Shipbucket

Like the idea but in terms of execution,
- Do you need such big funnels for diesels ?
- Looks very top heavy v the old ship especially the centre deck area ?
- I take it it has been bulged, new bow and stern ? If so what about changing stern decorations to match rest of hull, maybe some TTs ?

Nice!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Thanks for the comments.

JSB, The funnels are straight off the Cruiser P. They could probably be a bit smaller, Cruiser P had diesels to make 34 knots with 165,000. The Seydlitz original made 26.5 knots on 88,000. To get Seydlitz to 28/29 knots would require 120 to 125,000, so the funnels would not need to be much smaller. Removing the twin 11" turrets and all the armour associated with them plus all the 5.9" broadside casemate guns adds up to a lot of topweight. I then turn round and expend that topweight with the new fittings. Since most of those fittings are unarmoured there is only the builders steel weight so I can use quite a bit before going over weight. The central hangar / catapult area is similar to the Scharnhorsts and Hippers. Why does the ship need to be bulged?

Sorry for late reply. Modern ship guns gun's have a caliber of 62, for example the oto melara 76 mm/62.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm
So, I guess a 62 caliber guns was the future. I guess the trend in ship gun's was definitively to longer caliber. But, this also might have the reason that modern ships, don't have amour.

I would have thought that 1911 torpedo protection was rather lacking by 30s rebuild time ? I think all the significant rebuildings always added some form of bulge ? That and adding to the hull might allow it to be a better hull shape for the higher speed with a new bow and stern? Not to mention make it take more weight you want to add to it such as deck protection etc...
I think modern metallurgy and not having to load by hand and better range finders might have something to do with it?
(Bigger Calibers gives you higher velocity and therefore range at the price of higher barrel were and a heavier charge to load, etc ?)

I have had to do a bit of homework on ships from WW1 that went through to WW2.

Some were bulged, some were not.

The Italians and French did not have bulges on their rebuilds. Most of the US rebuilds on their BB's did not (that is shown on their drawings). The UK BB's and BC's did. Jap BB's did, more importantly the Kongo's did. But all of those that did with the UK and Jap ships had major modifications to armour and had major increases in overall weight that required something being done about overall stability. The French and Italians all removed turrets and made a lot of weight savings before adding the new upgrade parts. I would also note that quite a few of the Thiarian ships that go from WW1 to WW2 are not bulged but a lot of the Thiarian 'Other' countries ships are.

Specific to Seydlitz, it does not require any more armour except as noted by JSB for anti-torpedo reasons. Seydlitz has 12" belt and 3.4" deck armour. After receiving the torpedo hit at Jutland, Seydlitz did receive some extra 2" torpedo bulkhead protection. The removal of the wing turrets and other bits and pieces means that Seydlitz does not really need bulges for stability reasons. The ship remains within its original specifications for displacements.

Seydlitz after its conversion, was to be an expendable 'battle raider' that would operate in the southern oceans of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian. Supply ships would be in place to replenish Seydlitz until such time as overwhelming force could be brought to bear against it. If the opportunity arose to break for home after 'x' amount of time (stipulated by German Admiralty) the Seydlitz would receive the appropriate orders. Unlike the Deutschland class armoured ships, the Seydlitz has nothing to fear from any Treaty cruiser. The 8" guns (and 6") will not pierce any of the major armoured areas of the ship. Bring on the River Plate!

The only American BBs that did not recieve bulges in the 20s/30s were the big five, the Colorado and Tennessee classes. They all got bulges in 1942-43.

Well, such a gun was also available in 1942, it was the said 128/61 L40. It had a caliber of 61, could fire 11 rounds per minute and was loaded automatically. The only reason why it was most likely not used for ships, was the weight of the system, the costs, the urgent need for Heavy Flak to protect the cities from Air Raids and stop of heavy ship productions after 1941.
But, if Germany would have continued building heavy units and would have opt for dual purpose guns, than the 128 L40 could have be used. At least a modified version.

Hey JT, I quite agree that an automatic 5" gun would be great. Turning the 128/61 L40 into a useable naval gun would take quite a bit of time and space. Even with German ingenuity the navalisation would not be a priority and at the back end of the war, the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely focused on U-Boats. Altering any ship to take the auto 5" would require a lot of work. Fitting automatic guns is best done on new built ships.

I do remember some of Ashleys AU ships had an auto 5" on them with the Geraat 55mm as secondaries with lots of Radar to control everything. Very future based with dates 1946-48.

Next in line is the conversion of the Kriegsmarines first post-WW1 cruiser the Emden III.

The original ship was armed with 8x5.9" and 4x3.4" and six 21" torpedo tubes. In 1936 with enough single turrets available, the Emden was converted to carry 10x5" in single turrets, with 10x37mm in 5 twin mountings, and three 20mm single mountings were fitted. While the ship survived, the 20mm armament grew exponentially with a further four single and 3 quadruple mountings being fitted.