Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=136		 Page 1 of 90
Author:  scharrenberg [ August 19th, 2010, 12:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Good morning Ashley and all participans of the actually filed thread "Kriegsmarine 1946".
Sorry for my late input for the discussion of this topic, but the research of the following informations took a lot of time. After contacting Gollevainen.he proposed to open a new thread and with a little different name. Direct inputs in the filed thread do not work.
As a former German naval officer, retiring from active service in 1997, I am highly interested in the historical development of naval technology (shipbuilding, weapons, electronics) of the KM and the allies of the period beginning after WW I. Therefore I followed the discussion of the thread "SEA LION-operations", later named “Kriegsmarine 1946” in all details. Due to the fact that some aspects of the discussion may be seen under a different viewpoint I started some research and the results may be of some interest.
Argument 1:
The "Third Reich", when starting the planning of offensive operations against UK in 1939, tasked the navy to study the possibility of an amphibious operations against the island. Rearadmiral FRICKE and captain REINICKE prepared "Studie Rot (Study Red)." In this paper they proposed a landing zone at UK’s southcoast between Portland and Yarmouth.
A few month later the German Army prepared a separate paper "Studie Nordwest (Study Northwest)" written by a mayor STIEFF. He proposed the amphibious operation between the Themse’s estuary and the Wash area, landing there 40 divisions (a total of 300 000 men) in two waves plus a possible feint landing at Britain’s channel coast.
(Sources: a. Egbert Kieser: “Unternehmen Seelöwe, die geplante Invasion in England 1940”, pages 94-98, 106-110, published by Bechtle Verlag Esslingen, München 1987, ISBN 3-7628-0457-5
b. Several years ago I have seen a spezial journal, published by the construction office of the KM (Konstruk-
tionsamt der Kriegsmarine), which describes in details the development, capabilities and operational
experiencies in amphibious operations mainly of the UK and US navies. Fortunately the KM could not cut these
knowledge in steel!
The publication, classified secret, was terminated end of 1944. Unfortunately I do not remember the title of
this journal.
For all members of this thread, living in the vicinity of Flensburg, northern Germany, You can see this periodical in the
library of the Naval Academy in Flensburg-Mürwik. The library is open for the public Tuesday afternoon.)
Based on these facts the assumption of Ashley in the AU by designing landing ships for an amphibious operation in 1946 becomes a more realistic value. Investigating the ship’s construction in details I would calculate the cruising speed of the landing ships at 16-18 kts with a max. speed of about 22-22 kts. Is this assumption realistic?
Based on this facts amphibious operations against the UK’s east coast in the Wash area may be possible with starting points from harbors and naval bases in Netherland and from German’ coastline of the Northsea. A feint landing ops against the south coastline of UK, performed by the MFPs and AFPs, starting from France’s channel coast, may be possible and realistic for this AU-scenario, too.
Argument 2:
The following paragraph treats with some technical details of the different landing ships.
a. Type “Lübeck, Flensburg, Kiel and Travemünde: The searchlight equipment on the tower mast is to crowded, they interfere with each other in their turning angle. If the center searchlight is removed, the remaining ones can horizontally sweep about 270° and in every direction to searchlight can illuminate the same point or target area!
The turret masts of all landing ships appear to heavy. The diameter of them should be reduced of about 30% and one deck lower to minimize top weight and get a better stability.
b. Types Kiel and Travemünde: The shape of the funnels looks a little bit of the British construction style. At this time the
KM would design the ship’s propulsion exhaust system as one funnel with a sloped cap, see the proposed “Rostock-
class”.
c. The Travemünde landing ship is proposed without bow and stern gates and the shape of the bow is similar to the cruisers of the Japan’s Imperial Navy. Does exist special reasons for this facts? Which method should be used to land the heavy military equipment, tanks, artillery, etc., at the hostile coast?
d. In 1963 and 1976 I have seen in the archive of the Naval Academy in Flensburg a small model of a landing ship, larger than the MFPs. It is knbown that the KM has designed a lot of ships at the end of the war which remains paper ideas only. The model I have seen has some similarities with the old Soviet landing ship of the “MP 8 class”, but designed as a flushdecker and armed with 6x3,7cm AA-guns and has bow gates. (For comparison: MFP: 50m long; new type: about 70 m long)
e. The proposed auxiliary ships, i.e. “Bergheim” or “Pichelstein”, represents shipbuilding technology of the time short before the first worldwar! For amphibious operations against UK in this scenario I would say that the KM would have selected only merchant vessels of th most modern designs at 1946. For the shape and the capabilities of those supply ships refer to Gröner, Vol 3, p. 256-269 (Erich Groener “Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945, vol.3, published by Bernard & Graefe, Koblenz 1985, ISBN 3-7637-4802-4)
or Prager „Blohm + Voss“, p. 168 (Prager: „Blohm & Voss“, published by Koehler, Herford 1977, ISBN 3-7822-0127-2). The requested AA-armament for the auxiliaries should be at minimum to counter the air thread of this period of time
1-2 7,5cm/36 Sk C/34
2-4 3,7cm/83 Sk C/30 or the more modern 3,7cm/57 M42
4-6 2cm/65 with C30 or C38 gun carriage

I hope, this points wil create some interest to continue a discussion of a”Sea Lion”-operations under very different conditions
Author:  Gollevainen [ August 19th, 2010, 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Well it isen't still clear to me wheter you want to discuss about the matter or actually drawn some ships relating to the issue (after all, we are forum for shipbucket drawings). If you just want to discuss the issue, this thread is offtopic and should be moved, but I give you change to explain your intentions before I start moving it around.

Gollevainen
Administration
Author:  Ashley [ August 20th, 2010, 8:31 am ]
Post subject:  LST Flensburg 1946
LST Flensburg, the 1946 refit
[ img ]
Author:  scharrenberg [ August 20th, 2010, 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: LST Flensburg 1946
Ashley wrote:
LST Flensburg, the 1946 refit
[ img ]
Gollevainen
As I expressed in my posting, first I would offer a few additional informations to the thread discussed till it was closed. Second to give some technical informations for the ships drawn by Ashley, nothing more.
I am not expert enough to restart or deepen the discussion about the tactical or strategic details of the different possibilities to perform an amphibious landing against UK. My main point is the technical layout (architecture) of naval ships/ vessels/ crafts for all type of operations!
Greating
Scharrenberg
Author:  Ashley [ August 20th, 2010, 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Torpedoboot 1946
Now for some protection against subs. Sure the Kriegsmarine armada needs frigates. Here comes the Torpedoboot of 1946. The hull is a standard destroyer hull, I just added a sonar. The superstructure is based on MConrads Köln class frigate. Then it was completely rebuildt to this ship.
[ img ]
Author:  Gollevainen [ August 20th, 2010, 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
If Ashley is cool to continue using this thread with his AU, its ok to stay in this subforum.
Author:  DER386 [ August 20th, 2010, 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
I'm glad to see this thread continued.
I like the new drawings
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ August 20th, 2010, 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
A great thread, full marks to scharrenberg and Ashley. I'm particularly interested in the proposed landings in the Wash area - given a military advantage - and hence a more successful outcome for Germany of the conflict. I'm keen on that plan, as it does in some way mirror the Normandy landings, in not going for the obvious short crossing (hence the feint). Having spent a lot of time in the Wash area, I'd say that the north coast of Norfolk would be the best place to exploit a beachead; and enable a two pronged assault that would isolate the country into two areas.

I'm still not convinced of the need for such advanced ships, but I'm very interested to see this develop.
Author:  Hood [ August 21st, 2010, 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
I like the Torpedoboot 1946 Class, reminds me very much of other Koln-esque ships I've seen on other forums and one that I drew years ago when Shipbucket was first born. Quite a sensible approach even though postwar German ships have a different style of appearance from the KM years.
Author:  ALVAMA [ August 22nd, 2010, 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Hood wrote:
I like the Torpedoboot 1946 Class, reminds me very much of other Koln-esque ships.
Yea agreed, It me some great ideas, Thanks!
Page 1 of 90 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/