Naval History Forums

Basically the H-39 class was an improved version of the Bismarck class and was a direct response to U.S.A activation of a 'Acceleration clause' to increase the allowable calibre from 14 inches to 16 inches.

The use of diesel engines was most probably strategic as the OKM would have been aware their Supply Squadron lifespan would relatively short in wartime operations. Something proven true considering the decimation of the squadron within 6 months of the sinking of the Bismarck. For extended Atlantic FLEET operations they had to power the ships with engines that gave best range.

The use of the term 'commerce raider' is purely a political terminology as any warship could carry out this mission to one degree or another.

As far as I have seen the Z-plan was based the traditional parity goal between anglo-german navies.

I don't think parity was the intention. Moreover the same goals as set out by Tirpitz was implicit in the Z Plan - to outbuild Britain and then destroy the RN by attrition. By the same token deter the USA from opposing Germany by supporting Britain.

Out build Britain? Most commentary State that at no time in German naval planning was There a belief that Germany could or would out biuld Britain, parity maybe. The only z plan that should be taken seriously is the first. Pre war version. This required peace to be maintained until 1944 aprox. As soon as war was declared in 1939 any
'Z plan' was dead in water as a dodo bird.If you include all the Lion class, and Vanguard class Britain was planing in the same time frame, the orginal Zplan was approaching parity only.

lwd wrote:In theory shouldn't the mission be defined before they are designed rather than after they are built?

Jackie Fisher tried THAT route, ending up with three of the "whitest elephants" ever to grace the seas...

Since you bring up old Jackie. Yes the battlecruiser was a flop.Simplly because it was used in the line of battle as a Battleship and not as it was designed for. Secondly old Jackie was a con artist .He fabricated a fictitious premise that Germany was intendeding to challenge the surpremecy of the British empire when initially all Germany did was respond to British design improvement, as did everyone else. Why bring up this WW1 backstabber for anyway. Has nothing to do with subject at hand.

sineatimorar wrote:Since you bring up old Jackie. Yes the battlecruiser was a flop.Simplly because it was used in the line of battle as a Battleship and not as it was designed for. Secondly old Jackie was a con artist .He fabricated a fictitious premise that Germany was intendeding to challenge the surpremecy of the British empire when initially all Germany did was respond to British design improvement, as did everyone else. Why bring up this WW1 backstabber for anyway. Has nothing to do with subject at hand.

Only a fool steps onto the road with his eyes closed

After some further reviewing what information I have on intended use of major surface units, I think I may have stumbled across an interesting bit of information that may be of interest. My way of thinking is that it is purely coincidence that most major warships make good commerce raiders and it can be questionable if any completed design was merely a ' commerce raider' specifically. Yes commerce raider specific designs were planned, but none were built. According to this one source one specific design difference was that raiders were to be built without a scrap or turtle back armour to increase the size of fuel bunker. I get a feeling that there is a something missing in this premise, but just at moment, it escapes me what it could be.