Shipbucket

The design of the Scharnelmarck-class fast battleships was a successor or more a halfsister to Scharnhorst-class ships. To please the british admirality the design was clearly influenced by Nelson-class, but continued with the 11"-guns. Therefor the speed was to reach 34 knots. The design was presented to press with big announcements and public interest was pushed. The RN first was impressed by the weak armed ships with low range, until they smelled the rat and revealed the building of the real BBs of the Bismarck-class. The plans were immediately dropped, the show was over. But only for a few weeks. The Scharnelmarck-class met the argentinian search for battlecruiser, so it should built finally for the Armada de la República Argentina. Ordered in 1936, commissioning was to follow in 1938.
This is the Admiral von Gneirodnitz, how it would have looked 1938 in service at Kriegsmarine.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead

Gneirodnitz and Scharnelmarck??? Couldn't you have given it a real name, at least??? Those names just sound so, uhhmm...Kindergartenisch... besides, with that hull form, your design, alas, is a basically very flawed one. i do not believe it'd make the water in an upright position even!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

- my AU, my kindergartenisch names, your oppinion

- not upright?
- can you define at which position the flaws are?
- what is wrong with the hull form? What is wrong with the design?

Come on, some more fodder please. Your post was so, uhmm, uninspiring. Please detail!

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead

uhm.... wait.
you want to PLEASE the british by building an enemieal warship that looks like one of their own?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The names sound like someone who has only heard of Germany by watching Hogan's Heroes trying to make up a name for a German warship.
The British Rodneys had a much more full hull-form to account for their layout. Your design here places the superstructure aft of the funnel on a section where the hull is narrowing and rising; the British used a transom in this area to keep the hull form as full as possible, which you have not done. This ship would have stability issues in heavy seas, would look "down by the stern" perpetually, and would strain the ship's back.

The Rodney layout was, furthermore, designed to save weight for treaty purposes. The turrets were grouped forward so the main belt could be short and cover the engines and barbettes in a shorter length. The British knew this was a suboptimal compromise (it left less of the ship protected, and the fields of fire were bad); they accepted it as the price to get a treaty-legal 16" battleship. Moving to a high-speed battlecruiser hull increases the length of the machinery spaces and requires a finer hull form fore and aft (which you've drawn): but this introduces all the stability issues listed above.

The backstory posted does not justify the ship's design history, and no technically-competent German designer would risk his career to propose such a design.

JMHO, YMMV.

As usual, Brockpaine has put it most eloquently and matter-of-factly. I really have nothing to add to his insightful and expert opinion. I had hoped you (Ashley) might have taken notice of the absurd imbalance of your design, but you evidently didn't. Now, not all is lost. It can be reworked and made into a balanced design, but, like Brock made it clear: what's the point of it, when the Germans already had a working, albeit fundamentally obsolescent design?

As for your statement "-my AU, my kindergartenisch names, your oppinion" (sic!) - you're right, it is so, and I respect that. But, would you not agree, that, when you've made such an effort attempting to build up a credible, albeit from a political point of view reprehensible AU, you go ahead risking it all, by just inventing names of ships that, as Brockpaine correctly put it, sounds like something picked from an episode of "Hogan's Heroes" Now, if you'd like my meagre five cents on this issue (which I'm not convinced you do) I could provide you with alternate - real, and for the NSDAP acceptable names, such as Moritz von Egidy or Hans Zenker or Magnus von Levetzow, just to pick a few. von Egidy, who was a really accomplished and talented seaman and a most courageous officer, and who was married to a woman of equal nautical talent, and was the Captain of the most famous of German battle-cruisers, the SMS Seydlitz from 1913-17, was so shaken and disgusted by the results of the end WW1, that he entered politics as a "Jungdeutscher". Later he was registered as a member of the NSDAP and entered into the rolls of the SS. He died in 1937, thus escaping a humiliating fate as a potential war criminal. He certainly was politically extremely naive. Hans Zenker the redoubtable skipper of the first German BC, SMS von der Tann, too, dabbled as C-in-C of the Reichsmarine in right-wing politics, but never was a Nazi, but rather would've termed himself a National Conservative and Monarchist. von Levetzow, SMS Moltke's legendary and daring commandant, however, and who died in 1939, was a "Mitglied der Deutsches Reichstag from 1932 to -35, when he had differences with Hitler. From 1933 to -35 he also was chief of Berlin's police. As would be noticed from the naming of the cruisers Admirals Scheer and Hipper, it really didn't matter to Hitler if the persons honoring the ships with their names had a history of differences or even opposition with the Nazis as long as they were of the "right stock" and were considered national heroes, which undoubtedly these three people were! As I said, only a token few that could honor a Nazi-German warship...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Thank you guys for your really useful replies. I wish all forummates would give that qualified answers. I see, the design is really not that easy as I thought. While I won't redo it lets fire and forget it.

With no sarcasm or irony this time!

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead

that's too much to hope for most sb members (including myself) just haven't got the knowledge to do so. although I knew why the nelson class was build that way, my knowledge isn't enough to show why it wasn't working on this ship. but if you ever start to draw modern, european ships, you will find comments like those from me on your way

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I have to admit, Ashley, I have no idea how you managed to scuttle your own drawing, but you succeeded! Jokes apart: I'm happy that you took it so well, and since I believe your compliments were directed at both me and Brockpaine I am flattered and honored by your kind words. I do admit at times possessing an evil streak that can be unleashed in ironic form and sarcastic words... - a very human failing and shortcoming I'm working to curb.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I don't think the design is entirely invalid. Like with Rodney and Nelson, it allows for a shorter armor belt, plus the Japanese did this a lot, particularly with Tone which most outright resembles this ship. It doesn't have to appease British design (they were never operationally satisfied with this design anyway) but it could be considered experimental.