Shipbucket

Hi Rodondo,

Not sure about that - from what I understand (and I'm open to correction, of course, I am in no sense an expert on this!) Bismarck's hull form, particularly the cutaway aft to clear the centreline prop, left the ship with undesirable yaw characteristics - but because the lateral centre of effort was already too far forward (cross currents would take the bow more than the stern). I have no idea what that is myself, unfortunately, but it would appear to be exacerbating the issue a little bit.

Be interesting to find out what it's for, I can't even begin to suggest anything, myself.

Regards,
Adam

Edit: Could it be something as simple as something non-structural you can sacrifice if necessary to warn you've exceeded available draft?

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

@ maomatic
look the forward cuttaway

Hi Colombamike,

thanks for your input! And thanks for the very interesting 3D model. This will surely be of some help!

- I am well aware about the 6 underwater Torpedo-tubes that were to be mounted in the early design drafts. (Apparently not in the to-be-built "H39")
You have correctly marked them in my drawing. I was not implying that the strange stepped stem featured another bow tube. I was just commenting on its' looks.

- I am not sure that the degaussing system is the reason for the stepped stem, as later designs such as the "H39" didn't feature this step.

- Whilst I agree with you that mounting a Flakvierling above the Admirals bridge would be logical, the plans do not show this. I tried to stay as true to Gröners plans of the Amtsentwurf 37/38 as possible. The quad will of course be featured in my "H39" drawing, though.

- As for the length: I have remeasured my drawing and found it to be 4-5 pixels off. I will correct this oversight asap! Thanks!

- It seems that the "37/38" bow differed from the "H39" bow. I have scaled it's form and length directly from Gröners drawing.

P.S.:
DG_Alpha has provided me with a very interesting (seemingly official - "Top secret" marked) plan dated January 1939, which seems to be of an intermediate design stage between the "37/38" and the "H39". It features a different stem (without a step) and a transom stern with a cutout for a landing-sail. The K-Amt was obviously making some revisions and changes during the design process.
A drawing of this version will follow, too.

Best regards
maomatic

@ maomatic,
a very extremely important comment "for everything about your overall entire "H39-H44" thread"


If this plan date from January 1939, paid attention , it is quite possible that this IS the FINAL VERSION of H39 .
Do not forget that:
- Plan Z was finalized by January 1939 (Hitler approved the plan on 18 January 1939).
- The OKM issued orders for construction of the first two ships, "H" and "J", on 14 April 1939 (contracts for the other four ships, "K", "L", "M", and "N", followed on 25 May).
- The keels for the first two ships were laid at the Blohm & Voss dockyard in Hamburg and the Deschimag shipyard in Bremen on 15 July and 1 September 1939, respectively.
- The outbreak of war in September 1939 interrupted the construction of the ships. Work on the first two was suspended and the other four were not laid down, as it was believed they would not be finished before the war was over.
- The keel for "H" had 800 t (790 long tons; 880 short tons) of steel installed, 3,500 t (3,400 long tons; 3,900 short tons) of steel had been machined, out of 5,800 t (5,700 long tons; 6,400 short tons) of steel supplied to Blohm & Voss by that point.
- Only 40 t (39 long tons; 44 short tons) of steel had been worked into the keel for "J", out of 3,531 t (3,475 long tons; 3,892 short tons) of steel delivered.
- Steel for the other four ships had been ordered and partially machined for installation, though no assembly work had begun. It was expected to resume work on the ships after a German victory in the war => work on "K", "L", "M", and "N" definitively suspended (in reality almost immediatly cancelled) by the outbreak of WWII.

In my opinion, think only "H" & J" ships for the H39-H41 family design
(H42-H43-H44 is only speculative designs, partial studies (paper) designs, not Serious/Realistics/Feasible designs), no need to draw them in shipbucket !!!

In my strict personnal point of view, for the entire H39-H44 design family draw:
- "1937-1938 early H39 studies".
- "H39 as designed, 1939".
- "H39, tentatively as completed, 1944-1945, "H" ship, with much more AA light-guns : 20/37/40mm AA guns (maybe the "barbara AA configuration style" ), radars & camo (Tirpitz 1944+++ style).
- "H40, schemes A" ?.
- "H40, schemes B" ?.
- "H41", "as designed late 1941".
- "H41", "as completed 1946-1947", maybe with the late WWII 128mm DP, & singles 55mm & 30mm mounts designs).


PS:
For the largest german naval guns able to be carried on a German battleships "able to be built", we must not forget these REAL facts:
- For the 406mm/52 caliber SK C/34 intended to be used onboard the "H" class battleships, due to wartime WWII events (steel shortage, others priorities...), only about 12 guns was built by 1938-1944 !!! :
* 1 original prototype for proof and experimental testing.
* 3 guns built for the "H" class battleships (modified after for coastal-use).
* 8 guns built as a modified version for "coastal battery use"

=> It shows that during 1938-1945, only the main-guns complement of 1 "H" battleship type (+ 3-4 additionnals trials/spare guns) was built. So IN THE BEST CASE, only "H" & "J" type H battleships could have been built by 1939-1946...

Note that for the "H41 design", he was proposed to bore tem out & convert them from 406mm/52 caliber to 420mm/48 caliber guns, but it was never done (one of the reasons behind this conversion was that this change would give these ships a larger caliber weapon than those planned for any known Allied battleship); None of the guns already built were ever converted and no new guns were started.

@Colombamike,

I concur with you regarding the ships that "need" to be drawn. I will only focus on the official K-Amt design drafts up to version "H41". Like you said, the later H42-44 versions were simple design-studies made by the "Schiffsneubaukomission", never intended to be built.
_______________________________________

Looking back at the plan that I received from DG_Alpha, I must say that I am not so sure about the date anymore. The plan is of a rather poor quality and the date might even be 1938...
Some features make me believe that it must have been an intermediate design.
An example: The plan shows the ship with a transom stern coupled with a cut-out for an airplane landing-sail. Gröner sates exactly this feature was part of the 1938 plan, which was later discarded for the H39. Gröner does not show this feature in the 1937/38 design draft, though.

Posting said plan would make explaining things alot easier, but I am afraid that I do not hold the copyright to do so...

Thus, I am fairly sure that this (http://www.modellschlachtschiffe.de/img ... h-plan.jpg) and the second drawing that you posted from Gröner (p.65) represent the final draft of the H39 design.

Best regards
maomatic

Interesting about the bow...Breyer's series of H-class drawings show a conventional Atlantik bow throughout

Hi,

as promised, here is the drawing of what I called " intermediate design" earlier in this thread.

I took the liberty to label this drawing as the 1938 version, though I must admit that I neither know for certain, if this date is correct, nor if this version is actually a later one than Gröners' "37/38" variant.


_______________________________

The next drawing shows the so called "H39".
This was the final design that was actually chosen to be built:

Excellent work Maomatic. Big powerful ships. If Hitler had held off for 2 years just what would the RN have faced by 1944.

Beautiful ships Maomatic, you really captured the beauty of these designs

_________________
FD Worklist
Me-262 Series
Fw-190/Ta-152 Series
Germany AU Thread
Luft '46 Thread

List of Aircraft with Acquired Data (Updated)
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... 80#p123956

Hi Krakatoa, from what I understand, the KM just about exhausted their stocks of material required to make the necessary electrodes in building Bismarck, so I'm not honestly sure they could have held to the pre-war timetable in any event.

Ad

P.S. Oh, and, of course (it literally went without saying this time! ) the ships are beautiful!

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695