With or without the turrets?Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Exceeding the displacement limit by 1700t also helped
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Exceeding the displacement limit by 1700t also helped
There seems to be some confusion over this. I've seen figures from 11,000 to 16-17,000 tons for the Deutschland class; is there a definitive German source that clearly states the weight of all three?
You'll find all sorts of figures on warship displacements, especially with the German WWII ones.
Part of the reason is, what standard are you using? Do you mean, without store, fuel, crew and ammo?
With ammo but without the rest (aka Washington standard)? full load?
Full load typically adds 15-20% to a warship's displacement.
Since there were treaty limits on warship displacements in the thirties and the Axis powers regularly exceeded them, there are often several figures available for them, the official one and estimated ones.
Estimates can vary widely, the more so with German ships which often generate delirious litterature, some authors don't hesitate to claim Bismarck was a 70k+t warship, for instance.
In the case of the Deutschland class, they officially displaced 10,000t (the treaty limit) and Conways (my favorite source on warships) lists them at 11,700t (Washington) std and 15,900-16,200t full load.
those figures seem to square in with yours, and there's really no contraction between them.
Re the Yamato. I am confused by the comments that she never took part in battle, as I recall seeing a book some time ago entitled "The Last Voyage of the Yamato." About last gasp voyage of Yamato to sally out of port, beach itself on Okinawa and add her guns to the Japanese defense. Sunk before she got there.
Or was this the Musashi?
Or was this the Musashi?
No that was the Yamato, Musashi was sunk at Leyte. Yamato did take place in battle, but I have yet to find a battle were she fired her main guns at an enemy.... wich kinda makes her a complete waste of resources and time.... imgagine the carrier wich could have been buildt instead?
Shinano wasnt specifically built as a carrier, she could only carry some forty planes, she was a carrier/supply ship hybrid.... and being sunk while still on trials dont really add to ones performance records, do they ?
Ape: When did they scrap the HMS Victoria in the swenska flottan.."Farsan" made his military service on that old girl..®
®
scrapped in 1959, but she was stricken from the navy in 1957Originally posted by Wasa
Ape: When did they scrap the HMS Victoria in the swenska flottan.."Farsan" made his military service on that old girl..
Thanx Ape..hmmm...How come you are interested in battleships? You didn´t make your service on one did you?
Being born in -78 kinda makes it hard to have served on one, especially since I am Swedish
..... seriously why? Its not just Battleships, but old ships of any kind...
Originally posted by Ape
Being born in -78 kinda makes it hard to have served on one, especially since I am Swedish
Hmm..being born -78...probably not even had to make military service at all..
Sad though with the decline of the once proud swedish navy..went to see the Wasa (yes, the flagship, not the CK moderator) earlier this autumn...impressive sight..although not so impressive engineering..probably construction misses that made her sink on her maiden voyage..
Hrmpf of course I did my service..... unfortunatly I live in the wrong place, so I had no chance at all to make it in the navyOriginally posted by Wasa
Hmm..being born -78...probably not even had to make military service at all..
Well we Swedish have always fought better on land anyhow, remember all those wars with the danes.... we always lost the sea battles (with one or two exceptions) while winning on land....
We never fought a battle swedes vs danes exclusively did we? There were always the dutch..either supporting the danes or us..often supporting both in some way..let´s face it..the dutch ruled the seas in the 17th century..
I think some of the seabattles during the Scanian war of 1671-1675(?) was fought exclusivly by Danes and Swedes.... wich we of course lost
Originally posted by Ape
I think some of the seabattles during the Scanian war of 1671-1675(?) was fought exclusivly by Danes and Swedes.... wich we of course lost
Well, I have to disagree..even if they didn´t participate directly in the battles..dutch engineers and shipbuilders constructed the ships...plus I think they did fight in the Danish Navy..Tromp was dutch..
True, but almost all warships of the period (except the British, who had much experience in this area) exceeded design displacements by 5-10%. I have never seen any evidence that Graf exceeded tonnage deliberately, though her sisters did.Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Exceeding the displacement limit by 1700t also helped
Yamato DID fire her main guns in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Musashi only fired them against aircraft (using the "beehive" round which tore up her barrel linings, but at that point this was the least of her concerns).
Yamato was the culmination of Japanese design theory, which didn't really favor aircraft carriers (and at the time of her design, aircraft in service seemed to vindicate the battelship lobby). She was the ultimate attempt at "quality over quantity" thinking - which makes her inefficient secondary layout and fire control systems something of a mystery. NOBODY but the Germans were still designing secondary surface batteries independent of the heavy AA battery in the late 1930s. My theory is that they just wanted to use the turrets from the cruiser conversions and just kinda stuck them on.
In interesting design, the Yamatos, but probably considerably inferior in efficiency to the more or less contemporary British and US designs.
Efficiency-wise, I think maybe the Vittorio Venetios are the best. They got a lot out of 30,000 tons.
The Washington treaty provided for limited increases in displacement after refits, and displacements are sometimes given after wartime mods, so the figure for a ship that was launched within treaty restrictions might very well exceed them noticeably by 1944.
Allied navies went to great lengths to respect the treaty - Wichita, for instance, was indeed overweight by about 500t as built, but sailed without 2 of her 5" DP turrets before the war to correct this.
Re the Yamato and Musashi:
They both fired their 18" guns, but never at another battleship, or even at heavy cruisers. The Musashi fired the 'giant shotgun from hell' at some aircraft and destroyed one of her guns. The Yamato fired at troopships, destroyers and light cruisers (and annhilated several of them...).
In terms of efficiency, what about the Richelieu? They weren't much bigger then the Veneto, and AFAIK had more armor and guns...
Steele
They both fired their 18" guns, but never at another battleship, or even at heavy cruisers. The Musashi fired the 'giant shotgun from hell' at some aircraft and destroyed one of her guns. The Yamato fired at troopships, destroyers and light cruisers (and annhilated several of them...).
In terms of efficiency, what about the Richelieu? They weren't much bigger then the Veneto, and AFAIK had more armor and guns...
Steele