 posts
3,385 battles

since i dont have Hindenburg i never noticed, but agree that she should have enclosed admiral's bridge as both Hippers and Scharnhorst had that feature by the end of the war.

My longlasting issue with Hindeburg is that 55mm zwilling blocking the view from navigational bridge and the one on the tip of the bow would be in 85% sea conditions probably unusable. It doesnt even have any protection against waves. Looks very weird there.

 

regarding Roon - i dont have a problem with her armament layout. I kinda like it. I believe I saw somewhere similar german design, but maybe im mistaken. However the P-class itself has that superfiring 150mm turret above 283mm. So maybe thats why it doesnt look strange to me.

 

regarding you suggestion @1MajorKoenig about switchable 283 for 203. I would rather not see that for Roon or Hindenburg as I hope we will see D-class and P-class in the game eventually. They would nicely complement current supercruiser trend.

...also is there even design for twin 283mm turret?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
700 posts
5,290 battles

Both ships look very german. I think WG did an excellent work flavoring their looks and evolving them according to what german ships used to look like. Namely: oversized for their task but absolute beauties to look at.

the only non-german thing in those ships is the use of triple turrets. Germans disliked them for whatever reason (there are many different reasons found in the sources, none of them seems to be definitive), as it's proven by the fact that their two classes that fielded them (the "K" light cruisers, nurenberg included, and the Twins) did so because of design compromises (in the light cruisers to max out firepower in very limited displacement, in the Scharnhorst...well, because that poor class was subjected to all kind of stupid design decisions and one of them was to fit them with 11 inch guns. 6x280mm guns in a ship that size would've been a laughingstock so, yeah, triples).

None of the "H" iterations even made the slightest consideration to the use of triple turrets beyond discarding them. Ditto with the planned "large cruisers". GK is just an invention, the Koenigsberg class was an epic fail unlikely to have been used as a base for a bigger ship (Roon), and Hindenburg is pretty much an invention through and through, but even then given the german distaste for triples it's hard to believe anything designed by the kriegsmarine would've had a main battery that looked like that.

 

 

I for one however am glad they went that way. Those guns are VERY good and are mounted in (IMO) very good ship hulls. I highly doubt I'd think the same had any of the "large cruiser" german projects' guns, had any of them been included as part of the german tree high tiers.

 

I don't know what people really expect out of what they wish for but the "O", "P", and "Q" "cruisers" were known in the Kriegsmarine design bureau as "Ohne Panzer Quatsch". Which translates, more or less into "Unarmored stupidity". The very same people who designed them thought them as next to worthless (they had no say in the requirements and demands from the high echelons they had to fullfit). And damn right they were. On the 4000 less tons of standard displacement than USS Alabama and an even bigger size (the ship was 25% longer, for crying out loud) the germans managed to cram in...six 380mm guns, half a dozen 150mms, and eight 105mms, with enough armor on the ship to (barely) keep it safe from 203mm guns. Compare that with the 9x406mms, 20x127mms and the legion of light AAA the South Dakota class sported, on a ship designed to offer a decent degree of protection against her own (superheavy 406mm shell) guns, and with a proper torpedo defence system to boot.

That's just horrendous.

 

To say they had paper armor is an overstatement, to say they were massively undergunned for their size, an understatement. Their AAA sucked balls, their secondaries woud've been considered insufficient for ships half their displacement, their main battery a complete overkill for cruiser tasks yet woefully underwhelming for ships of their displacement, their armor could be qualified as paper if it wasn't for paper having more consistency; those abominations if ever built would've made the Renown class look good. And -THAT- is quite the achievement, though not exactly in the positive sense.

 

That there are people who want to see them here, and even worse, pitted against Alaskas or Kronshtadts or Stalingrads...hell or even Des Moines or Hindenburgs, really rattles my brain. But I guess people are free to wish for whatever they want ;).

 

/edit: and no, there was no german twin 280mm mount designed since the time Seydlitz was designed pre-WW1.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,571 posts
4,788 battles
2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Both ships look very german. I think WG did an excellent work flavoring their looks and evolving them according to what german ships used to look like. Namely: oversized for their task but absolute beauties to look at.

the only non-german thing in those ships is the use of triple turrets. Germans disliked them for whatever reason (there are many different reasons found in the sources, none of them seems to be definitive), as it's proven by the fact that their two classes that fielded them (the "K" light cruisers, nurenberg included, and the Twins) did so because of design compromises (in the light cruisers to max out firepower in very limited displacement, in the Scharnhorst...well, because that poor class was subjected to all kind of stupid design decisions and one of them was to fit them with 11 inch guns. 6x280mm guns in a ship that size would've been a laughingstock so, yeah, triples).

None of the "H" iterations even made the slightest consideration to the use of triple turrets beyond discarding them. Ditto with the planned "large cruisers". GK is just an invention, the Koenigsberg class was an epic fail unlikely to have been used as a base for a bigger ship (Roon), and Hindenburg is pretty much an invention through and through, but even then given the german distaste for triples it's hard to believe anything designed by the kriegsmarine would've had a main battery that looked like that.

 

 

I for one however am glad they went that way. Those guns are VERY good and are mounted in (IMO) very good ship hulls. I highly doubt I'd think the same had any of the "large cruiser" german projects' guns, had any of them been included as part of the german tree high tiers.

 

I don't know what people really expect out of what they wish for but the "O", "P", and "Q" "cruisers" were known in the Kriegsmarine design bureau as "Ohne Panzer Quatsch". Which translates, more or less into "Unarmored stupidity". The very same people who designed them thought them as next to worthless (they had no say in the requirements and demands from the high echelons they had to fullfit). And damn right they were. On the 4000 less tons of standard displacement than USS Alabama and an even bigger size (the ship was 25% longer, for crying out loud) the germans managed to cram in...six 380mm guns, half a dozen 150mms, and eight 105mms, with enough armor on the ship to (barely) keep it safe from 203mm guns. Compare that with the 9x406mms, 20x127mms and the legion of light AAA the South Dakota class sported, on a ship designed to offer a decent degree of protection against her own (superheavy 406mm shell) guns, and with a proper torpedo defence system to boot.

That's just horrendous.

 

To say they had paper armor is an overstatement, to say they were massively undergunned for their size, an understatement. Their AAA sucked balls, their secondaries woud've been considered insufficient for ships half their displacement, their main battery a complete overkill for cruiser tasks yet woefully underwhelming for ships of their displacement, their armor could be qualified as paper if it wasn't for paper having more consistency; those abominations if ever built would've made the Renown class look good. And -THAT- is quite the achievement, though not exactly in the positive sense.

 

That there are people who want to see them here, and even worse, pitted against Alaskas or Kronshtadts or Stalingrads...hell or even Des Moines or Hindenburgs, really rattles my brain. But I guess people are free to wish for whatever they want ;).

 

/edit: and no, there was no german twin 280mm mount designed since the time Seydlitz was designed pre-WW1.

 

Ok a couple of points here:

 

- “Germans disliked tripple turrets”: nope but German Designers we’re keen on a relative luxury gap between barrels (to avoid accuracy problems with tight barrels). That in turn lead to very large turret designs - couple that with the risk of loosing three guns in a lucky shot and you know why Germany didn’t go for large caliber triples (German Navies - no matter the time were largely conservative forces)

 

- “O-Class is Ohne-Panzer-Quatsch”: read the full concept in the “Heye Denkschrift” and you might understand. Problem was - if not implemented in full the individual parts were mostly useless 

 

- “Scharnhorst used only 283mm guns”: yes but strictly for political reasons 

 

- and last but by far best: “BOTH SHIPS LOOK GERMAN AN WG DID A GOOD JOB”: GO HOME!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,571 posts
4,788 battles
3 hours ago, puxflacet said:

since i dont have Hindenburg i never noticed, but agree that she should have enclosed admiral's bridge as both Hippers and Scharnhorst had that feature by the end of the war.

My longlasting issue with Hindeburg is that 55mm zwilling blocking the view from navigational bridge and the one on the tip of the bow would be in 85% sea conditions probably unusable. It doesnt even have any protection against waves. Looks very weird there.

 

regarding Roon - i dont have a problem with her armament layout. I kinda like it. I believe I saw somewhere similar german design, but maybe im mistaken. However the P-class itself has that superfiring 150mm turret above 283mm. So maybe thats why it doesnt look strange to me.

 

regarding you suggestion @1MajorKoenig about switchable 283 for 203. I would rather not see that for Roon or Hindenburg as I hope we will see D-class and P-class in the game eventually. They would nicely complement current supercruiser trend.

...also is there even design for twin 283mm turret?

 

I see where you’re coming from buddy. Not cannibalizing the Panzerkreuzer Line to be able to field it later. While I can agree with it I am bored and annoyed by Roon and Hindenburg and am looking for a more credible relieve. Similar to @VC381 but not only looking at visuals (which are bad). And I really respect your opinion but how are you ok with Roon’s gun layout? Two turrets in the back without a lower deck and 15cm

secondaries - almost the same size as the main battery. You won’t be able to distinguish the splashes as they look the same, range is the same, impact similar. 15cm Secondaries are great - if you have large caliber main guns you don’t want to waste shots on small targets. 

 

Or would you build a battleship with 38cm main artillery and 30cm Secondaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,579 posts
3,385 battles
13 hours ago, RAMJB said:

...

lets skip O-class as this doesnt fit into this thread...

regarding the D and P class armor: the only thing I can foresee are complains about it being excessive. certainly not "paper thin"

 

overall I have much less worries about D or P implementation than I had for Kron, Stalin or Alaska.

 

11 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

secondaries - almost the same size as the main battery. You won’t be able to distinguish the splashes as they look the same, range is the same, impact similar. 15cm Secondaries are great - if you have large caliber main guns you don’t want to waste shots on small targets. 

 

Or would you build a battleship with 38cm main artillery and 30cm Secondaries?

Youre probably right. 150mm doesnt make much sense in combination with 203mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
700 posts
5,290 battles
3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Ok a couple of points here:

 

- “Germans disliked tripple turrets”: nope but German Designers we’re keen on a relative luxury gap between barrels (to avoid accuracy problems with tight barrels). That in turn lead to very large turret designs - couple that with the risk of loosing three guns in a lucky shot and you know why Germany didn’t go for large caliber triples (German Navies - no matter the time were largely conservative forces)

 

- “O-Class is Ohne-Panzer-Quatsch”: read the full concept in the “Heye Denkschrift” and you might understand. Problem was - if not implemented in full the individual parts were mostly useless 

 

- “Scharnhorst used only 283mm guns”: yes but strictly for political reasons 

 

- and last but by far best: “BOTH SHIPS LOOK GERMAN AN WG DID A GOOD JOB”: GO HOME!!!

 

 

-·"nope but". But what?. Adm Hipper configuration was straight out of the box determined by the Kriegsmarine's unwillingness to stay with triples (Initially the Hipper class was to be armed with 12x150mm guns in four triples, the high echelons fastly said "nah, no way we're using those again"). Both Bismarck and the "H" classes studies show no consideration for triple turrets (other than to throw them out of the window right away) when both could've done with the weight savings (and extra firepower) associated with three triple turrets vs four doubles. The projected "M" class light cruisers were to carry 8x6.7'' guns because, again, the Kriegsmarine reluctance to deal with triples.

Yours is one of the interpretations of why germans didn't like triples. Others state that they liked the 8-gun configuration for ladder shooting. Others assure it's because twin mounts guaranteed better rate of fire. Others say that they liked it because of battle damage and redundancy offered by having 4 turrets vs 3.  And others just state that germans were quite conservative in how they approached the process of arming and armoring their battleships, (which is also true). Amongs other reasons, those are some of the interpretations of the Kriegsmarine's dislike for triples - and all make sense individually in the general context of the German completely disregard for keeping the size of their ships within limits meant they didn't weigh the major advantage triple turrets offered over doubles: weight and size economy.


-I haven't read the source you mention, but I note it.

Yet, even if I read it I won't understand because there's nothing to be understood. A ship displacing 31.000 tons, with pathetic AAA, awful secondary battery, armor enough to deal with 8'' guns, only six 380mm guns, and 34 knots sounds AWFULLY close to what Fisher was pursuing with his original battlecruiser - something that could stomp on enemy cruisers but would blow up if shown the realities of what battleship gun calibers were about.
We all know how (and when, and where) that concept died a spectacular death. The british learnt the lesson in just one evening, never forgot it. Seems those who taught them that lesson DID completely forget about it. Taken part by part, and as a whole, the project was a disaster that made Scharnhorsts look good. Takes a lot to achieve that, but not in a positive way.

 

 

-"scharnhorst used only 283mm guns for political reasons"- True but there was also a very real manufacturing reason:  The 380mm twin turret that was later carried by the Bismarcks was not ready yet by the moment the Scharnhorsts were building, and that warship had already been delayed only too many times (let's not forget it initially was to be a slightly larger "Deutchland" class, but continuous upscaling of the requirements delayed the warship design process for several years) to wait for those mounts to be ready, when they already had several triple 280mm mounts in inventory they could use on the spot without having to wait at all (or in other words, they were in a similar position to that the british happened to find themselves into when with Vanguard was being built, no 16'' gun mounts were ready, and the twin 380mm turrets from the Courageous class were available - they just used the 380mm and to the hell with it instead of waiting even more on a warship that already was being built years behind schedule)

 

And on top of that it's absolutely true that Hitler balked at the perspective of using 380mm guns on that warship at a time the british were pushing hard for a 360mm limit on battleship gun caliber, so that just greased things to go that way. 

Doesn't matter, both with 6x380mm guns, or 9x280mm guns, Scharnhorst had a pathetic broadside weight; that compounded with the mightly list of many other terrible design defects meant the Twins were ,ton by ton, by far the worst battleships of their generation. Even if they were some of the best looking battleships ever built. Which they did, they looked absolutely gorgeous.

 

 

"WG DID A GOOD JOB" - in what regards of making those ships look like something the germans would've actually built (as opposed to what the german WERE GOING to build), they certainly did. Those ships look distinctively german. Wether you want to admit it or not, or wether you find that enough to be satisfized by the result or not, it is that way. Then if you dislike particular features of those 3D models, it's perfectliy fine. Some valid concerns and opinions have been raised here, but even taking those in consideration if you were shown those 3D models, without being told the nationality, and you'd been asked "guess which nation these belong to", anyone familiar with historical designs would almost certainly guess right.

That alone meant they did a good job. Could've they have done better?. Probably, but it's not as if those ships look awful or don't look german.That's the point I was trying to make and seems I've punched a kid in the face for doing so, considering the tone of your answer. Agressive much?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
4,571 posts
4,788 battles
3 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

 

 

-·"nope but". But what?. Adm Hipper configuration was straight out of the box determined by the Kriegsmarine's unwillingness to stay with triples (Initially the Hipper class was to be armed with 12x150mm guns in four triples, the high echelons fastly said "nah, no way we're using those again"). Both Bismarck and the "H" classes studies show no consideration for triple turrets (other than to throw them out of the window right away) when both could've done with the weight savings (and extra firepower) associated with three triple turrets vs four doubles. The projected "M" class light cruisers were to carry 8x6.7'' guns because, again, the Kriegsmarine reluctance to deal with triples.

Yours is one of the interpretations of why germans didn't like triples. Others state that they liked the 8-gun configuration for ladder shooting. Others assure it's because twin mounts guaranteed better rate of fire. Others say that they liked it because of battle damage and redundancy offered by having 4 turrets vs 3.  And others just state that germans were quite conservative in how they approached the process of arming and armoring their battleships, (which is also true). Amongs other reasons, those are some of the interpretations of the Kriegsmarine's dislike for triples - and all make sense individually in the general context of the German completely disregard for keeping the size of their ships within limits meant they didn't weigh the major advantage triple turrets offered over doubles: weight and size economy.


-I haven't read "heye Denkshrift" and even if I did I won't understand. A ship displacing 31.000 tons, with pathetic AAA, awful secondary battery, armor enough to deal with 8'' guns, only six 380mm guns, and 34 knots sounds AWFULLY close to what Fisher was pursuing with his original battlecruiser - something that could stomp on enemy cruisers but would blow up if shown the realities of what battleship gun calibers were about.
We all know how (and when, and where) that concept died a spectacular death. The british learnt the lesson in just one evening, never forgot it. Seems those who taught them that lesson DID completely forgot about it. Taken part by part, and as a whole, the project was a disaster that made Scharnhorsts look good. Takes a lot to achieve that, but not in a positive way.

 

 

-"scharnhorst used only 283mm guns"- True and false.  The 380mm twin turret that was later carried by the Bismarcks was not ready yet by the moment the Scharnhorsts were building, and that warship had already been delayed only too many times (let's not forget it initially was to be a slightly larger "Deutchland" class, but continuous upscaling of the requirements delayed the warship design process for several years) to wait for those mounts to be ready, and on top of that it's absolutely true that Hitler balked at the perspective of using 380mm guns on that warship at a time the british were pushing hard for a 360mm limit on battleship gun caliber.

Doesn't matter, both with 6x380mm guns, or 9x280mm guns, Scharnhorst had a pathetic broadside weight; that compounded with the mightly list of many other terrible design defects meant the Twins were  by far the worst battleship of her generation. Even if they were some of the best looking battleships ever built.

 

 

"WG DID A GOOD JOB" - in what regards of making those ships look like something the german would've actually built (as opposed to what the german WERE GOING to build), they certainly did. Those ships look distinctively german. Wether you want to admit it or not, or wether you find that enough to be satisfized by the result or not, it is that way. Then if you dislike particular features of those 3D models, it's perfectliy fine. Some valid concerns and opinions have been raised here, but even taking those in consideration if you were shown those 3D models, without being told the nationality, and you'd been asked "guess which nation these belong to", anyone familiar with historical designs would almost certainly guess right.

That alone meant they did a good job. Could've they have done better?. Probably, but it's not as if those ships look awful or don't look german.That's the point I was trying to make and seems I've punched a kid in the face for doing so, considering the tone of your answer. Agressive much?.

 

  • Don't get me wrong didn't mean to offend you. The triple turrets were not favorable for Germany due to very conservative thinking and the space between the Barrels which would have been way larger on German designs compared to other navies. If that is good or bad I don't know but it is typical for German design. For Bismarck there have been multiple design considerations including triple turrets. It's not like Germans hate triple turrets but there were reasons to go with the calssic 4x2 and Coverage of fire is a factor as you Mention.

 

  • I can only recommend reading the Heye-text. It is highly interesting and a surprisinly accurate prediction of the naval Warfare ahead. The lack of AA on the O-Class is a typical propblem of it's time. nobody believed planes would be dangerous or even more than a annoyance before the Japanes sank two british capital ships. Rest assured the AA wqould have been souped up greatly after These learnings. And RE. Fisher BCs - no. More like Alaskas. Fast ships to bully Konvoys not warships. 

 

  • Scharnhorst was planned to death. indeed a bad design - not diagreeing. You could argue About Looks - for me it is Derfflinger - but perfromance wise the Sisters were lacking too much

 

  • Did I come across aggressive? Hope not. Still my Point stands. WG did a terrible Job butchering the T9/10 German Cruisers with their weird Fantasy designs. Not german, not well done, just plain bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
700 posts
5,290 battles

-We're pretty much saying the same but from different angles. German designers weren't on a weight budget. Or rather, they were but didn't give a damn. The principal and main advantage of triples vs twins was weight and size savings, which was very low in the priority list of the designers (as opposed to designers in almost every other nation at the time). So they went with twins and to the hell with it. As I mentioned, however, yours is one of the (very valid) interpretations of why germans weren't fond of using triples. Barrel separation is one of the reasons, I named some of the other. They all make sense individually and collectively and what I meant in my initial post was that nobody knows which one of those reasons really was what decided the deal, of if they were a combination of several of those (and which of those), or all of them, because they all make sense on their own and because in different documents different reasons for the preference of twins over triples are stated - so there doesn't seem to be a definitive one.

-I'm interested in reading anything related with warships of the era so trust me, I'll be looking for that source. Lack of AA in the design can be explained and even understood - what is hardto explain is how undergunned and underarmored those ships were for their size. They do belong in the realm of Fisher's pipedream indeed - Alaska was a different story because she was designed with the specific task of hunting german or japanese heavy commerce raiders (the Deutchlands and the expected japanese B-65s) and doubling back as a CV escort when not doing so, not as a self-contained combat unit to be used conventionally - like the german "O" class was. 

And even then the Alaska class itself had a pretty troubled story on it's own, another one of a convoluted terrible design process with many changes, parties involved, political meddling and partisan in-navy infighting about what those ships should be and look like. Not that different to what happened with the Scharnhorsts - just different actors and different reasons, but a same end result: a pretty terrible ship that nobody liked, and which not even the USN knew what the hell to use for, other than to give carriers an AAA escort (and Clevelands and Baltimores were doing just that in a far cheaper budget with no less effectivity). In short, you're comparing the O with an already terrible class on it's own :D. Even then, I rate the Alaska as a much more balanced design than the "O" even when she was also fundamentally flawed to the bone, sharing with "O" a notorious lack of protection as one of her awful design traits.

 

 

-Derfflinger was also a looker indeed. Just gorgeous, I also love them ;). For me looks wise I'd to for the Bismarck class. Flawed as it was for the times they were built in, those ships just look the part and then some :).


-yes, you did sound a bit agressive. If it wasn't intended, no hard feelings. I know too well that writting in non-native languages can come across the wrong way sometimes.
I don't share your opinion about the "terrible job" done on those ships. I think WG did fine, considering the ships, at least for me, do look german indeed. Could've done better?. I'm sure of it. Do they include some factual mistakes?. Certainly so (hey I named one myself, it's highly unlikely anything the Germans built by that stage would've had triple turrets so, in fact I'm actually giving you yet another argument to use! ;)).
 I'm far from coming here to say "ships are perfect, shut up", yet I think they don't look terrible at all, and that the job they did on them, far from perfect, was good enough. You think differently...well that's why opinions are what they are, each one has his own ;) ;).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×